ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN!!!! email: alliintx@gmail.com

Experience: I did LD at The Wooodlands High School for four years and have taught at TDC for three years.

me as a debater: I did traditional debate for two years mostly on the Houston local circuit. Then my junior year transitioned to more LARP and K debate at natcircuit and state tournaments. My senior year was only natcircuit debate where I read a big mix of things. Mostly phil affs and a preformance aff and when negating read queer pess and questionably friv theory.

me as a judge: debate should be accessible for everyone. affs dont have to be topical, but should be able to win against t fw. I will layer the round how you tell me to.

pref short cuts:

phil - 1

theory - 1

identity k - 1

non t affs - 2

topicality - 2

larp - 2

tricks - 3

high theory k - 4

( I dont think i know everything about each type of these debates, I dont have a large preference on how you debate and can judge all of these rounds )

specifics:

LARP - very cool. these debates are fun, but pls have recent evidence. if your uniqueness card from 2019 is telling me telling me something is going to happen and your opponent points out that shouldve happened years ago, i will probs agree w your opponent. politics DA uniqueness should be cut from that week ( preferably day ) that you're reading it. perms are new advocacies. explain the netbenefit of the perm or I dont have a reason to vote on it. also... please weigh. plan affs are cool. nebel is also cool.

K's - I'm most familiar w idenity k's ( majority of what ive read has been queer theory and marxist lit ) and this is mostly what I read my senior year, but Im not a k hack. I did not read any high theory K's, but am willing to vote on them if you can explain them well. Ks need a solid framing mechanism and should have an alt that would solve the impacts. going for no link in the 2ar is underutilize, i think we give debaters too much credence on the link debate. with that being said, if youre reading a k you should have multiple links to the ac, and not just links to the topic. the 2nr on the k should have clear extensions of each part of the k, if youre missing a part I cant vote on it. floating pics are fun, just dont be sketchy if asked abt it in cross.

K Affs - love them. performances are cool. I think debate is a great space to share stories, types of lit and you should be able to do that if you wish. I dont care if you're topical, but I dont lean aff on t fw..

phil - I read with levinas, kant, hobbes, and agamben, but can pretty easily understand syllogisms that are explained. I see fw as an impact filter and default to confidence over modesty ( again, if you tell me differently Im open to that ) . also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

tricks - I had a moment this these. I think they can be fun debates, but dont read them if you're just going to make the round super messy. you should be very clear abt things in cross ( no sketchiness ) and somehow label each trick ( if its just one/two hidden in dont worry abt it, but there should not be an entire analytic paragraph filled w tricks, no fun . extensions of tricks should have explanations, not just repeating what you read in the constructive.

theory - WEIGH BETWEEN STANDARDS!!! dont make me decide if I think ground is more important than clash. absolutely have paradigm issues. I love semantic " I meets ". nebel/t fw/ defend multiple states is fine, explain the abuse story. I dont think its that abusive to read a super popular plan aff, you should probably have prep against it, but Im totally willing to vote on this if you win the flow. Friv theory is fun, will also vote according to the flow on this. " aff/neg flex standards: need to be specific as opposed to generic e.g. you cant just say "negating is harder for xyz therefore let me do this thing" rather, you should explain how aff/neg is harder and then granting you access to that practice helps check back against a structural disadvantage in some specific way " - yoakum

feel free to email me or ask any questions before round! have fun and good luck!!

Heights High School 2020 - UT Austin 2024

dre.arreola@gmail.com

TLDR (Longhorn Classic updated):

I've been more focused on law school apps this semester and as a result, have not done much debate so far this year. I will listen to some rounds online to get my hearing back up to speed but if I end up having to call slow a lot don't worry about it being an issue that affects your speaks.

I will vote on *almost* anything and you should not be scared to read any arg / change your strat in front of me. I promise I will work hard on your decision but my knowledge in some areas is lacking (phil&tricks). That being said here is a list of affs and 2nr collapses sorted by my happiness when evaluating them.

Please give me these debates: Larp, Any t/theory, t-fw, innovative K affs

I am happy in these rounds: K 2nrs (vs policy, phil, and K affs)

I will be fine: generic/overdone non t - K affs, substantive Phil Affs, NCs phil strats,

Sadness: nailbomb affs, tricks, lay (I just don't understand it)

*I am dogmatic about these and will actually not evaluate*: speaks theory, eval the debate after [speech]

Conflicts

Heights High School. Carnegie Vanguard KF. Challenge Early JA. Challenge Early KU.

General Info

Hi, I debated at Heights High School for 2 years in CX and 1 in LD. In my senior year I focused on nat circuit ld where I broke at a few tournaments but never bid. I did qual for other tournaments such as TFA, NSDA, and UDL Nationals in CX later that year if that influences your opinion of me. I am now an on and off coach at Heights for both CX and LD.

Debate in general

I’m as tab as possible and my route to the ballot will attempt to start from the highest to the bottom layer via the path that requires me to intervene as a judge the least. If I think a certain flow is irresolvable I'll look to the next layer/flow and if there's nothing left I'll vote on presumption. I try to not let my preferences affect my decision, but predispositions exist so true tab is impossible imo.

Tech>Truth

- Concession = true/100% strength of link (presuming it's a warranted argument- conceded claims are still just claims)

- Telling me people got wrecked on the flow > persuasive bs 2ar pandering to my sense of ethics

Good evidence and spin > good spin bad evidence > bad spin good evidence

Default comparative worlds.

I default to presuming aff in LD. In CX/Policy I give presumption to the team who deviates from the squo the least.

I flow CX. I default to CX is binding but that is debatable. This means links and violations are obtainable from CX. If you want to make extra sure I do type down the specific CX interaction that you want to cite in your speech it never hurts to throw me some quick judge instruction: "judge write that one down" or "make sure you got that" is plenty.

Yes send me the doc but no backflowing – I’ll only use it for evidence comparison (if I absolutely have to b/c you should be doing that for me) and clipping violations. There are two instances where I will intervene and engage in my own evidence comparison, 1) when either I truly believe the flows from the 2nr and 2ar are truly insufficient to resolve the debate 2) when I am specifically given instructions to read the card myself by a debater. If I am forced to go down this route you automatically accept the extra risk of me finding out that your full text is not consistent with the argument you are attempting to make which can work against you so beware. In my rfd I will try to be clear where I had to intervene and any complaints of that intervention are your own fault whether that be your poor debating and lack of clash that forced me to do so or your overconfidence in your evidence that was misplaced. To be clear, my use of the term judge intervention here refers to me deciding between two pieces of important evidence by my own interpretation of what they mean, not me magically making new arguments to vote off of. Evidence ethics challenges are a stop the round level offense and I’ll determine it based off of full text on my own so be weary of that and be right.

I’ll say clear and slow as many times as possible but when I do that means I missed something and whatever isn’t on my flow in some fashion didn’t happen. For online tournaments: record your speeches in case of wifi issues.

I’ll disclose my rfd when permitted but not speaks. Postround me all you want, it will not change my decision but it can help you determine if your strategy was actually viable or not. I think a judge voting incorrectly and subsequently giving debaters negative reinforcement for what is actually a good strategy is a shame. I will work with you the best I can to avoid such an issue from occurring by both attempting to write the best ballot personally possible and being open to admitting that I was wrong.

LARP/Policy Stuff

I’ve done this form for most of my debate career – if you want to go hardcore policy then I’m down and am good for basically everything.

Strength and specificity of link determines size and probability of impact

Nuanced comparison and weighing of impacts are more likely to win my ballot than a card dump so like please just have clash

Any type of DA or CP is legitimate if you win it’s theoretically justified

Kick the CP or justify judgekick

Zero risk of a DA is possible

Politics DA are good and all but much of my decision will be determined by recency and evidence quality.

Riders DAs and stuff similar to that are a bit more sus but still an option.

Blanket claims about probability don’t make the DA go away but it does help you weigh the aff in combination with defense on the DA proper

Impact turns are good (see K section for a stipulation to that).

[Policy/CX Spec]: 2nc case dumps must have some connection to 1nc cards. EX: 1nc card justifying no US-China war with a list of general reasons permits 2nc card dumps that uniquely highlight those general reasons: econ interdependence, MAD, power balancing, etc. Conceding a scenario/link chain and then dumping new stuff in the 2nc is not allowed. The same goes for the affirmative: case add-ons are not new advantages, only more in-depth articulations of scenarios were already described in the 1ac. The same logic applies to DAs and CPs. Policy is good because its many speeches facilitate rigorous testing over arguments. Additional cards are meant to examine the nuances of arguments and particular warrants. If you can not win using the overarching ideas presented in the first constructive speeches you need to find better prep and make more strategic strats.

Theory

I default competing interps, no rvi, and drop the debater. If a competing interps justification is made and your opponent doesn’t have an explicit counter interp you win – I need to know what model of debate you’re defending.

I evaluate theory very tab and very technically so run whatever. If you think an argument is dumb then it should be easy to beat therefore I will vote on most interps. List of theories outside of that rule and I will not vote on/enact the implication of: give double 30s theory.

Reasonability is good and all but if they have a decently developed shell/offense you’ll probably need a brightline to justify me not voting against you. Another important thing to note is that reasonability is not an auto 100% defense on theory arguments. You still have to prove your violation really didn’t amount to much for me to feel comfortable using it as defense on a shell. To simplify that thought – you still how to prove how you are the good in the “good is good enough” justification.

Disclosure theory is fine – I was on a UDL program and still disclosed but seeing other teams in the league and teammates from my own school means I am sympathetic to and acknowledge certain responses. That means it’s fair game to run but up to you to prove to me why it should or shouldn’t be a norm.

[For y’all Nebel/Leslie/wtv debaters out there] I’m just going to be real with you – I’d much prefer a collapse to a pragmatics debate rather than semantics on t. I’ve read the nebel articles, I’ve collapsed to semantics before, but I feel like as a judge semantics will exponentially increase my chance of writing a bad ballot. I feel that if both sides are debated well, I probably have to intervene somewhere with my intuition/personal comprehension of articles/cards and there’s a high chance that I’ll misunderstand some really specific grammatical point that’s been extended so let’s just avoid going for it if there’s sufficient defense on it. That being said if you think you’ll crush them on the semantics debate either by concession or because your opponent heavily mishandled/misunderstood it then by all means extend it to your last speech but I would heavily advise against putting all your eggs in that basket.

[For Policy/CX]: I ran theory quite frequently in nat circuit LD and I am fond of it as a viable argument in policy as well. My style of evaluating the theory is incredibly flow-dependent and specifically for T, not actually concerned with what I personally think would be an amazing model of debate. T and theory shells that are warranted are arguments and will be equally evaluated no matter how silly or illogical they seem. If the interp is truly a ridiculous idea then it should be very easy to beat. T-subs and other generics are viable options to collapse to if you have the technical prowess to do so. This additionally applies to creative counter interps. Essentially: as long as you have a card for the T interp no matter how odd it is it will be a viable route to the ballot. I also evaluate T from the mindset of LD theory which is often at odds with some policy debaters' notions. In my mind, T is not just a definitions debate. If an interpretation just states a hypothetical rule and the shell has a definition (semantical warrant) as well as reasons as to why it should be the rule in the form of other standards (pragmatics warrants), only attacking the definition does not answer the T shell. Affs should articulate why their counter interp is both definitionally more accurate in addition to it being a better model model of debate. Arguments can be made that semantics matters more than pragmatics and vice versa but my default is they are equally justifications for an interpretation. My stipulation to this is that the wording of the interpretation matters. "Interpretation: substantially means a 25% increase or more" probably is just a definition debate.

Weigh between standards and voters please and winning that your offense controls the internal link to theirs will make your and my job very easy.

K stuff

Note to people who see Heights in my paradigm and switch to set col: Yes, as a result of Alice, I am now considerably well-read on set col. However, do not start reading it because you think it gives you a higher chance of winning in front of me. I know set col therefore I know when you're reading it wrong and have no idea what you're talking about. It's not a good look, trust me. Stick with what you're comfortable with and what is actually strategic.

I’ve read a lot of K lit but ask me before round about specific authors. Despite that, if you don’t sufficiently explain your thesis I won’t fill it in for you. Stuff I’ve done indepth reading of (also what I read in round): Baudrillard, Deleuze, Agamben, Foucault, and a ton of Marxist authors. I’m familiar with: Wilderson, Warren, Queerness, Ableism, Semiocap, Set col, Anthro, and Security. I’ve barely read it: Fem IR stuff, Heideggerian stuff, Psycho (beyond stuff used for pess).

I am likely to err aff on new 2ar args/creative reinterpretations of 1ar responses for these 1 card Ks that become 6 minute 2nrs given that the neg almost always also makes new arguments.

Less embedded clash = higher chance of winning

Read shorter overviews and do more work on the line by line please (unless it’s like some super nuanced pomo or other crazy arg in which case I’ll probably give you some leeway for the sake of me being able to evaluate the K to begin with).

Most frameworks are probably self-serving and arbitrary – try to read something that's not just impact justified. A FW is a model for how I evaluate the debate and one that randomly excludes all of the aff's offense without a good and nuanced warrant is probably not a good model.

Links drawn from lines of the 1ac or other associated speeches will almost certainly be rewarded with speaks and links of omission will almost certainly lose to a perm double bind argument

Explain your perms please if you just say the words perm “do the alt” or “perm do both” the neg probably just has to say links are DAs to the perm

Certain forms of death good might be fine but be very cautious of the way you present the implication of what that means and be considerate of your opponent and those who may be viewing the round. On the other hand, if you impact turn racism or other forms of similar violence you won’t like your speaks and it won’t end up on my flow and you’ll probably just lose the round if your opponent calls you out on it.

