Hey guys! My name is Drew (he/him). I am a sociology and philosophy major. I competed in LD for 3 years-I ran primarily larp positions, but dabbled in phil debate. Most of my 2nrs were Cap, collapsing to a DA, turns, or T. My aff's were primarily big stick plan affs, but I've debated pretty extensively with soft left affs (my favorite was hegemonic masculinity on the nukes topic). Yes, I wanna be on the email chain, beckerandrew292@gmail.com. Feel free to send me some memes afterwards, too.

- Novices: Don't worry about the points presented below. Do whatever you're most comfortable with, I'll try to adapt to your style.

O/V

1. Tech > truth, but don't read impact turns to racism, etc. Dropped arguments are true, but are not weighed unless extended. For personal reasons, I'd prefer if you didn't read death good in front of me.

2. Condo is good, but my opinion can be changed on this.

3. K debate is fun

4. I love disads/counterplans

5. (for idaho) I'm totally chill with speed, check with your opponents.

6. Don't be a jerk.

7. If your strategy is tricks, strike me.

Idaho Trad LD stuff

-I love framework clash. Explain why your value outweighs their's and why yours is met throughout your case. Actually engage with their value and vc, treat it like an external contention (with that said, I much prefer a standard/rotb as opposed to v/vc debate)

-Tell me why you weigh under their framework AND why yours is better. That's not specific to me as a judge, it's just general debate advice lol.

- I don't mind if you do or don't do voters. If you do, meta-weighing and link-strength arguments should be one of them. I'll evaluate everything through the lens of the winning framework, so keep that in mind (ie. if you know you're losing to deontology, your time would be better spent extending arguments that weigh under deont) If you don't do voters, that's cool too.

-Speed: I think spreading is a natural side effect of complex debate, but I think it makes debate more ivory tower and elitist if both sides aren't on the same page. Check with your opponent before you spread, especially if spreading isn't the norm in the circuit. I've never had an issue with speed, but I will yell "clear" if you are going too fast, and I will not penalize someone for being unable to flow an argument. If I don't flow an argument in the speech that the argument is presented in, I will not weigh it. Slow down on taglines, make sure that interps are included in the doc.

PF Specific stuff

-I prefer line-by-line over crystalization

-Run whatever you want, I'll listen to any Ks or Theory, but ask your opponents first. It's the nice thing to do.

-I'll boost your speaks if you run a unique politics or econ argument that I haven't heard on the topic before.

Long form (Circ LD and Policy)

Affs: I love big stick affs and soft-left affs, but I'll vibe with anything. I think that the 1ac should be your best speech. I am a firm adherent to the belief that the best aff strategy is to force your opponent to engage with the substance, whether that be through framework or preempts, so take that as you will.

-Solvency matters the most to me, if you can win that your impact is larger and that you solve the impact, you will win the round 99/100 times.

-If your impact is something incredibly large, like nuclear war or extinction, i'll be less forgiving about the internal link. Link defense would be your best 1ar strategy

Disads: I love disads. I think that it becomes tricky to weigh between two equally large impacts, so do meta-weighing when against a big stick aff.

-I don't think uniqueness controls the strength of the link.

-Internal links are important to me and should be clearly warranted (if you have to question whether you have enough warrants, you don't. add more).

-Well-executed turns are the most persuasive and fun arguments to judge.

CPs: CPs are a great truth testing mechanism.

-I think international/private actor fiat is bogus, but if you theoretically justify it, I'll let it slide.

-conditions cp/consult cp can be beaten by perm pretty easily, and perm do aff isn't an argument.

-I think pics are fun, word pics are cool, and pic bad theory is kind of dumb, but i'll vote on it if it is REALLY convincing.

-Have the text in the doc or I won't evaluate it.

Theory: go for it.

-RVIs end up being silly 9/10 times, but if you think the shell was egregious enough, chances are I do too.

-Again, I believe condo is infinite, good, and a logical consequence of debate's structure, but my mind can be changed on this (especially with a time-skew warrant).

T: I need strong impacts, limits, and grounds arguments.

-Impact calc is the absolute most important thing.

-You can't just prove that they violate your interp, tell me why that matters.

Phil: Read anything! I love philosophy so much.

-Kant affs are trite, but they're a pretty solid strategy.

-Bonus points if you read something fun and unique, like Sartre, Heidegger, Plato, etc. Make it interesting.