Non-t K affs and neg options

Go for it but please explain how to evaluate offense under your rob

K v K is fine – win your thesis/theory of power and win why that comes logically prior to their offense, controls the internal link to it, outweighs it, or mitigates it.

I am open to denying perms in a k vs k method debate

Smart counterinterps >>> spamming turns on fw

Fairness is an impact, but it can also be bad

Carded TVAs are good but not necessary

SSD and other ideological testing arguments are persuasive, but you need to win why that spillsover enough to outweigh the impacts of the aff or win sufficient defense on the 1ac that makes it an education v education debate

Performance and other K affs can lose to presumption absent sufficient articulation as to where and why our performances and actions matter

Tricks

I'm opening up to this style of debate slowly but I didn't debate it much so don't blame me if I don't correctly evaluate your 1 second apriori in the impact calc section. That also meanscut down on the jargon I am willing to vote on your trick but I won't if I have no clue what it means.

If you don't extend TT and you don't explicitly articulate how the trick functions in a world where I use comparative worlds I am very likely to note vote on the arg.

No evaluate the debate after x. I'll do it after the 2ar and count all speeches up to that point.

Phil

Default comparative worlds and presumption flows aff & permissibility flows neg

I only ever read Util and Kant in debate but I will try my best to evaluate any FW if you end up with me as your judge.

I have actually read a lot of phil in college so I am increasingly open to longer and tricks light frameworks. Just cut back on the jargon.

TJFs make my life easier as a judge but, like most arguments, are up to debate for their theoretical legitimacy so you do you.

Explanation of legitimate vs illegitimate offense is a must

Tell me what comes first

Policy Debate (the event)

Much of my paradigm is geared toward LD although all of it remains true for Policy. Control F [Policy/CX] to see the specifically outlined sections already written. That being said, my paradigm was not substantively written with Policy in mind so I will add some brief info that might clear things up.

• Run as many off as you want to however I must be able to draw a line from (at minimum) a warrant in the card of the 1nc to new cards in the block. If you want to introduce new random scenarios or explanations of how the world works maybe cut a more comprehensive 1nc card instead of shifting the debate mid-round. Obviously, that doesn't apply if the new cards are in reaction to 2ac args.
• My threshold for voting on theory is comparatively low to most other policy judges. I will vote on any theory or T shell if it is won on the flow. Reasonability is a paradigm issue that has to be won in order for me to use it. That means I am perfectly comfortable voting a t/theory shell even if I don't think the aff itself is that abusive if a debater wins competing interps > reasonability
• On T debates to all you affirmative debaters: I haven't judged the topic. I have no clue what the "core of the topic" is. This, in turn, means I also have no idea if your aff is the core of the topic. So actually explain why the wording of the resolution or topic literature means you're T instead of just asserting norms/the consensus of the community that I'm unaware of. Thanks.
• I am probably equally receptive to Policy args as I am K args in Policy/CX so just run whatever you are most comfortable with. Side note: If you run a bunch of theory just because it looks like I hack for theory and you fail to cleanly give your speeches on theory it will affect your speaker points.

Extra thoughts

Independent voters probably need to link back to some framework if you want me to try and weigh them especially if there’s a K or theory flow somewhere else.

Speaks

I don’t have random here’s plus or minus x speaks for doing a random thing – just debate your best and you’ll be given speaks accordingly.

If you’re at a local, I’ll probably inflate your speaks to hedge against parent judges using a 20-30 scale

If you're at a circuit tournament, I'll go by circuit norms/break averages depending on the event.

LD Paradigm

Ill keep this short:

This is my 13th year involved in LD. I qualled to the TOC, and have coached for the last 8 years as a private coach, assistant at a big program, head of LD at a program, and now run FlexDebate.

I believe that debate is a game and you should play it however you want. Im fine with really any argument so long as it is obviously not racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I have usually found that it is better for debaters to read what they are most comfortable with in front of me.

Slow down on tags and standards texts plz.

EDIT: Tricks debate is super boring and non innovating these days, so I am usually less impressed by those debates and will sometimes point lower as a result.

If you have anymore questions feel free to email me at sam@flexdebate.com

PF Paradigm:

Got involved more seriously in PF these last few years-- currently coach Princeton along with a few other teams and am the Director of PF at NSD. I am a flow judge. Make sure to extend offense in the summary. The second rebuttal does not necessarily have to frontline, but obviously often times it is strategic to do so. I also do not think that the first summary necessarily has to make defense, but again, might be strategic in some instances to do so. Finally, please make sure to weigh in later speeches, otherwise it makes it tough for me. Overall, have fun and learn something while you are at it!

Updated 5/7/24 for Post-Season

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue WL, Clear Springs EG, and McNeil AS.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 620 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 197 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.69% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

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. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

Any pronouns, they/she listed - it's complicated, referring to me using feminine descriptors is fine, though any are accepted. I have no strong feelings about my gender.

***Apparently to search my paradigm, you need to type "Sophia Dal" instead of "Sophia Dal Pra" - just a heads up***

Background: Wooster HS '20, Kentucky ex-pat, Now debate at West Georgia, Class of '25

Conflicts: Wooster High School, Reagan High School,

Put me on the email chain - sophiavansickle477@gmail.com

---Updates---

2/1/24 - This is not the high school level of "We'll take the rest as prep" debate. This is the high school level of cross examination debate. Use your time. CX is important to me and your speaks.

1/18/24 - Sending the plan in the email chain is scuffed. Put it in the speech doc.

10/14/23 - My personal style of debate has become a lot more critical. I coach policy teams pretty much exclusively, but I'm way more familiar with the engagement between lit bases in K v. K debates. As always, I love organized, technical debates, but I have no strong preclusions whether I'm in the back of a policy throwdown or a method debate.

2/22/23 - Some things in debate that others may view as non-negotiables (i.e. flowing, speech-times, etc.) are things I lean towards as being so, but I can be persuaded by framing arguments that these are things I should disregard.

---Top Level---

I think that debate is amazing and unique because of the diversity of positions and stances that we can take, from typical substance debate to debates about the rules to debates about debate. I think that debate is a competition at its foundation and that the educational benefits we gain are shaped from its research benefits. I also think that debate as an activity or as an institution is not shielded from critique.

Feel free to ask me about anything below or any thoughts you have in the pre-round!

My RFDs - are scripted as best I can to organize my thoughts. I have pretty bad ADHD and I tend to have a lot of external thoughts about arguments in any given debate, so I do this to stay organized. It's also how I verify that my decision can be delivered in a sensical manner. My decision on any given debate is usually made at a relatively normal pace, but writing out the decision, (and sometime a separate decision for the other team/over another argument in close debates) usually takes me to d-time in elim debates. I will sometimes read them to myself aloud as well for good measure. I would want my judges to care about the decisions in my debates, so this is my way of returning the favor.

General Argument Preferences - I prefer well-crafted strategies over all else. I do have a soft spot for specificity, but I understand when that is not an option because of new affs, team resources, or miscellaneous reasons. Linearly, the more thought you have put into the strategy, the more I will probably like it.

I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by debates that do not have a substantial portion of them dedicated to answering the aff in some way. This does not have to be with a specific strategy; it can be with making the most with what you have. This can be through generic impact defense, deconstructing a poorly-constructed aff, citing 1AC lines when explaining how the K links, creative counterplanning, etc. Policy debate is plan-focused, and your strategy should be to address it, not to empty your box in the least appealing way possible.

This does not mean that I have apprehensions about the amount of offcase that you read. I think that thought can go into a 12-off strategy as much as a no off/only case turns strategy.

Evidence - Evidence comparison is a great way to get me to like you. Recency isn't everything when it comes to ev comparison. Give me author indicts, prodicts, think-tank biases, etc. The best skill that debaters take from debate is the ability to critically process large amounts of information, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the analysis of the evidences' sources is important to that processing in our day-to-day lives. If you would be embarassed to read the qualifications of an author aloud during a debate, don't include that piece of evidence and find a better one.

Another point of contestation that should make its way into more debates is the way that authors make their arguments, or the way that debaters have highlighted these claims. Is the author making this claim based on one case study or based on a peer-reviewed, time-series cross sectional statistical analysis? Does the card itself not provide any warrants? Is the highlighting of the edvidence not able to lend itself to a claim and a warrant, or even a complete sentence? Point these issues out during your debating.

I believe the highlighting of your evidence should be coherent enough to read as a public speech, and not phrased like Rupi Kaur's new poetry anthology.

You can "insert the re-highlighting" if you need to discuss the quality of your opponents evidence. I think that having debaters re-read bad evidence means that there is a disincentive to do this type of evidence comparison because of the time it takes out of a speech.

I love evidence-based debates and will want a card doc at the end of the debate. My evaluation of these card docs will be in a way in which I feel I have done the least amount of intervention. To me, this means that cards/arguments that are referenced heavily by the debaters in the final rebuttals, even if they aren't by name, will be read and I'll adjust my thoughts on them accordingly. I will assign the meaning to the evidence that the debaters give it, so, for example, if the 1NC has a highlighted link argument within a card on the kritik, and the 2NR doesn't go for that link argument but goes for another claim in the card, I will not evaluate the extraneous link argument as meaning anything. The evidence you read does not give your argument more weight than you gave it. If you read stellar evidence but can't interpret it for me or move your analysis beyond tagline extensions, then I will not rely on the fact that that card is better than your opponent's.

CX is binding, but that doesn't mean you can read evidence in CX or finish cards in CX. There is a reason that CX is denoted as separate from speech time, and I still hold folks to the threshold of bringing those arguments into speeches, which means that you will just be wasting a lot of time.

Even if someone else cut the evidence you are reading, you are responsible for any issues of academic integrity that arise when you read that evidence, even if you weren't aware of the issue beforehand.

This is not to say I will not vote for teams that don't read evidence. I vote for teams that win debates.

Flowing - I only flow what I catch you saying. Please try to recognize communication break-downs and adjust. I will be following along in the speech document as you read, but I want to be able to understand you.

One of the biggest negative impacts of online debate along with a drop in participation is the increasing card-doc-ification of debates. I am not a fan. Make arguments, do line-by-line, know what evidence they read, FLOW THE DEBATE YOURSELF!

ADAPTATION: I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it especially difficult to flow unclear, online speeches. I can flow top speeds and follow along, but you do not understand how big of a difference clarity makes.

I have recently been attempting to learn how to type with more than my pointer fingers, and am a good flow on my computer but still, please don't let that be a substitute for your own communication.

When flowing debates, I will attempt to line up arguments next to each other, and I would appreciate it if line-by-line is clear as to facilitate this. If I can't do this, I will flow straight down and match arguments and their responses together at a later point, though, this may extend my already egregious use of time post-debate to deliberate.

Absent a defense of splitting up speaking times, the partner that is supposed to be speaking in that speech based on their speaker position is the one I will flow. I will not flow arguments that are being fed to another debater by their partner.

Tech and Truth - I am a "tech" judge. The arguments from the debate that make it on my flow and their implications will be compared based on the connections and the argument resolution that debaters have made.

Above all, when technically evaluating arguments, I value the way that debaters have characterized specific arguments rather than relying solely on evidence to make those comparisons or connecting the dots for them. Cross-applications still need explanation as to how they apply to the new argument. Debates are won and lost through small link distinctions, and especially in buzzword-heavy theory debates, this nuance is lost and leaves me in no way ready to vote on them without explanation.

I have a low threshold for "out-teching" stupid arguments. Stupid arguments can have just as stupid responses. However, if an argument is factually incorrect or incomplete, I'll disregard it. This includes, but is not limited to, voting issues without warranted standards and anything that I can easily google.

(Former) Argument Non-Starters

While rewriting my paradigm, I critically thought about my previous argument inhibitions and realized that they were just based on what I thought were accepted community norms, left over from when I created my paradigm when I was first introduced to national circuit debate. That was stupid of me, and I think that I should be able to defend to myself why I completely exclude an argument from evaluation. Other than, obviously, arguments that are on-face violent, I am fair game for any position.

My previous nonstarters that are now on the table include

- Death Good

- Objectivism

- "No perms in a method debate"

There are two arguments that are difficult for me as a judge:

1. A very pessimistically-read "Debate Bad" argument. Without a way to resolve the offense, I am left wondering why this doesn't link to every debater participating in the debate.

2. This is more of a brand of argument than a specific argument, but any personal arguments that I cannot verify within the current debate. This includes previous debates against this team or incidents between the teams. Debate competition is not the best accountability method for interpersonal violence, you should take these issues to tab, coaches, or relevant authorities to resolve it, not me.

All of my dispositions can be overcame through outdebating the other team. There is always the chance that you could be the debater who makes me enjoy judging issues that I once disliked.

---Misc---

If your strategy involve humiliating the other debaters in the round you should strike me. I am fine with passion about arguments and the way that people communicate them, I do not want harm to come in personal attacks against debaters and their unique positionality in debate.

Online Debate - PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR. I cannot stress this enough. In some of the rounds I have judged, I was very close to losing the argumentation to mumbling or a lack of clarity of speech. Start off slower please. I can flow at fast speeds, but high schooler's laptops are usually not the best, so please be as clear as possible.

The timer stops for medical issues and tech issues.

Lay Debate/Non-Circuit Styles - I debated on a semi-lay circuit for my high-school career, so if your debate style is more stock issues, traditional, or slow, go for it! I will not penalize you for sticking with a local style that you have no control over, just know that I am still a "flow" judge. I'm not a lay judge or blind to circuit norms by any means, I just think that it is not a team's fault where they begin debating, and will not penalize a different style that does not match progressive debate norms.

Speaker Points - are based on skill, respectfulness to the judge and your opponents, clarity, roadmapping, and how you execute your strategy. I do not give you higher speaks based on you telling me to. If you ask for speaker points, I will give you the tournament minimum.