-Most of my phil background is in analytic phil (I'm doing research work with Symbolic logic, modality, and set theory if that matters to anyone)

-Because of my Phil background, I think about arguments axiomatically. If the argument cannot be proven to be logically valid, you're doing something wrong. Conversely, if you perform the entire proof, I guess you would win? idk

Kritiks: The link chain is the most important thing to me.

-Specific links are infinitely better than generic links, which are infinitely better than links of omission.

-You don't have to win the alt to win framework, and strategic use of framework (once won) to preclude access to impacts is a totally rad strategy.

-"reject xyz" isn't really an actionable alt.

For postmodern/high theory stuff, I have a precursory understanding, but still please explain. The K base i'm least familiar with is probably Bataille or Lacan.

K affs/non-T affs: They're cool, I'm just kinda dumb so explain everything thoroughly.

Tricks: I'm not your guy. I won't vote on them.

LD specific stuff

-going for nebel T in front of me is not a good strat, it's stupid and can be beaten by saying "plans are good lmao" and moving on.

-I read util almost exclusively in highschool, I think that util is the best framework for debate. (-0.2 speaker points every time you say "Util justifies genocide", it doesn't lmao)

-reading whole rez is chill, but I think they're harder to weigh (and subsequently harder to win), I will vote almost automatically on any pic that solves the aff.

-floating pics are stupid lol

-If anyone cares, I went through a skepticism phase, but i'm sort of predisposed to believe it is just an untrue argument, I think it is easy to beat by just proving another meta-ethic true-but read it if you want lol, i'll do my best to set aside my preconceptions.

General Stuff Regarding Conduct

-Don't misgender or deadname your opponent. I will drop speaks, and then drop the debater.

-Conversely, if you ever feel uncomfortable at any time during the round, send me an email and I'll act accordingly.

-Again, don't read any blatantly offensive positions or engage in violent, targeted rhetoric, it makes debate an inaccessible place.

-Don't read shoe theory, you're doing the debate space a disservice. I'll drop you.

-if you explain L'insu que sait de l'une-bévue s'aile à mourre to me, I'll buy you coffee or something.

Pronouns: She/her

if you do an email chain then please add me: carranzajazzlynn@gmail.com

or if you do speech drop, pls add me :) <<< prefer this method 

do whatever you want within the bounds of being respectful to each other, debate is supposed to be a safe and accessible space for everyone.

Background:

The high school I went to was v pro policy sooo I only did policy for all four years. I went to pretty progressive debate camps w/ amazing lab leaders for three years. I coach speech and debate part-time while I am a full time college student. I also do college debate as well!

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I know more about pf than the average person. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. I have a HIGH threshold for theory in PF, i get the need for theory but, if y'all are running it just bc, that's toxiiiic. I am also okay with speed & tag-teaming.

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged and coached it soooo many times that I know how to keep up.

Voting methods:

I am good with speed and tag-teaming !! I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I LOVE f/w !! If you are aff, run framework! if you are neg, run framework!

Topicality: I do not mind T debate, I understand T well and will vote on it if it comes down to it. 

Theory: I love theory and understand it really well, so if you are going to run theory then make sure it is proper.

K’s: fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I LOVE K debates. Link of omissions are not something I’ll vote on. Do the actual link work and please do K proper. I am more than okay with "radical" ideas. Shout out to all my radical liberals who believe in crazy things. (if you know who said that then lmk and extra speaker pts for you:)

CP: please make your CPs mutually exclusive & make sure you have a net ben!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t mutually exclusive and/or did not have a net ben. I am also cool w/ PIC's and PIK's. 

Speed: I’m cool w/ it if everyone is, just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also, make sure to signpost and slow on tags!!

I appreciate logical arguments and sound reasoning. Please be polite and respectful of each other. I will flow your arguments but appreciate direct sign posts and also a moderate speed (not too slow, but no spreading please). I’m a former high school policy debater, so I’ve been in your shoes and appreciate the effort and preparation required for debate.

Hello all!

This is the first time that I have ever judged debate but I do have experience as a debater from when I was in high school. So, in a way, I have been here before but it was the 1990s!

I teach at the university level and I believe in the value of reasonable, evidence based debate on the issues that we face. In science, the value of empirical evidence is critical and I believe that evidence should play a central role in any debate. I also believe that it is very important for discussion and debate to be accessible to all who would like to participate. Memorizing the thesaurus does not mean that you made a superior assertive effort overall. Arguments should be concise, supported by evidence, and organized well in some logical order.

Everyone should:

Have fun!

Make logical arguments supported by evidence that you cite

Be able to summarize the main arguments of both sides

Respect each other

Have fun!

I did policy for all 4 years of high school although I have debated once or twice in every debate type.