Procedural issues always come before substance.

---Topicality---

I like T debates. I especially enjoy T debates where a substantial amount of evidence is read, epecially evidence about caselists and interpretations with intent to define and exclude. Please explain to me your visions of the topic and why that should frame my decision. Impacting out these debates is important. T is always a voting issue. Some things that I think you should focus on:

1. What is the distinction between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation? I find that debaters oftentimes lose the forest for the trees and dive into the violation debates without solidifying what makes each team's views of what should be included in the topic distinct. A great way to do this for me is with caselists, from both teams, prodicting their interpretations and indicting the opposing interpretation.

2. In what way does the aff violate the interpretation? This seems like a basic portion of T debate, but I see so many high school shells being whitled down so much so that the violation doesn't make it in. If the violation is poorly written or non-existent, point that out to me. I have judged way too many T debates where the violation hinges on an assertion from the negative that the aff is not a thing, when they probably are that thing. I give affirmatives the benefit of the doubt when explaining intriciacies of their plan. This is an area where neg T evidence can really help.

---Theory---

I default to rejecting the argument on theory except for conditionality. If you want me to reject the team on anything else, impact out why. I think that you shouldn't rely heavily on blocks in these debates, or at least make those blocks responsive. Impacts to theory should be clear and articulate; the less buzzwords, the better. The offense of your interpretation or your counter-interpretation should be intrinsic to the interpretation/counter-interpretation.

My leanings on conditionality are that it's good, but I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on condo bad by any means. I think going for conditionality when mishandled by the negative is perfectly viable and more aff teams should do it. I don't necessarily have a lower limit if you want to pull the trigger. As long as your standards are intrinsic to your interpretation, I'm fine with it. I find that the general practice of conditionality can be argued against and potential-abuse based arguments that come along with it are pretty compelling in these debates.

---Case Debate---

Please do more of this, as per my rant above. I seriously love a good case debate. Have good 1NC answers to the advantages and good explanations and clash on the aff, and we'll have a good day. I think that advantages can be beaten by zero risk arguments. I will vote on presumption if the aff has a ridiculous, completely misconstrued scenario with 0% risk of any of it being a thing.

I think that I can vote negative on presumption if a CP has no net benefit but the neg team proves that presumption lies with them.

I prefer framing pages that are specific to the aff. Debate tends to be extremely reductive of ethics and moral philosophy. Conflating consequentialism and utilitarianism, conflating deontology and structural violence, etc. Pointing out discrepancies in a team's framing and the way they view arguments in the debate is very convincing to me, i.e. a team advocating deontology making a consequential claim, etc.

---Impact Turns---

I love impact turn debates. Please be nuanced with the uniqueness question - I need a very good unsustainability argument to weigh against their impact, otherwise I will still give their impact risk.

---Disadvantages---

Please read a full shell in the 1NC. The link is the most important part of the DA, please explain it well. I think the Aff team can beat a DA with zero risk arguments. Please have a reason why it turns the advantages.

---Counterplans---

Neg must prove competition and that the CP is net-beneficial to the aff. I think process CPs are fine, more so if they are topic-relevant. CP and Perm texts should be specific. "Do Both" or others mean nothing unless the aff explains how the perm functions.

Multi-plank CPs should be broken down for me; please explain how each plank functions and solves the advantages. If planks can be kicked, and the CP is egregiously long, then each plank functions as a conditional advocacy

I think that judge kick needs to be flagged in the debate. This can be through saying "judge kick" explicitly or "The status quo is always a logical option", which I take as meaning "judge kick + conditional".

CPs - Novice and JV Debate: Please y'all, you need a net benefit to your CP. I will not vote on a CP that "just solves better". This has happened in almost all of the JV/Novice debates I have judged this year. Please be a stand-out and don't do this.

---Kritiks on the Negative---

Disclaimer: Though the common theme of this section is that you should explain your thing, this is because I am a perfectionist when it comes to how literature is represented, not because I think teams that read kritiks need to break down their stuff more than policy teams. I recognize that teams that read "policy" style arguments get away with the most blippy characterizations of their arguments too often, and this is a practice that I would like to stop in any style of debate I judge. Both teams will be held to the same standard of explanation of any argument. I despise 5-word theory arguments, framework standards, etc. All arguments have to have a claim and a warrant. Explain the link and the impact of the K in the context of the advocacy you are criticizing.

High theory is fine and welcomed, as long as you show you know what you are talking about.

I need a lot of alternative explanation. What is it and how is it distinct from the aff? Does it capture the aff? Why is it mutually exclusive to the aff? Most importantly, how doe the alternative resolve the links to the K? I think a very convincing way the aff can beat the alt is a defense of your method and DAs to the way the alternative explains the case, if at all. Alts should have a consistent text throughout the debate.

I think Ks should have an alternative or something external that resolves the offense (framework, CP with the K as a net benefit, etc.) I don't like evaluating linear DAs based on K impacts and links if the status quo does not resolve the offense.

In K v. K debates, I need the debaters to explain to me the distinction between the methods. What impacts do each of the methods access? What does the perm look like OR Why does the perm ruin the alt? How does the aff's method resolve the K's links?

Debaters should decide for me whether there are perms in a method debate, but I tend to lean neg on this question. See below.

---Framework/T-USFG v. K Affs---

After the first semester on the water topic, I maintain an exactly 50/50 voting record for for or against framework.

I think that the way that most people evaluate fairness impacts writ large is based on personal preconceptions and biases about what it good. I want to make mine as clear as possible here, while also emphasizing that any framework impact to me is fair game. However, the most convincing genre of impacts for me in framework debates are clash, argument refinement, and iterative testing in relation to how they affect advocacy skills.

I like affs that have creative counter-interpretations that include your method and creative impact turns. If you articulate to me why the aff should be included in the topic better than the neg does, you win. This is best done for me through an indict of the neg's interpretation and the research it creates, not by reading a linear DA against debate norms as a whole.

My only caveat is that I believe that there should be limits on the topic of debate, and I think that the aff will always have a more expansive view of the topic (unless only the aff is topical/some explanations I have yet to find convincing). However, placing at least some defined limits on the aff's interpretation mitigates the offense the neg gets and puts me in a good spot to weigh your impacts against however-better limits the neg's interpretation provides.

I don't think that the reading of framework constitutes violence. Arguments that are loose metaphorizations of debate norms to real-world violence are difficult to win in front of me, and I would be keen to vote on arguments from the negative that that metaphorization is bad. However, more nuanced versions of the "policing/exlusion" DA that involve connections to the aff's lit base and academia as a whole and have an impact that is focused more around your research and education are more convincing.

---K Affs (General/K v. K)---

I'm fine with K affs as long as you have both (A) some sort of advocacy statement and (B) a reason why you shouldn't defend this year's topic. This seems intuitive, but in some K debates I have judged, the affirmative is focused more on the community as a whole rather than

I'm not a great judge for K affs that don't have a robust method defense in the 1AC. I think there is a common trend for these types of affs to defend as little as possible in the 1AC and then shift their explanations to defend whatever suits their fancy in the 2AC and beyond after the neg lays down their core offense.

Because of this, I feel as if, in direct opposition to my previous opinions, I am leaning neg on "no perms in a method debate". It is easy for me to buy that the ability for the aff to permute the K incentivizes writing affirmatives with vague theses to eliminate competition, which hurts kritikal clash, education, advocacy, etc. I think that the negative can do a better job convincing me of this when they read literature-specific offense. Aff, you should have a hearty defense of your method. A specific perm text or hearty explanation, coupled with answers to "no perms" should be enough for you to argue and win that "this perm is good and we should get it". Cards for perms are especially helpful when deciding whether you get a perm or not.

Reflected in the the update above, I find myself spending more and more time reading K literature in my free time. I am familiar with the basics of many areas and their key authors, and I have done some assistant coaching for teams that primarily read kritkal positions, but am not an expert on the latest stuff. Therefore, while I would love to judge more of these debates, I understand that I may not be the best for you in terms of pre-existing knowledge.

Performance - Fine with it as long as it's educationally appropriate.

---Lincoln Douglas---

Judging LD is something I don't commonly do, but you can translate a lot of the above here.

ATTN: My standard for what is a complete argument is high for current norms in LD. Claim, Warrant, Implication. Make less arguments and use that time to make better quality arguments.

I am best for policy debates, quality T/Theory debates, and Policy v. K debates.

I am fine for K v. K debates, and my reading and debate style has put me in way more of these than in the past.

I am less ok for dense phil. I need a lot of explanation and impacting.

I am not good for frivolous theory or tricks.

---Public Forum---

I don't normally judge PF but I have done it off-and-on and coached the event as well. Overall I hate "PF-isms" like "we tell you", etc. and I don't think that PF gets a pass from engaging in good extension and rebuttal norms, i.e. nothing is "sticky".

If you are collapsing onto something/kicking something, you need to say so.

Paraphrasing is bad.

Send me all cards read in the debate or else your speaks are capped at a 25.

The only time something is extended for you is the First Constructive in the First Rebuttal. Other than that, you need to do the extensions yourself.

"Delink" is a pet peeve phrase of mine. It's a "no link" argument.

---Bottom Level---

Behavior - Being rude/obnoxious gets speaks taken away.

Please be humble and considerate if you win and patient if you lose. As long as I'm in the room, no comments should be made about the skill of your opponents or their knowledge on certain subjects. Post-rounding is welcomed until it crosses the line from picking my brain to being angry at me for not seeing that you are so obviously right. If you have a habit of post-rounding aggressively, break it. I have PTSD and will not spare a second going to tab if you react in a way that may trigger an anxiety attack.

I will intervene and stop a round if I think that there is violence, physical or verbal, that endangers those participating in that round. Those who perpetuate the violence will receive an instant loss, 0 speaks, and coaches will be contacted. I will fight tab to give you 0 speaks or have you ejected.

Evidence Ethics Violations - Clipping, Paraphrasing without reading the evidence, and cutting evidence out of context is what I define as academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty mean an instant loss and I will award you the lowest amount of speaks that the tournament allows.

I understand the novelty of the activity for novices, but I hold JV and Varsity debaters to the standard of being able to properly read a card.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

Dartmouth '24

amadeazdatel@gmail.com for the email chain

I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year. I'm currently an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDes, and am the former Director of LD at VBI.

General thoughts

Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.

Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).

Case/DA

Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.

Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.

Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.

I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.

Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.

Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.

Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.

Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).

CP

Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.

Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.

Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.

I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).

T

I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.

Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.

Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.

Theory

I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.

I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.

I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.

K

I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.

Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.

Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.

K Affs

See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.

For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.

For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.

Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.

K v K debates are a big question mark for me.

LD Specific

Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.

I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.

1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.

There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.

Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.

Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.

Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.

I debated for Strake Jesuit from 2013-2017 in LD and was briefly a part of the Kansas University Debate team. I judge periodically and I enjoy watching past debate recordings on Youtube. Here's my favorite :) Scottsdale CD v Interlake AL

Add me to the email chain: will@sorrelslaw.com

My Paradigm

- In round (and outside of round for that matter) show your opponents the respect you ought to have for yourself.

- I'm okay with speed (6/10-8/10 with 10/10 being Ram Prasad in TOC Quarters and 1/10 being NSDA Finals in 2019). At the bare minimum just slow down on taglines, author names, and in rebuttals. Also, be clear. If you are going to go fast, it should at least be clear, otherwise just slow down, you probably don't need that last D&G card... I will let you know if you are going too fast or being unclear.

- I am a believer in truth over tech. However, at the end of the day, do what you are comfortable with and have fun.

• To expand on the above point; frivolous theory, confusing kritiques, and floating PICs are not my cup of tea.. but if you like them, don't let me stand in your way of running them, just explain them thoroughly.
• Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, and framework debates are my cup of tea. I enjoy clashing ideas about the topic assigned by our glorious NSDA overlords. Education is important after all :)

- Jokes are welcome, as long as they don't come at the expense of the person you are debating

- Speaker points are determined by your strategy, speaking skill, CX, and decorum with your opponent.

- I will vote on anything as long as it is justified as a ballot-winning position.

• Give me voters.
• Weigh your arguments.
• Be clear on how you are winning compared to your opponent and why I should vote for you.

The rest of my paradigm is stolen from my former teammate Joey Georges who stole it from Neville Tom

-Weigh:Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction:You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments:When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me andmake sure to extend themfor the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost:Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments:Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

benerdmann@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Ben! I debated at Strake Jesuit for 4 years on the TFA and TOC circuits, qualling to TOC sophomore, junior, and senior year. For quick prefs, below are types of args based on how much I feel comfortable judging them. I'm happy to judge anything, and the list isn't meant to be limiting at all!

1. Kritiks, policy stuff

2. Theory, T, phil

3. Tricks

I won't vote on any argument that makes debate unsafe, and, generally, please don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

More specific stuff (I hope to add to this as I judge more and realize my specific thoughts on debate):

Theory and T:

I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVIs for shells that indict advocacies or entire positions (e.g., condo) and drop the arg for other shells (e.g., aff definition choice). Those aren't hard and fast rules, and I'd much rather that you introduce paradigms if you're reading theory.

I'm not opposed to the semantics 2NR at all, but I find that I have trouble flowing the dense grammar stuff at full speed. As such, I really appreciate examples and clarity here!

Policy stuff/LARP:

I'll judge kick if you ask me to, but I won't default judge kick on advocacies the 2NR extends without asking me to do so.

Kritiks:

I enjoy kritik debates where the 1NC makes an effort to contextualize links to the plan's discourse and action. I don't think links to the topic are absolutely necessary to achieve this, but they certainly don't hurt.

I don't often find myself persuaded by collapses against kritiks that are defensive, particularly against reps Ks. Generate offense!