I am a tabs judge although I will not buy that racism is good. You can read whatever you want and I will vote on it as long as it is explained. I like impact calc as a way to boil down the round, along with voters. I am fine with tag teaming and flex prep. I am ok with speed, but I will say clear if I can't hear you or understand you. If you are going to run shells and arguments like theory, T and framework please include all parts, I will still vote on it but it will decrease its value when voting. Please be respectful of all pronouns within the round and respect your opponents.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

Debate experience:
4 years nat circ / varsity policy at Derby High School in Derby, KS ????Formerly known as Jack Sallman

A little LD, world schools at nationals twice, basic understanding of PFD

MY PRONOUNS ARE HE/HIM

Put me on the email chain. Send docs before the speech, not after. Jacksallmandebate@gmail.com

Always feel free to email me with questions or feedback !

open cx is fine, off time flashing and road maps are fine idc

A few things:

Debate however you feel comfortable. I enjoy many different styles of argumentation and debate. If you're critical or policy, TOC or KDC, or literally any style of debating, my job as the judge is to adapt to your style.

Email chains/flashing: If I (or the other team) ask you to flash/share your speech doc and you refuse, speaker points will face consequences.

Post-rounding: I don't mind providing feedback or answering questions. Any post rounding that gets out of hand/aggressive, I will shut down though. It's a genuine trigger for me, and I also feel like blowing up on your judge is not productive.

Speed: Go as fast as you want, but please be clear. With me, I don't care if you're slow or fast, because I think efficiency is more important than speed.

I start speaks at 28 and work my way up or down.

Manners? : I think being assertive is good. If you're a jerk though, I'll drop your speaks. Don't be a bigot.

T

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, but you've got to do your work. Please do your impacts and standards work or I'll die on the inside. Crafty we meets are awesome. Tell me why I prefer your interp. Shot gun T isn't one of my favorites, but I'll still listen to it.

DA

I love DA debates, as long as the DA isn't entirely horrible or you can do the work for it (Flashback to no DA ground on CJR topic). I default more to magnitude and probability debates. Brink arguments can be important. Aff, turn the DA. Neg, explain WHY the DA outweighs and turns the case. Specific links are great. I don't default automatically to util or deontology, I will evaluate with the lenses that wins on the framing debate. I LOVE DAs for K affs or on FW.

CP

POST the cp, but I wouldn't spend too much time on theory unless if you're going for condo. I tend to lean towards reject arg not team unless if the aff proves I should reject the team. The CP needs a net benefit. Aff, explain the perm. DON'T FORGET TO PUT OFFENSE ON THE CP!!!! Neg, I won't judge kick the cp unless explicitly told to and I feel it is right. Also if you can prove the CP links to the net bens, mwah!!! Do it! Ngl tho, cp debate isn't my favorite but don't let that discourage you! I will still vote on CPs.

K

Hell yeah. I've run Queer Theory, Capitalism, Derrida, Militarism, Security, Abolition, Anthro, Disability, Biopower, Set Col, etc. Basically, I love K debate. Performance K's, Rep K's, Academic approach K's, etc. are all fine with me. I am not strongly familiar with Baudrillard or Deleuze, however. If you want to attempt that route, feel free, but buckle down to explain more than a judge who is a Baudrillard hack. TBH most K's I can grasp fairly quickly. If you have any questions about this or if I know anything about a specific area of literature, either shoot me an email or ask me before the round.

K aff/FW

FW - I think clash is the important part here. Prob should read state inev, convince me why your interp o/w. TBH I don't think Affs need a w/m here, just a counter interp. I think if you find crafty ways to turn the DAs the aff will inevitably put on FW, DO IT. On a side note, Affs, put good DAs on FW. Side note.... FW doesn't only have to be T-USFG...

K affs -hell yeah. I read a queer anarchism academia aff my senior year, if that says anything, and my teammates read a Foucault Will of the Sovereign k aff. If you can effectively explain your case and win FW, you're good. I don't care if your aff does or doesn't have an advocacy, but be prepared to have that debate. Also read "K" header for more info literature wise. I think that preempting FW and other args in the 1AC is smart, and while I don't require it with my approach, topic specific affs are good. If you're not topic specific, that's still aight. I'll listen to most things -- but be ready for that debate with the neg.

Theory

I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team. This doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't attempt theory debate -- go for it if that's your heart's desire. Please don't be blippy on these theory debates and sending those blocks could be good. Even the best flow out there won't catch all of your arguments if you spread full speed through theory blocks.

It's a Great Day to be a Panther

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)