Lots of kritiks, especially pessimistic ones, are read as if they are afropessimism - if your cards don't say ontological death, then you shouldn't either! Please please read and debate the kritik in a way that is consistent with your literature instead of explicitly parasitic on Black debate.

Phil:

I am more familiar with Kant, Pettit, Hobbes, and Levinas and less so with other theories. Happy to hear them, just explain well!

Tricks:

Please signpost effectively or I will not be able to flow these debates.

Miscellaneous stuff:

I'll default to tournament rules for evidence ethics, but I generally think violations like misrepresenting the author's intent or violating tournament rules are sufficient for you to stop the round. I'd rather you introduce violations like missing a few words at the end of a card as a theory argument so I don't have to use my own predispositions to determine if it constitutes losing the round, but you do you.

Prep ends when you finish compiling the doc.

Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. I generally think speaks tend to be biased and inflated/deflated depending on the tournament, so I'll keep that in mind

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

Speed < Clarity - I’ve lost hearing in my left ear so make my life easier by sending clear speech docs for every speech (don’t just arbitrarily decide to not send A2 docs you’ve compiled mid round).

Read whatever you want. I prefer theory over most args. I am not as involved with debate as I used to be so changes in meta or wording are going to go over my head.

I prefer theory to most args andgood clash makes my life easier. I am a firm believer that it is the debater’s responsibility to be both clear from a speaking perspective but also clear in what their arguments mean. Done are the days where I do the work for you and sweat over if my scim reading important philosophical texts is enough to understand complex concepts. Any phil based argument should be explained so that someone new to debate understands what it means.

Specific questions about how I judge should be asked before the round.

My threshold for voting on hidden tricks is really high now. Almost to the point where you’d have to spend 50% > in a speech collapsing to it.

I don’t disclose. I’ll write individual feedback and my email is posted if you have questions.

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

Hey, I'm Joey, and I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2021.

Add me to the email chain, and please have it set up before round. I also am fine with fileshare or speechdrop, whatever is fastest.
For online rounds, if we can start the round sooner (if all debaters are there before time), I'll boost speaks, but no pressure I'm fine starting right on time as well

josephgeorgesdebate@gmail.com

PF:

I prefer theory debates; otherwise, I'll adjudicate more similarly to a traditional judge since I'm not as immediately familiar with extension logistics and whatnot.

assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic/topic jargon

LD:

!!Note: I am usually highly preffed by debaters who read tricks/tricky positions, so if you are not fond of that style of debate, be wary in preffing me.

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh: Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction: You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

djherrera21@mail.strakejesuit.org

Hi I'm David. I debated for Strake Jesuit for 4 years now I'm at Princeton. I qualed to TOC junior and senior year and broke my junior year. I primarily read K's and Theory/tricky stuff so that's prolly what ill enjoy the most.

Alright I'm gonna list the things I don't like to judge (not to say i can't judge, just something I recommend you steer clear from)

- dense tricks with terrible formatting

- being rude to your opponent

- really not a fan of evidence ethics I just don't think it deserves someone losing a round. If there is a violation made, I will reference the tournament rules and strictly abide by them.

- if you steal prep I won't say anything ill just give you a 27.

Some things I do love judging

- great LARP debates (just not too fast)

- good k debates (not too dense)

- fantastic and innovative strategies like blending a counterplan with kritikal framing!!!

- nice theory debates that arent just reading off a doc

Generally going to average 28.5 speaks but if your clear/strategic/not a doc bot, you could get well above a 29.5

get a coach to message me if you have any questions or concerns I'm happy to help!

quick note: if the 2n is completely on theory, the 2ar must still extend case.

Email: shoxha2020@gmail.com

Give me music recommendations and I'll give you +.1 speaker points.

Intro / About Me:

Shout out to Westside High and UH - I wouldn't be anywhere without you. <3

Don't be discriminatory. I'm warning you now if you have to ask, "Is this problematic? Don't read it - there are better strategies out there.

Also Important: If you read spreading bad in front of me, I will not hack for you. I can spread and I can flow, but I am disabled and these skills were harder for me to develop than most. Many debaters see this as an opportunity for a persuasive 2ar and 2nr push, don't let this be you. I consider this motivated and ableist.

You're either winning an argument on the flow or you're not. Trivializing my struggles or the struggles of any judge for the ballot is an easy way to get me to despise you.

Debate is a game, but it is an academic game. Tech over truth, but truth constrains tech. You'll have a harder time convincing me global warming is fake than convincing me warming will destroy the planet. If two debaters are equal on a particular flow, truth is the obvious tie breaker.

I will try to intervene as little as possible - I'm old school in that you need to explain things to me like I'm 5 for me to grant you the arguments you want to go for.

I have been in this space for too long. I have zero clue how some old heads have been here for 20+ years. As such, it's becoming much harder to tolerate cringe, posturing, flexing, and generally being an obnoxious debater stereotype. While I will not punish you for it, it will still make me cringe. Be nice to people, there's a difference between being confident and being mean.

I vibe check speaks, I don't know what a 30 looks like, but I can feel it. But that doesn't mean that speaks are arbitrary because my flow checks my vibes. I default to a 28.5 and go higher or lower based on your strategic decisions.

Online debate and its consequences have been a disaster for the debate community. Disclose quickly, don't steal prep. I am growing tired of people that can't manage their files and make a 45-minute round an hour long.

Post UT update: Post rounding is cool and checks against dumb decisions, I frequently make bad decisions and I encourage you ask questions, but do it nicely.

Now for the gross stuff

K

I love the K. I've read many lit bases.

Know your lit, theorize, and don't neglect the material implications of your literature.

I think generic links are fine, but specific links are always better. Saying that a K link is generic and so I should gut check it is never sufficient - you need to explain why a generic link doesn't apply to your aff.

Don't drop your alt unless you're winning a framework push because dropping the alt means that I have to weigh the aff versus the status quo, and 9 out of 10, you will lose that debate.

I default to weighing the aff against the K or something to that effect. If you wan't me to exclude aff offense, you need to do some heavy work.

Fairness is not a good argument if a K team is winning that your model is problematic, justify policy making and then cry about fairness.

Substantive reasons for why they don't get the perm > Theoretical reasons for why they don't get the perm.

You must explain how the perm works for me and the net benefit. Saying "perm do both" - is okay but super weak and usually will not be enough to overcome disads to the perm.

K Affs

Love kritikal affs, but TVAs usually pick up my ballot here. You need to explain your model of debate / method. You should have a strong relationship to the topic or at least explain why a relationship to the topic is bad or doesn't matter.

Framework:

Define how your method of debate works, the benefits only your method can access, and why you can include their model / arguments, even if they can't argue for their perfect advocacy.

Generally speaking, it's okay if the topic excludes your specific author - you don't get the perfect aff sometimes, it is what it is. Debate is about controversies and every advocacy (mostly) will have side-constraints, disadvantages, or criticism from different schools of thought. You should embrace this.

Don't neglect case - if they're winning that their scholarship is good and key, it'll be much harder for you to win this flow.

T

Debatability is not the sole metric that I use to decide T debates. Real world application of literature is another side-constraint of an interpretation.

Sure, your interpretation might produce the most clash, but if there's no exportable topic education, what's the point of clash?

I'm very happy to vote on "Nobody in X field or expertise defines the words in the resolution in a specific way." I hate fake debate T interpretations with 0 real world application.

You need to weigh between standards and different implications of interpretations.

Also weigh definitions - but saying, "Our definition is from a reliable source, and yours isn't." is not an argument.

Competing Interps > Reasonability.

Policy

Deploy whatever arguments you need to win the round.

I love a good counterplan gimmick.

Pics are good. But my default can change.

Delay counterplans are not legit. Unless, the net benefit is fire and super specific.

Process counterplans are suspect, but I'm willing to vote on them.

Actor counterplans are fine.

You must justify judge kick - and say you're kicking something.

Use differential degrees or lense of sufficiency framing to explain how I should evaluate solvency deficits vs. the net benefit of the counterplan.

Weigh between different scenarios please.

Compare warrants and explain why yours are better, this is super neglected in policy and LD especially.

Explain how the PIC solves the aff. I will not give this to you just because you label something a pic.

No opinions on condo, dispo, or how many offs are too much. I will police this more in LD. I think 2 to 3 condo positions + squo is enough neg flex, but you're more than welcome to convince me otherwise. I really don't care.

There can be 0 risk of a DA - but it's very rare. You need to do stellar work here for me to say there's no risk to the DA.

Theory: 3

I don't like these debates in LD - they're way overused.

In policy, theory debates are fine.

Defaults:

Reasonabilty > Competing Interps

No RVIs.

Yes, 1AR theory.

DTA > DTD, unless DTA is impossible.

Tricks:

I used to discriminate against these arguments, but there's no reason why these arguments are any less legit than the K, a DA, or T. I'm just not qualified to be your judge - read at your own risk.

Anderson '19

WashU '23

email: saeshinjoe@gmail.com

updated for state

I debated on the Texas/national circuit for 4 years and qualled to TOC my senior year.

I have taught at NSD and TDC.

I haven't judged in a long while, so try and over-explain any new-age arguments that I might not be familiar with. I would not pref me if you are expecting a cutting edge, top-speed prelim round. At this point, I am interested in serving to further students' education and help you all improve as individuals and scholars.

You should go with the strategy you think you can execute the best and is good for debate.

I will be unhappy judging a debate full of messy/cheesy tricks. These debates are often difficult to resolve and uneducational.

I really enjoy judging good k debates, especially against soft left or policy affs.

I'm fine with you reading arguments I'm less familiar with. As long as there is a warrant and an implication I am happy to vote for it. Theory for strategic purposes is ok, but I will have a lower threshold for responses the more absurd the argument is (which is also true in general).

You should slow down on analytics during rebuttals. Definitely extend the stuff you're going for in all of your rebuttal speeches. Whether this is in the form of an overview or a bunch of line-by-line explanations, you just need to carry a ballot story throughout the debate.

I also enjoy judging well-executed philosophical framework debates.

I'd prefer if there's an impact weighing mechanism. Ideally, this is in a normatively justified framework, but I'll evaluate the debate through whatever lens you give me so long as you propose something.

Debate should be a fun, educational activity and as long as you try your best and are respectful, I will be happy. If you have any specific questions, please email me.

Debate should be a safe space. If you do something that is racist/homophobic/misogynistic/transphobic or something similar, I'll drop you with 0 speaks.

[[ ]] I was told my old paradigm was too long, so I've shortened it considerably. I still agree with everything that was there broadly, and you can read the archived version here.

.

[[ ]] About Me

• I debated in HS and won some stuff, graduating in 2021. I also had a brief stint in NDT/CEDA policy and won nothing. I haven't competed since early 2022.
• Disinterested in judging vacuous non-arguments and listening to kids be jerks to each other. Be nice. Violence in front of me is an L0 and a talk with your coach. The target of this violence decides what happens with the debate. Yes, this includes misgendering.
• MUCH WORSE FOR E-DEBATE. It's too draining and I zone out a lot. Pref me online at your own risk.
• I want to be on the email chain, and I want you to send docs in Word doc format: dylanj724@yahoo.com
• Yes speed, if you have to ask though you're likely unclear and I urge you to correct it.
• Yes, clash. No to arguments that are specifically designed to avoid engagement

.

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

• tl;dr is that I think every decision is interventionist to some degree, but I try to be as predictable and open about my preferences as possible.
• yes, policy; counterplans, disads, etc. are fine. Zero risk is probably a thing. I think it's more interventionist to vote on unwarranted arguments unjustified by the evidence than to read evidence after the debate without being prompted. My BS detector is good and if you're lying about evidence, I'll probably know.
• yes kritiks, but I lean more toward policy these days. these next two sentences might seem paradoxical, but I assure you they are not. I am deeply interested in poststructuralist positions and think I will be the best for you if this is your thing. you should defend something material and do something. preference for speeches that contain the alternative and do something material instead of heavy framework dumps with "reject the aff." To clarify, framework and a link is a fine 2nr but the important part is a link. If I don't know what the aff is doing that is actively bad I cannot vote it down even under your framework interp.
• yes planless/creatively topical/critical affs, but again I lean more toward policy these days. justify why reading your aff in a space where it must be negated and debated against is good, not just why it's good in a vacuum. talking about the resolution is a must - you should not be recycling backfiles from a different topic and saying nothing about the resolution. Talk about the entire resolution and don't abstract from words or modifiers. if I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. I'm a big sucker for presumption.
• yes T-FWK. fine for both fairness and clash, although if you're going for fairness as an internal link, you're probably better set going for clash as an impact itself. Talk about the aff, don't just debate past it.

.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

• Phil: sometimes. I understand these arguments theoretically considering it's what I'm studying and I know what people like Kant, Levinas, Spinoza, and Hegel say. I don't understand the debate application of these folks. Be clear and overexplain.
• Tricks: strike me.

.

If you have questions email me, although the archived version of my paradigm at the top will likely answer them. Good luck!

I competed for 8 years in high school + college and am the head coach at West High School. I've done pretty much every IE event as well as Congress, NFA LD, British Parliamentary (kinda like worlds), IPDA and NPDA (parli) debates. My paradigm explains the default biases I have when judging, but I'm more than prepared to drop those assumptions if you make an argument that I should.

Also, if my ballot feedback seems rude, I'm sorry! I try to give concrete, actionable suggestions using as few words as possible so as to fit more good info into your ballot. I try to be maximally clear with my feedback, which can sometimes result in sounding short or rude. Please be aware that is not my intention!

On Accessibility

Accessibility is an a priori voting issue for me 100% of the time. Don't let the debate get toxic. Racism, sexism, queerphobia, etc. is not acceptable in this space. And for those of you identifying as dudes; don't be a debate bro.

I prefer progressive style LD just because that's the form I'm most familiar with, but I do ask that debaters adapt to the style your opponent is comfortable with. This doesn't mean you need to take it easy on less tech-experienced opponents, but it does mean you need to make the round a space where they can understand your arguments and articulate responses to them. Essentially, I'm tech > truth, as long as both sides understand the tech at hand. If the status of your opponent's counterplan is "what's a conditionality?", then there is absolutely no way I am flowing your condo shell.

Spread at your own risk! I'm okay with some speed, but you should only speak as fast as you can enunciate. If your words are slurring into one another, I simply won't be able to flow everything, and I'm more likely to be persuaded by arguments against your case. That said, if both teams are fine with speed, I'm fine with it too, and will do my best to keep up.

That said, I also believe that the use of excessive speed to exclude less experienced/speed capable debaters is a scourge upon technical debate and I am absolutely itching to vote on speed bad arguments. If a clearly overwhelmed debater asks you to slow down, you refuse, and they say that they were excluded from the round because of it, I might as well sign my ballot then and there. If you intend to read your case faster than average debate speaking speed, you should always ask your opponents and the judge to clear you if they need it, and actually slow down if they do.

On Critical Debate:

I love a good K, especially when it's more niche than 'capitalism bad', but I doubly don't love when people run Ks they are obviously unfamiliar with and cannot explain in lay terms. I won't automatically vote down a K aff but I think the framework explanation you would need to justify torching neg ground will probably go way over my head.

You know what I love way more than a kritik? Critical framework on a policy case! I have a degree in political science and am a total policy wonk (I listen to public policy podcasts... for fun) but I also appreciate critical theory. To me, the theoretical perfect aff combines critical framework with radical public policy wonkery to solve a very real but small-scale problem.

On Impact Weighing

I practice rolling my eyes by listening to debaters try to make everything somehow link to an existential impact. Please don't do that. I don't want to roll my eyes at you.

Let's talk about anything else! Localized environmental impacts, impacts to non-human life, non-existentially threatening global conflicts, quality of life, cultural genocide, etc. I believe anything can be an impact if you have the framework to justify it, and I LOVE talking about non-terminal impacts.

Please don't bore me with econ arguments. I've honestly never heard a good one, and that includes from actual economists.

On Evidence

Most of my experience is with limited prep debate, so I believe cards help your argument but do not make it for you. It is entirely possible to win my ballot without a shred of evidence. Basically, here's how I evaluate arguments:

Strong carded arguments > strong analytical arguments >>> weak carded arguments > weak analytical arguments >>>>>>> your only rebuttal being "they didn't have a card for that"

Extend arguments, not authors.

Take up any evidence-related issues with tab or hash it out in round.

On Theory

I am totally willing to vote for theory, but you have to collapse to it. I think it's a little cheesy to say your opponent has made the round so unfair they need to lose, but also that your disad is still in play.

I am not generally persuaded by potential abuse arguments. I like using T as a strategy (time waster, distraction, link to disads/K, etc.) but if you're arguing that the purpose of T is to check back on abuse, then voting on it without demonstrated abuse cheapens the effectiveness of it.

I'm totally down for the RVI debate!

Congress: Congress is my favorite event to judge and was my favorite to compete in. I judge Congress on the paradigm of relevancy; essentially, what did you do or say to make me remember you? That means I evaluate the entire round, not just your speeches. Did you make main motions? Did you step in to correct a PO who made a mistake? Did you push for a germane amendment to legislation? Did other people say your name a lot? How often did I hear you asking questions? There's a lot more to Congress than just giving speeches. Make sure I remember your name.

Pre-written speeches are a plague upon this event, so they receive an automatic point deduction and will almost certainly result in you ranking lower than an extemporaneous speaker. Congress is definitionally, per the NSDA handbook, an extemporaneous speaking event. Notes are highly encouraged, just not fully written speeches. I also think reading speeches off electronic devices is pretty cringe. This event is like 90% downtime, you absolutely have time to transcribe your points onto a notepad in between speeches. If you just get rid of the laptop and put a couple bullet points on paper, that is possibly the easiest single way to make it to the top of my ballot.

Another easy way to win my ballot is by having fun with it! I firmly believe there is no such thing as too many jokes. Props are fun, go nuts with it! Make the round interesting. Call people out, by name. Lean into the roleplay elements, start beef with your fellow Representatives.

For my presiding officers: if you run a fast, fair, and efficient round, you'll rank in the top half of my ballot. Your job is to facilitate as many speeches as possible. Know the rules and follow them. ALWAYS DENY MOTIONS TO EXTEND CROSS EXAMINATION. Extending cross might be the only thing I hate more than pre-written speeches.

Know your role in the round. The first speakers on each side should construct the key points of the debate. Subsequent speakers should raise niche issues, build on arguments made by earlier speakers, and focus on rebuttal. Late-round speakers should try to crystallize the round, weigh impacts, etc. If you give a killer constructive as the last speech in the round, you won't be ranked very highly. If you are unable to keep the round interesting with new arguments and lots of clash, expect to lose points. If the debate is stale, I welcome any and all attempts to previous question.

Also, minor pet peeve, but you shouldn't say something is unconstitutional without saying exactly which part of the constitution it violates and why! This is congressional debate and the US constitution is a necessary paradigm to abide by, but if the Bush administration can come up with a creative argument to defend torture under the Constitution, you can figure something out.

PF:If I am judging this event it is against my will. Why can the negative speak first? Why are there so many cross examinations? How do I fill out this stupid ballot? What on earth is the point of the final focus? Ridiculous event!

All kidding aside, in the rare event I do judge PF, it's on the flow, but don't think you can get away with trying to make PF into policy. They literally made this event for the sole purpose of not being policy. My feeling on plans is that they are usually not necessary and only invite topicality issues that can't be easily resolved because this format doesn't allow for topicality arguments, so don't run them!

And please, please please please please please don't talk over each other in cross. Even though I almost never judge this event I have somehow seen more debate bro-ery in PF than every other event combined. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, don't let it get to you.

IEs: The time limit for memorized events is ten minutes, not 10:30. The grace period exists to give you a buffer in case you go over, not an extra 30 seconds of material. This is doubly true if you choose to time yourself or use time signals! It's one thing if you go over without knowing your time, but if you go over while you're looking at a timer, that's pretty clear time limit abuse and your ranking will reflect that.

Hello! My name is Michael Kurian and I did Natcircuit LD for 2 years at Dulles High School in Houston, TX.
I had 5 career bids and qualled to the TOC as a junior and senior. I also did a bit of policy as a senior and qualled to NSDA in CX.

Yes, email chain me friends:

Mkdebate@gmail.com

Kritiks: 1
Phil: 1
Theory: 2-3
LARP: 2
Tricks: 3-4

Do whatever you want, some things tho

1. I will say clear and slow if you're incoherent. I have ADHD and will lose focus if the debate has 5+ shells and every single sentence refers to a specific line by line argument. Extremely dense theory debates are not good for me and I will vote on overviews and voting issues, ignoring line by line concerns sometimes. I would not recommend you debate like this infront of me.

2. I dislike theory when frivolous (you know what "frivolous" means) but will vote on it. This means yes, I will vote on it, but I give the opposing side a ton of leeway. If the aff makes a bad I meet or has marginal offense on a really dumb shell like "Link chains bad" I will err that way. I like theory when strategic, but LOVE it when there is legit especially if you use creative interps or good combo shells. My favorite theory shell is O-Spec :)

3. Lets say you read a dump of some kind and you don't flash the arguments to the room. If your opponent asks you to flash them during CX or prep, you will do so. Otherwise, I will eviscerate your speaks.

4. You're allowed to be a jerk proportionally to the amount of foolery going on in the debate
ex. If the aff has 3 NIBS, you can be a little mad. If the 1NC is racism good, you can be furious etc.

5. I dislike partial disclosure shells ie. "Must disclose Plan Text of new aff, must open source, etc."; Disclosure is simple - if you've read it, disclose it. All of it. If you haven't broken it yet, you don't owe your opponent jack. You can give them the ROB text or the plan text if you're feeling benevolent.

Exceptions:

*****I will NOT vote on ****

1) Brackets theory
2) Font theory
3) Arguments that are explicitly homophobic, racist, or otherwise bigoted.
4) Evaluate the debate at X speech (no - I will eval the whole debate regardless)
5) New affs bad (but "Must disclose plantext/framework" is fine)
6) Arguments that exclusively link to your opponents/your identity without structural warrants- ex. "White ppl should lose", "vote for me cuz im X minority group"
7) Must Disclose Round Reports



Kritik:

This is the form of debate that I did the most in high school. I will probably understand your insane postmodern nonsense as long as you understand it enough to explain the application back to me. Race and Id pol Ks are fine

1) Link work - really important.

2) Alternative explanation - I have a somewhat low threshold; I'll assume it solves case and the K's links unless that is contested by the Affirmative

3) WEIGH with the ROLE of the BALLOT - tell me why your pedagogy is important, why it belongs in debate, and how we can use it to derive the best form of praxis. If you aren't doing these things, you will probably lose to a more intuitive RoB.

Things I don't like but will still vote on:

1) Kritikal presumption arguments

2) Links of Ommission

3) Lazy, overused link arguments

4) edgy jargon that stays edgy jargon (explain ur stuff at SOME point at least)




Framework:

Love it, think its cool and underused.
.

Do lots of weighing and explain why your framework resolves meta-ethical problems -- Infinite regress, Constitutivism, Actor spec. etc. If not, tell me why it should be preferred over another framework. I don't like particularism (or rather I like it as an ethical theory, but think it is weird when used in debate); my favorite frameworks to hear are Pragmatism and Virtue Ethics.


LARP:

I prob went for a DA 2 times in my entire career lol. Just do weighing and warrant comparison. It's a relatively intuitive debate style and if it doesn't seem so, I'm not one to say, but you might be doing it wrong. I'm a sucker for good IR analysis. If you understand how States function in relation to eachother and can use concrete examples in explanations I'll be persuaded and also boost your speaks.


Theory:

Weigh. Make good arguments or make really creative bad arguments. Failure to do either will make me sad.

On the Theory vs K debate:

1. If the AC references the topic heavily, is strongly in the direction of the topic, defends implementation, and/or in some other way grants you your topic ground, don't whine and call me a K-hack when I err aff against whatever shell you read. If they're doing everything within reason to grant you your prep, and I still hear 9+ mins of crying in the 1NC and 2N about how you have LITERALLY ZERO GROUND™ I'm going to be much more likely to vote the other way. That being said, if you genuinely feel like the aff is out of the range of the topic or is straight up non-T, go for T, or T - Framework, and go as hard as you want.

2. Reading disclosure against K affs is a good strat.



Tricks:

I just evaluate it the same way I would a bs-heavy theory or framework debate, which lets be honest, is what this is.
Paradoxes, Aprioris, and presumption/skep triggers are all fine.



Things I'll boost your speaks for:


Naruto Reference in speech: +.1
Dressing like you don't give a crap: +.1
Cool Affirmatives: +.3
Solid Collapsing: +.5
Ethos: +.2
Creative arguments: +.2

Speak Breakdown:

30: straight fire
29.5-29.9: ur fire
28.6 - 29.4: You good
28.1-28.5: meh
27.1-28: oof
26.1-27: big oof
25.1-26: go to church dude lol
25: f you

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

she/her

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas

CEDA Octofinalist x1, CEDA Quarterfinalist x1, NDT Double Octofinalist x1

If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to direct you to some resources. ESPECIALLY if you are interested in debating for/attending KU - we have a wonderful program and I'd love to talk to you about it.

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average LD debate. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. All things equal, the debates I most enjoy are phil, k, topicality, and traditional debates. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.

An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I don't care if your opponent didn't answer words you said, they haven't "dropped" anything unless those words were complete arguments. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it. If you can, feel free, and I'd love to vote for you.

I will not arbitrarily treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it."

I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, Kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash.

Topicality should include case lists, preferably both offensive and defensive.

I view counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness. I will evaluate the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative model for how I should think about framework debates.

Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty, RVIs, frivolous theory, Mollow

Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress

Arguments I like and want to see more of: circumvention, skepticism and determinism, specific impact turns, normative justifications for utilitarianism > "extinction outweighs", psychoanalysis, the cap K against policy affs, carded TVAs, advantage counterplans

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question outside of CX time, unless I also did not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Note on speaker points:
29.5+ one of the best speakers at the tournament
29.0-29.5 fantastic speaker
28.5-29.0 above average speaker
28.0-28.5 average speaker
27.5-28.0 below average speaker
27-27.5 very bad speaker

I will not give below a 27 unless something seriously wrong happens in the debate.

I have given two 30s in 300+ rounds of judging, congrats if you get one.

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.

email: connquisty@gmail.com

Phil: (Yes!)

K's: (Yes again!)

LARP: (reluctant acceptance)

Reading more than 3 theory shells: (please no)

Tricks: (NOOOOO)

I competed in LD in high school for Loyola. If you're wondering whether I value truth or tech more, my answer would be firstly that you should try for both; if a round becomes absolutely irresolvable, I usually try to vote for the argument that makes more intuitive sense. I care a lot about logical coherence, and the single best way to win my ballot (especially in the 2nr or 2ar) is by explicitly telling me what framing is most important and how you're winning under that framing at the top of your speech; if the round is extremely messy, this is doubly true, especially if you have a clever way for me to evaluate the round. I want important, far-reaching arguments to be well-developed, so I don't think that tricks are persuasive (and on balance I'd say that the development required for any given "trick" would devoid its strategic value). That said, I love philosophy, and well-developed philosophical positions (specifically moral/epistemic/linguistic/... skepticisms) will be fairly and gleefully evaluated. I love K's (identity-oriented, postmodern, or otherwise), and K tricks are also super cool and underutilized. LARP is fine, although not my favorite, but you can definitely win it; I'd suggest diversifying your offs if you want to larp against another larper (ie read a 3 card K or some theory). Theory done well is fun, but theory done poorly is hard to evaluate, so if you're not exactly a theory God just yet, try not to read too much of it. The same applies for T. Also, I don't have strong emotions regarding T-framework (positive or negative). I try to be nice with speaks, and if you want higher speaks, ask well-articulated cx questions and make smart strategy decisions throughout the round. Finally, I have no taste for aggressiveness or arrogance of any kind: You can be commanding without being condescending or rude, and if I feel you've crossed that threshold, then your speaks will reflect that. With that said, happy debating! You can ask me further questions about my prefs via my email.

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)

Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.

TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)

Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.

If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.

Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge

Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. THIS IS A REMINDER TO INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. IF I SEE YOU FUMBLING WITH YOUR COMPUTER 10 SECONDS AFTER YOU STOP PREP, I'M STARTING PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting old and grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best final speeches start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes HORRIBLE clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* a good thing)

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

Hi, I'm Breigh!

Legacy Christian '21; UT Austin '25

platbreigh@gmail.com

I qualified to the TOC twice with 6 bids. I mostly read postmodern Ks, theory, and topicality; but I'd strongly prefer if you debated your best layer, the way you'd like to (and will be disappointed if you read something just because you think I'll like it).

Prefs Shortcut

1 – pomo/high theory, theory, T

2 - id pol Ks, phil

3 – cp/da/pics, security/IR Ks

Ks

I think the most important part is the framing — ROB/J need to defend your theory with the same rigor as a dense phil framing.

I feel comfortable adjudicating: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Bataille, Glissant, Yancy, Weheliye, Hardt + Negri, Muñoz, and Ahmed. I have sufficient knowledge about: Foucault, set col, Virilio. I have the least knowledge about: ableism lit, security, anthro, and IR Ks.

K Affs (non T/performance) + T-FWK

Reading K Affs: These affs need an explanation of why the topic is bad, why debate is the space for the aff, and why I should vote aff. Make sure when answering framework to have both a counter interp and impact turns, not just the latter.

Answering K affs: T-FWK is fine but I find it kinda unimpressive. I’ll strongly reward a good case press!

Theory

I like it as a time suck, as an integral part of your strat — whatever you want it to be. I tend to think most shells aren't frivolous, so take that as you will. The only shells I don't like are those that comment on a debater personally (e.g. formal clothes).

I think disclosure debates are a little annoying but I'll vote on them.

I’m think most evidence ethics challenges should be debated out in round; however, if the accuser wants to stake the round on it, I’ll stop the round, read the ev, and decide w the correct debater getting a W30 and the opponent an L20.

Phil:

I’m most familiar w most conventional phil frameworks (Kant, Hegel, existentialism, Levinas etc.) and feel fine adjudicating more nuanced frameworks. Triggering skep is fine + so are calc indicts.

Tricks

I prefer theory tricks (winning one layer to affirm, one uncondo route, etc.) to substantive tricks (trivialism, condo logic, etc.), but I’ll vote on either.

I won't vote on arguments that don't warrant their conclusion (e.g. "the sky is blue so vote aff"). However, even if tricks are silly, that just means it is your job to call them out.

Policy Arguments

I know the least about policy arguments but responded to them more often than virtually any other style of debate. I'm not a fan of doc bots and strongly think smart analytics can often beat cards.

Other -

Robby Gillespie coached me so naturally, I did a lot of thinking about debate with him/he informed 90% of my debate opinions.

Content warnings are not only good, but necessary. I have a zero-tolerance policy on this — ask before round and/or choose your words carefully in round.

If you're debating someone significantly worse than you — you can read basically anything you want as long as [1] you go slowly and explain your positions clearly and kindly in cx [2] you make a genuine effort to make the round educational.

I'll boost your speaks +.3 if you send a nice/encouraging message to someone else in the community and lmk before round — debate is super toxic and we should do everything to make it a kinder space.

Likes!:

- Nebel!!!! good semantics 2ns!!!!

- theory underviews with creative 1ar implications

- making k fwks like analytic phil fwks

- judge instruction, especially in the following areas: fiat/circumvention, 2nr/2ar weighing

Dislikes:

- arguments that disparage the legitimacy of another style (“bad tricks,” “dumb policy args,” "Ks are cheating")

- conceding the aff

- "gut check"

- reading "let us weigh case" in the 1ar v a K when the 1NC didn't preclude you from weighing case

I judge multiple formats of debate, so I will try to provide a baseline for each of events. You can always reach out with questions at glennprince3@gmail.com.

LD:

I think LD's continual move to a poor version of 1 on 1 policy debate is probably not for the best, but we are where we are. If you want a traditional V/C framework, great. If you want to have a plan, that's fine too. My background is policy debate, so it's not that I'm unable to evaluate these arguments, it is that I find that there are too many tricks, RVIs, and barely warranted theory arguments that debaters want me to vote for. I will not vote for those arguments unless they have a clearly articulated interpretation, violation, standards, and a voting issue.

Really, I love debate, but I don't like blippy, unwarranted, "crafty" arguments. If your strategy is dependent on tricks or badly formulated theory arguments, strike me. Also, I won't vote on disclosure theory. I find I won't be offended.

I do believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution, but when you are negative you can do whatever you want that negates in whatever way that means to you.

Most importantly, have fun, say smart things, and I'll do the best to evaluate the debate you present to me.

PF:

Most important note: If it doesn't appear in summary, it won't be evaluated in final focus.

2nd important note: I prefer FULLY cut cards over paraphrasing. I find that too many cases are a series of citations without warrants. I'm a great judge for you if you cut cards that have warrants. I'm a less than great judge for you if you think stringing together 10-15 word "cards" makes a fully developed argument. Also, tag lines are your friend. All of your evidence should have a tagline.

Having said that, I think the rate of speaking should be moderate to moderately fast. I'm not sure what you are accomplishing in PF with anything faster. If your opponent asks you to slow down, you should make reasonable accommodations to that request. You can look to me to see whether or not I think the team making the request is being ridiculous.

The pro should feel free to affirm the resolution in whatever way you'd like as long as you are actively talking about the resolution.

If you only have defense in the debate, it will be difficult to win my ballot. For example, on the Medicare for All topic, the negative has to prove that the affirmative makes the world worse in a world where it were to become law.

Other than that, be sure to start narrowing the debate in summary. I prefer more line by line until the Final Focus, but I understand that many people will start weighing in summary. That's fine, but your summary should NOT just be weighing.

POLICY: I'm fairly old school when it comes to this event. I think the affirmative should probably be an example of the actual resolution, although kritikal affs are welcome. I was more of a DA/CP debater, so take that for what it is worth. On the negative, feel free to do whatever you want because I think that's the freedom you get being negative. On specific arguments:

Topicality: I don't think you have to prove abuse to win. You can just prove that they aren't topical. Whoever wins the interpretation controls the direction of this debate.

CP: I think everything is conditional, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You can run multiple Cps if you'd like. Have fun.

K: I think if you are running on the aff that it should still be a discussion of the topic. On the neg, I think you should indicate and make as many links to the affirmative as possible and make those known in the most meaningful way possible.

Besides the affirmative being topical even when kritikal, I'm not quite the dinosaur I may appear. You should have fun and make arguments and I'll do my best to evaluate them.

Houston Memorial ’20

Andrewqin02@gmail.com for sdocs

Note for Harvard: I do not think about debate more than once a year and know very little about the topic.

I have also discovered that my threshold for warranting is way too low, so I will be increasing my threshold for warranting. If you plan to read blips and tricks in front of me, they MUST be warranted in the speech they were read, and I MUST understand the warrant. Saying the words "I am the GCB" is not a warrant, and I will not vote on it even if it goes dropped. Additionally, the sillier the argument (e.g. "Evaluate after the 1AC"), the lower the threshold for responding.

I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying to TOC my junior and senior years. I try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making.

Quick Pref Sheet:

Theory – 1

LARP – 2

Phil – 2

K – 3

Tricks – 3

General Notes:

· CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

· Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

· I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

· Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

· AD HOMS: I really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

· High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

· Be nice to novices and traditional debaters.

· I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

Theory:

· Defaults: C/I, Drop the Arg, Fairness/Education are voters, No RVIs

· Friv theory and theory purely for strategy = 100% fine. I heavily prefer theory centered on round and disclosure abuse (spec status, AFC, CSA, disclose round reports, etc) as opposed to theory on clothing or Zoom styles (shoes theory).

· PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN THEORY SHELLS AND STANDARDS! If there’s no weighing, I’ll default to evaluating on strength of link. I don’t know what it means for the “theory debate to be a wash” if both sides have offense, which means I do not default to presumption or substance if both sides have theory shells that aren’t weighed between.

LARP:

· I do not default to judge kick if it’s condo (this is just a default though and can be changed with arguments).

Phil:

· Understand most of the traditional LD canon – Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Levinas (somewhat), I-Law, Constitution, etc.

· I think I’d be fine in the back of most phil debates, but be sure to explain the phil well. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

· Postmodern and critical phil like Semiocap – I probably am not the best at adjudicating these, but I’ll try my best.

· Default epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

· SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS AND INFLECT!

· Default: Truth Testing, Presumption/Permiss Negate.

· Explain and weigh the tricks well – The sillier the argument, the lower the threshold for the response. Not a huge fan of blippy aprioris and the like, but if it’s won, I suppose I’ll vote on it.

· Prefer you to be straight-up in CX with tricks.

K:

· I’m familiar with a decent amount of Ks: Queerpess, Afropess, Settcol, some Weheliye, Warren, some Deleuze, etc.

· Overviews are helpful, but please do good line by line work – I won’t cross-apply your overview to every possible argument for you.

K Affs:

· Never really understood these very much but I’ll try my best.

· I prioritize technical ability – This means even if the 1AR and 2AR have good overviews explaining your position, you need to explain how it directly interacts with 2NR arguments.

· If it’s a K v K (anything other than cap) debate, I will probably be lost unless the ballot story is very clear.

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

I debated for SLC West High School for 4 Years, and am currently a Second Year at Emory University

Please add me to the email chain: hanna.ricee@gmail.com

Big Picture Stuff:

Be nice to one another, I really value respect in debates (especially CX)

Read whatever you are comfortable with, I will judge based on the contents of the round- I definitely have more experience with Policy arguments though, so do with that what you will

Tech>Truth but you need warrants

Don't read death good or anything that could be deemed offensive in front of me!

T: I enjoy T debates with substantive and applicable interps/deep lit bases- try not to read contrived interps- I normally default to competing interpretations but reasonability is cool too

CP: condo is probably good- aff teams should read lots of theory against cheaty CPs- I'm a good judge for CP/DA debates- I like CPs with funky mechanisms/processes as long as you can explain them clearly and have specific solvency evidence

DA: super fun, have specific link evidence and tell the story of the DA- I <3 turns case

K: not the best judge for Ks- I understand basic K lit such as Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Security, etc, but reading any other K requires deep explanation and specific links to the aff and the aff's mechanism

Have fun! :)

Director of Debate

Dulles High School 2022 - Present

Westside High School 2017 - 2022

Magnolia High School 2016-2017

Summer Debate Institutes

Lab Leader - Texas Debate Collective 2020 - Present

Admin - National Symposium for Debate 2022

Lab Leader - Houston Urban Debate League 2019 - 2021

Emails

All Rounds: esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy Rounds: dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD Rounds: dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. I'll reward deep content knowledge, organization, clarity and depth of explanation, judge instruction, efficient file sharing, and flowing. Other than that, do your thing and do it well. Read the full thing to get a sense of how I understand what it means to debate well. Non-Policy event specific thoughts are at the bottom.

General Thoughts

I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges frequently (over 100 rounds in the 22-23 season). I debated for a small rural high school and read exclusively policy style arguments; however, I have since coached students who go for the K on both sides and every other kind of argument under the sun. I am probably fine for whatever you want to do. Although most of my experience competing, judging, and coaching is in Policy and LD, I have worked with debaters across all formats. My preference is for national circuit style debate, but I have worked with a number of traditional debaters and judge traditional rounds quite frequently. I believe that debate can be one of the single most transformative activities for high schoolers who engage deeply in the processes of research, argument refinement, skill development, and content mastery that it requires to be done well. As such, I am committed to the educational integrity of the activity. This has a few different implications for you, regardless of format:

• Safety, inclusion, and access are my first priorities because students can’t get the benefits of the activity if they feel unsafe, unwelcome, or lack access to the materials they need to be successful. For you, this means to be cognizant of your words/actions and their effects on other people, especially those coming from social locations different from your own. Assume less, listen more.

Respect people’s pronoun preferences, honor requests for accommodation, and be kind to novices and those less experienced than you. Don’t bully or harass people, don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist. If something is happening and I’m not picking up on it, please bring it to my attention either verbally or via email. If I am part of the problem, please let me know so that I can do better.

Recording your speeches is fine. You must get consent from everyone in the room to record the whole round. It would also be polite to offer to send your opponents a copy of the recording if they consent. If you record others sans consent and I find out, you will be reported to the tabroom.

Content/Trigger warnings should be read if you suspect a position might be triggering to someone, and you should be ready to read something else if your opponents or I say we are not comfortable with the position being read. If an observer objects, they are free to leave, but we have to be there.

I will not be evaluating arguments about people’s character or their conduct outside of the round we are in and the prior disclosure period. Any significant issue of safety or comfort that impacts your ability to engage with someone is not something that a ballot can resolve. That needs to be taken to the tabroom.

If you debate for an under-resourced program and would like some materials to help you improve, let me know and I’ll send you some of the resources I make sure my students have access to.

• The rigor of academic debate is the main reason it has such a large and long lasting impact on people’s lives. I will reward displays of it with generous speaker points and will tend towards being punitive with regards to practices that compromise the rigor of the activity.

The two teams on the pairing are the only entities taking part in the debate. Coaches, teammates, random spectators, and AI chatbots are not to be assisting once the door closes. Chatbots shouldn’t be used before the door closes either. If I find that academic dishonesty of this variety has occurred, I will go to tab and lobby for you to be disqualified.

You should do your own research, reading, card cutting, and block writing. Using open evidence, the wiki, or published briefs is fine as a starting point, but that hardly constitutes research. Similarly, it is fine if some of your blocks are written by a coach or more veteran teammates, but overreliance on things cut/written by other people is detrimental to your learning and development. This will put a cap on your speaker points. I will bump speaker points for quality work that is obviously your own.

When cutting cards, make sure not to clip or power tag. For those who don’t know, clipping entails cutting around parts of cards that are inconvenient for your argument, not cutting at paragraph breaks, reading more or less than what is highlighted, and failing to mark cards if you decide to move on. Power tagging is simply when the tagline you have written does not represent what the body of the card says. Evidence ethics challenges are limited to claims that evidence is fabricated in whole or in part, so you should be confident that you are correct before staking the round on it. In the event of a challenge, you win if you are right and you lose if you are wrong.

Citation drives research, which is the source of argument innovation over the course of a topic. Complete citations contain the following information: The author’s complete name (you only need to read the last name), the date of publication (read month and day if the evidence is from this year, just the year if it is from a previous year), a list of author qualifications, the title of the source, the name of the publishing entity, a url to the text if applicable, and an indicator of who cut the evidence.

Generally speaking, I am pro disclosure since having time to read, think, and strategize tends to improve the quality of engagement from both sides exponentially, which in turn results in debates that are more educational for the participants and, incidentally, more enjoyable for me to judge. This is my default position; it doesn’t mean you can’t get me to vote against disclosure. I freely acknowledge the validity of objections regarding student safety and competitive equity.

Recording audio of your speeches, later transcribing and editing them, is a good habit to help you notice issues with clarity, efficiency, and explanation. It can also be a part of your block writing process. The final product might be super specific, but it does not take that much time to convert the specific speech to a generic block that you can use in future debates.

Prep time exists for a reason. You should not be typing or strategizing with your partner if there is not a timer running, be that yours or your opponents’. Stealing prep is cheating.

Take notes during feedback, preferably in a word or google doc. It’s a good habit to be in, as some judges don’t write much, memory is pretty faulty, and it helps create the impression that you care about improving and are actively listening to what judges are telling you. I would also suggest labeling and saving your flows.

Ask questions with redos and file updates in mind. I welcome all questions; however, understand that once the ballot is submitted I can do nothing to change it. Aggressive post-rounding of me or another judge on a panel is futile and immature. I would suggest that you choose to focus on growth and improvement rather than burning bridges with people.

• Debate is a skill focused activity that necessitates a degree of technical mastery. As such, I tend towards tech over truth, but I think that paradigm is overly simplistic. In reality, truth is constitutive of tech, meaning that arguments more germain to my understanding of the world will inevitably require less work to get me on board with. I do my best to check my preconceptions at the door, but the idea of a truly tabula rasa judge is a farce.

While I prefer fast debates over slow debates, I enjoy debates I can understand even more. If you are not capable of spreading clearly, then don’t do it at all. Slow down for taglines and parts of cards you wish to emphasize. Raise your volume when something is important. If you are not doing speaking drills for at least 15 minutes every day, you are not working to improve or maintain what is, realistically, the easiest skill to practice. If you spread, be ready to honor a request for accommodation.

All arguments should make a claim, support that claim with evidence and/or reasoning, and explain the implication of that argument for the debate. They should be organized in a line by line fashion, meaning “they say . . . we say . . . that matters because . . .” or an equivalent organizational schema. Compare arguments/evidence and weigh as you go down each flow sheet. If the affirmative team introduces a position, the negative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. When the negative team introduces a position, the affirmative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. Any overview that summarizes an argument should be kept short, and should include weighing and judge instruction, especially as we get deeper into the debate. Get to the line by line and do the work of debating there. Affirmative teams should start on the case page (T first is an exception), and negative teams should start with the off case positions they are extending, then go to the case (unless presumption or an impact turn is what they go for in the 2NR). Neither side should jump around and go back to a page they have already moved on from.

Most errors get made because debaters don’t flow or are not proficient at flowing. This should be one of your most practiced skills, as you can’t do line by line effectively or make intelligent decisions if you don’t have an accurate record of what happened in each speech. Flow every single speech of every single debate you are in or that you observe in order to practice. I am generally of the opinion that it is better for competitors to flow on paper rather than on your laptop.

Housekeeping tasks should be done at the beginning of CX/speeches. This means that questions about independent reasons to affirm/negate, CP/alt status, etc. go first in CX, counterplans get kicked and no link arguments get conceded at the top of speeches.

Don’t just answer the previous speech, anticipate and shut down the arguments that will be in the next speech using lots of judge directed language. The 2NR should be focused on beating their best 2AR options, and the 2AR should be focused on narrating the debate back to me and beating the 2NRs ballot story. The earlier you can start the process of judge instruction, the better off you are.

Aff and Neg Case Debating Thoughts

Affirmative teams must identify a harm or set of harms that is being caused by some aspect of the status quo. They must also propose some method of addressing those harms. If you can’t articulate how you’ve met those two burdens clearly and succinctly, you probably lose on presumption. I don’t particularly care if you prefer policy/law, philosophy, or critical theory as the part of the library you research from, nor do I care if you read a plan or poetry. I do, however, think that the topic should have some effect on the research and writing you are doing when crafting your case. If every aspect of the aff is generic and not specific to the area of controversy that we voted to have debates over, I will likely be voting neg as you have clearly not thought hard about the way that your particular literature base engages the topic and topicality/FW answers will be bad. If you are not extending the case from the 1AC to the 2AR, you will likely lose (exception for going all in on theory, for which I have a pretty high threshold).

Case is the core of the debate. The role of the negative is to disprove A.) the truth claims of the 1AC and B.) the desirability of the plan text/broader 1AC scholarship. It is way harder to do B if you have neglected A by not making offensive and defensive arguments on case targeting different aspects of the aff. Don’t just spend time at the impact level. Don’t just make cross applications of off case positions. Read cards, contest link and internal link claims, contest claims of solvency, etc. You need to think about how these case cards interact with other off case positions. I’ve written a shocking number of aff ballots in debates where someone goes for a security K in the 2NR without extending carded link, internal link, or impact defense on case, and they end up losing the debate because the 2AR gets to wax poetic about how good and true their China reps are given the conceded empirics. If it interacts with the case page, you probably need to have case cards that help the argument make sense. There are no instances where the 1NC can afford to ignore the case page. There are a few instances where you can afford to not extend case in the 2NR, but those are few and far between.

Topicality Thoughts

I default to competing interpretations, as I think choices should have to be justified. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not the specific aff, arguing that it is sufficiently predictable, limiting, etc. to mitigate the impacts of the shell, and that losing the round would be disproportionate punishment, even if there is some marginal benefit to the negative interpretation. Interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Framework Thoughts

I’m of the opinion that both sides should defend a model of debate that they believe to be desirable. The social structures and dynamics that define competitive debate are fair game for criticism; however, I think the fact that you’ve voluntarily chosen to come to a tournament probably concedes that there is some benefit to doing the activity as it is currently instantiated. Tell me what your vision of the activity is and why you think it’s worth it to show up to tournaments, not just why your opponents’ model is bad. Both sides should start with a caselist of affs that would be topical under their interpretation and the various possibilities for negative testing their interpretation would permit.

For T USFG vs K affs, a limits standard with a skills impact, switch side debate net better/read it on the negative solves their offense, and an example of a topical version of the aff is most persuasive to me. If you prefer to go for fairness, that’s fine, just be aware that I understand myself as an educator first and a referee second, which does implicate how I end up thinking about close debates.

For K frameworks vs policy affs, I am unsure why we are making this section of debate more confusing and self-serving than it needs to be. They want me to look at just the plan and its consequences, you want me to look at the 1AC holistically. Other questions are either secondary to this core controversy about the evaluative terms of the debate or are irrelevant altogether. KvK debates have a tendency to be less clean cut at the framework level, so just be sure you are being clear about the model you think is good and explain how the debates your model would value relate to the debates they think matter.

Kritik Thoughts

My favorite and least favorite debates I have ever judged have involved the K. Do with that information what you will.

You should have done a lot of reading on the thesis of your kritik so you actually know what you are talking about and can effectively apply the theory to the aff/topic you are critiquing. Over reliance on jargon isn’t a flex. Explain big concepts simply and use lots of examples to illustrate your link and alternative arguments. Links should be specific to the aff/topic you are criticizing. Illustrate the link by quoting your opponents and/or their evidence.

Disadvantage and Counterplan Thoughts

In an ideal world, disadvantages would be intrinsic to the action of the plan. Explain the link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides. Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for a counterplan. I'm agnostic on judge kick.

LD Thoughts

Everything mentioned above applies to LD. I'd prefer not to be subjected to tricks or frivolous theory debates. I am old, grumpy, and have little patience for shenanigans.

A philosophy framework should have a clearly articulated relationship to the relevant impacts for the round. I would suggest slowing down to ensure I don't miss key steps in your syllogism. I'm fine for one or two substantive tricks like skep triggers and paradoxes here, provided they make sense in the context of your framework.

I'm agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs in the context of this event.

PF Thoughts

This event exists with the explicit purpose of preserving lay debate, so pretend that this is a short policy round, and I am a lay judge who knows how to flow. If you want to do progressive debate things, come to policy. We would love to have you.

Cards are good. Paraphrasing is bad. If we are sending out speech docs with carded evidence before speeches, I will be a happy camper and likely bump speaks.

"Flowing through ink" is not a thing. You have to attend to responses if you want to extend something. Additionally, defense is not "sticky". You have to extend it if you want me to consider it.

I understand PF to be advantage vs disadvantage debate, with the resolution functioning in place of the plan in policy debate.

Topicality doesn't make a ton of sense in PF considering that the aff doesn't default to speaking first and the negative isn't tasked with upholding the resolution. Just do the thing traditional debaters used to do and define your terms at the top of the speech to parametrize the debate.

Counterplans are allowed at TFA sanctioned tournaments. They are banned only at NSDA sanctioned tournaments.

If you are considering reading a kritik in front of me, you don't have enough time to do the requisite amount of explanation and contextualization for me to feel like you have a shot at winning. Come to policy and read all the Ks you want.

WSD Thoughts

This event suffers from inconsistency of argument from speech to speech. Introduce your arguments in you first speech, and start answering your opponents' arguments as soon as you are able. Arguments and answers must then be extended in each successive speech in which you'd like for it to be up for consideration.

Congress Thoughts

After a few speeches of floor debate and cross examination on a given bill, you should not be reading speeches word for word. Clash with arguments presented by people on the other side of the issue and extend arguments made by representatives you agree with.

1. Progressive arguments (including theory, kritiks, counterplans, disads, etc.) are fine, however, I am not a big fan of terminal impacts

2. Spreading is fine as long as you are articulate. For debates over Zoom, beware that spreading may not come through as clearly. I will let you know if you cannot be understood.

3. While identity-based arguments (race/class-based) arguments are not my favorite, I will definitely evaluate them candidly if you can defend them against your opponents counterarguments (will not vote you down just for running them). However, my one big thing with these is that I will vote down anyone who uses their personal identity as a point of leverage during the round (i.e. because I identify as part of X group, I deserve...).

4. Big believer in framework debate (particularly for LD); important that you establish the best framework for the round to be judged on (as I will judge the arguments strictly through the strongest framework). However, if neither side really debates the framework, I will resort to evaluating the rest of the arguments on their own merit.

*please add me to the email chain of cases (email to sharmaarm@outlook.com)

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

Pronouns: she/her

Yes, put me on the chain: jasminestidham@gmail.com

Please let me know if there are any accessibility requirements before the round so I can do my part.

Updated for 2023-24

I currently coach full-time at Michigan State University. Previously, I coached at Dartmouth for five years from 2018-2023. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for four years and graduated in 2018. I also used to coach at Harvard-Westlake, Kinkaid, and Heritage Hall.

LD skip down to the bottom.

January 2024 Update -- College

The state of wikis for most college teams is atrocious this year. The amount of wikis that have nothing or very little posted is bonkers. I don't know who needs to hear this, but please go update your wiki. If you benefit from other teams posting their docs/cites (you know you do), then return the favor by doing the same. It's not hard. This grumpiness does not apply to novice and JV teams.

At the CSULB tournament, I will reward teams with an extra .1 speaker point boost if you tell me to look at your wiki after the round and it looks mostly complete. I will not penalize any team for having a bad wiki (you do you), but will modestly reward teams who take the time to do their part for a communal good.

October 2023 Musings

I don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon, but what happened to flowing and line-by-line? Stop. flowing. off the doc. Flowing is fundamental and you need to actually do it. Please stop over-scripting your speeches. I promise you will sound so much better when you debate off the flow.

I could not agree more with Tracy McFarland here: 'Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.'

In most of the college rounds I've judged so far this year, I have noticed that debaters are overly reliant on reading a wall of cards to substitute for actual debating. I don't know who hurt you, but you don't need to read 10 cards in the 1AR. Reading cards is easy and anyone can do it. I want to see you debate.

Tldr; Flexibility

No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I love all aspects of the game. I would be profoundly bored if I only judged certain teams or arguments. At most tournaments I find myself judging a little bit of everything: a round where the 1NC is 10 off and the letter 'K' is never mentioned, a round where the affirmative does not read a plan and the neg suggests they should, a round where the neg impact turns everything under the sun, a round where the affirmative offers a robust defense of hegemony vs a critique, etc. I enjoy judging a variety of teams with different approaches to the topic.

Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me.

My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application.

If I had to choose another judge I mostly closely identify with, it would be John Cameron Turner but without the legal pads.

I don't mind being post-rounded or answering a lot of questions. I did plenty of post-rounding as a debater and I recognize it doesn't always stem from anger or disrespect. That being said, don't be a butthead. I appreciate passionate debaters who care about their arguments and I am always willing to meet you halfway in the RFD.

I am excited to judge your debate. Even if I look tired or grumpy, I promise I care a lot and will always work hard to evaluate your arguments fairly and help you improve.

What really matters to me

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, probably more than other judges. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I can't emphasize enough how much I care about evidence comparison. This includes author quals, context, recency, (re)highlighting, data/statistics, concrete examples, empirics, etc. You are better off taking a 'less is more' approach when debating in front of me. For example, I much rather see you read five, high quality uniqueness cards that have actual warrants highlighted than ten 'just okay' cards that sound like word salad.

This also applies to your overall strategies. For example, I am growing increasingly annoyed at teams who try to proliferate as many incomplete arguments as possible in the 1NC. If your strategy is to read 5 disads in the 1NC that are missing uniqueness or internal links, I will give the aff almost infinite leeway in the 1AR to answer your inevitable sandbagging. I would much rather see well-highlighted, complete positions than the poor excuse of neg arguments that I'm seeing lately. To be clear, I am totally down with 'big 1NCs' -- but I get a little annoyed when teams proliferate incomplete positions.

Case debate matters oh so much to me.Please, please debate the case, like a lot. It does not matter what kind of round it is -- I want to see detailed, in-depth case debate. A 2NC that is just case? Be still, my heart. Your speaker points will get a significant boost if you dedicate significant time to debating the case in the neg block. By "debating the case" I do not mean just reading a wall of cards and calling it a day -- that's not case debate, it's just reading.

I expect you to treat your partner and opponents with basic respect. This is non-negotiable. Some of y'all genuinely need to chill out. You can generate ethos without treating your opponents like your mortal enemy. Pettiness, sarcasm, and humor are all appreciated, but recognize there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. Punching down is cringe behavior. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.

Impact framing and judge instruction will get you far. In nearly every RFD I give, I heavily emphasize judge instruction and often vote for the team who does superior judge instruction because I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible.

Cowardice is annoying. Stop running away from debate. Don't shy away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. This also applies to shady disclosure practices. If you don't like defending your arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band. Be clear and direct.

Plan texts matter. Most plan texts nowadays are written in a way that avoids clash and specificity. Affirmative teams should know that I am not going to give you much leeway when it comes to recharacterizing what the plan text actually means. If the plan says virtually nothing because you're scared of linking to negative arguments, just know that I will hold you to the words in the plan and won't automatically grant the most generous interpretation. You do not get infinite spin here. Ideally, the affirmative will read a plan text that accurately reflects a specific solvency advocate.

I am not a fan of extreme or reductionist characterizations of different approaches to debate. For example, it will be difficult to persuade me that all policy arguments are evil, worthless, or violent. Critical teams should not go for 'policy debate=Karl Rove' because this is simply a bad, reductionist argument. On the flip side, it would be unpersuasive to argue that all critiques are stupid or meaningless.

I appreciate and reward teams who make an effort to adapt.Unlike many judges, I am always open to being persuaded and am willing to change my mind. I am rigid about certain things, but am movable on many issues. This usually just requires meeting me in the middle; if you adapt to me in some way, I will make a reciprocal effort.

Online debate

Camera policy: I strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but there are valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Tech glitches: it is your responsibility to record your speeches as a failsafe. I encourage you to record your speeches on your phone/laptop in the event of a tech glitch. If a glitch happens, we will try to resolve it as quickly as possible, and I will follow the tournament's guidelines.

Slow down a bit in the era of e-sports debate. I'll reward you for it with points. No, you don't have to speak at a turtle's pace, but maybe we don't need to read 10-off?

Miscellaneous specifics

I care more about solvency advocates than most judges. This does not mean I automatically vote against a counterplan without a solvency advocate. Rather, this is a 'heads up' for neg teams so they're aware that I am generally persuaded by affirmative arguments in this area. It would behoove neg teams to read a solvency advocate of some kind, even if it's just a recutting of affirmative evidence.

I will only judge kick if told to do so, assuming the aff hasn't made any theoretical objections.

I am not interested in judging or evaluating call-outs, or adjacent arguments of this variety. I care deeply about safety and inclusion in this activity and I will do everything I can to support you. But, I do not believe that a round should be staked on these issues and I am not comfortable giving any judge that kind of power.

Please do not waste your breath asking for a 30. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen.

Generally speaking, profanity should be avoided. In most cases, it does not make your arguments or performance more persuasive. Excessive profanity is extremely annoying and may result in lower speaks. If you are in high school, I absolutely do not want to hear you swear in your speeches. I am an adult, and you are a teenager -- I know it feels like you're having a big ethos moment when you drop an F-bomb in the 2NC but I promise it is just awkward/cringe.

Evidence ethics

If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your cards and have a marked copy available.

If you cite or cut a card improperly, I evaluate these issues on a sliding scale. For example, a novice accidentally reading a card that doesn't have a complete citation is obviously different from a senior varsity debater cutting a card in the middle of a sentence or paragraph. Unethical evidence practices can be reasons to reject the team and/or a reason to reject the evidence itself, depending on the unique situation.

At the college level, I expect ya'll to handle these issues like adults. If you make an evidence ethics accusation, I am going to ask if you want to stop the round to proceed with the challenge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Specific

Updated March 2024 before TFA to reflect a few changes.

Conflicts: Harvard-Westlake (assistant director of debate 2018-2022), and Strake Jesuit (current affiliation).

My background is in policy debate, but I am very fluent in LD. I co-direct NSD Flagship and follow LD topics as they evolve. I assist Strake in LD and policy.

If you are asking questions about what was read or skipped in the speechdoc, that counts as CX time. If you are simply asking where a specific card was marked, that is okay and does not count as CX time. If you want your opponent to send out a speechdoc that includes only the things they read, that counts as your CX time or prep time -- it is your responsibility to flow.

You need to be on time. I cannot stress this enough. LDers consistently run late and it drives me bonkers. Your speaks will be impacted if you are excessively late without a reasonable excuse.

I realize my LD paradigm sounds a little grumpy. I am only grumpy about certain arguments/styles, such as frivolous theory. I do my best to not come off as a policy elitist because I do genuinely enjoy LD and am excited to judge your debate.

FAQ:

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates because most of the time tricks are involved, but I don't have anything against philosophical positions. I would be happy to judge a good phil debate. You may need to do some policy translation so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: No, you shouldn't. He's a very nice and smart guy, but cutting evidence from debate blogs is such a meme. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles and you'll be fine. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. To be clear, you can read T:whole rez in front of me, just not Nebel blog cards.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'new affs bad,' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. Can you throw them in the 1NC/1AR? Sure, that's fine. Will I be persuaded by new affs bad? No.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Q: Will you vote for any theory arguments?

A: Of course. I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

Q: Will you vote for Ks?

A: Of course. Love em.


Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com - yes put me on the chain, i want an email chain set up before each rounds start time

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations: Ivy Bridge Academy, Georgia State University, Thomas Kelly College Prep

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow technical debating and jargon from across those 3 events so just you do you - I have coached/debated/judged/voted on tricks, theory, kritiks, plan, phil, trad and lay (insert whatever non-descriptive 1 word shorthand you like). Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs:

1 - K, Plans, Case Debate, Lay, T/T-FW

2 - DA's/CP's, Theory, Narratives

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Strike - Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

How I vote

I will only vote on what was in the final speech and what is implicated to be in the final speech as the reason to vote for you. That is the only hard line I draw. (this includes you must extend case against a 2nr on T). Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

+.2 speaker points for gender minorities

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

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.

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

1. Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
2. If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
3. I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
4. I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
5. In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
6. I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
7. Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
8. Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
9. If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
10. I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
11. I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
12. I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

K

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

I competed in LD/PF debate at Lamar High School from 2016-2020 and currently attend Duke University. During my time in LD debate from sophomore to senior year, I competed in the general Texas circuit and got to two bid rounds (not that it matters).

**if you are reading this for strake, just know I haven't been in a debate round for about two years. this should not discourage you from reading what you want, just don't expect to go as fast starting out.**

tl;dr: read whatever you want. I tend to value good explanation over blippy arguments. debated mostly larp and k in high school, but not biased against theory/topicality or phil arguments (not the best at evaluating tricks tho).

Prefs:

Kritik - 1

Larp - 1

Theory/T - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

General Comments:

- Defaults: Competing Interps, Drop the Argument (for theory, DTD for T), No RVIs, Fairness/Education are voters, Presumption/permissibility negate.

- Evidence Ethics: if you have a legitimate claim against your opponent, you must be willing to stop and stake the round on it.

- Speed: honestly I haven't been in debate for about a year, so please be clear and slower on analytics/tags. I have slow hands.

- LARP: I read a lot of plan affs during high school and find good, well-articulated LARP debates to be very exciting.

- Kritiks: Don't assume I know your literature just because I read K's in high school. Overall, I find these debates to be the most enjoyable but also often the most confusing/unexplained.

- Theory: during high school, my general prep group was heavily theory-oriented, so if it's your best strategy, go for it. Just know that as I said with tricks, if weighing and explanation isn't clear, it will be harder for me to evaluate. Also, please extend warrants -- just because I know the reasons why Condo PICs are bad doesn't mean you don't need to extend and explain said reasons.

- Phil/Tricks: I enjoyed the occasional Kant NC or Virtue NC, but overall I am not the most versed in high-level phil debate, especially with tricks. I find those debates to often be very blippy, hard to flow, and irresolvable as a judge. Feel free to read tricks, just know that it will be an uphill battle against something like Larp or K, which I am more comfortable with. To be clear, read what you want. If you have a good Farr 2AR versus Wilderson, I have no problem voting for it (as an example).

I've judged LD and PFD earlier and had been a debater myself in a different format.

I'm open to the various formats and delivery of speeches. Content matters more to me, the speaker has to maintain dignity about other speaker, any type of Abuse to any person, religion or culture is absolutely unacceptable.

I understand lay the most but larp is also fine.

I prefer speech delivery at a rate which has words clear to understand. Fast pace is ok, as long as words are clear.

email: imeganwu@gmail.com

--

note for blue key '22: i haven't judged/coached consistently since the 2020-21 school year. please assume that i am unfamiliar with the topic, topic-specific jargon/knowledge, the current meta of debate, etc. when i judged frequently, a large majority (>~80%) of the rounds i judged involved phil fw, t/theory, or tricks to some extent. this is my wiki from senior year.

--

i debated on the national circuit for a couple years and qualified to the toc as a senior ('19). i taught at nsd flagship '19, nsd philadelphia '19, tdc '19 & '20, and legacy debate '20, and i coached hunter college high school in the '19-'20 season (see hunter sk, hunter nk). in the '20-'21 season, i coached hunter md and lindale pp. i currently attend swarthmore college ('23), where i study philosophy and math.

my coaches and biggest influences in debate: alisa liu, kris wright, katherine fennell, xavier roberts-gaal. as a debater, my favorite judges were sean fahey and mark gorthey.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am profoundly deaf in both ears and have bilateral cochlear implants. i do not believe that this significantly impacts my ability to judge, as i debated on the circuit and wasn’t horrible at it; you should be clear, give overviews, slow down for anything important, and explain to me how i should write your rfd—as you should with any judge. i will use speech docs in the 1ac/1nc, but will not in rebuttals for anything besides advocacy texts and interps. i will call clear or slow in your speech if i can’t understand you.

i do not have any preferences for style of debate; my only preference is that you debate in the way you choose, as opposed to what you think i’d like to see. i will vote for any argument so long as it is fully warranted, won, and implicated. i won’t vote on links/violations that i can’t verify. i am most familiar with philosophical framework and theory/t debates and least familiar with policy/k debate. i won’t supplement a debater’s explanation of arguments with things i know that weren’t on the flow, so it should not matter if i’m unfamiliar with literature that is read because it is the job of the debaters to fully explain and implicate their arguments—nor will i help you out even if you read a framework that i know well.

i will attempt to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters—e.g. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in the 2n/2a but forget to read voters, i will act as if a voter had been read rather than ignore theory and vote on a random substance extension. however, it will always be to your benefit to debate in a non-messy way: even if the 2n collapses to T, concedes substance, and it is assumed by both debaters that substance flows aff, the 2a should still quickly extend the ac. you should also attempt to extend interps & violations. the more i have to think about what the shared assumptions of the round are (and the less clear you are about your ballot story), the more your speaks will suffer.

if i am unable to determine what the shared assumption is, and if no argument has been made on the issue, i will assume the following defaults:

• theory is drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > education
• strength of link to weigh between layers, and theory > t > k if strength of link is irresolvable
• epistemic confidence
• presumption and permissibility negate
• tech>truth

---

ethics issues:

• evidence ethics, clipping: you need to formally stake the round for me to call tab in & i will defer to tournament policy when that happens. otherwise, i will adjudicate this like any other theory debate.
• in-round safety: if you judge that the round needs to be stopped, please ask me to and i will call the equity ombudspurson or tab in & defer to tournament procedure/tab's judgment. i am highly unlikely to stop the round unprompted, or vote on an in-round conduct issue if it is not made into a voting issue by the other debater. my policy on this is intended to place the judgment of the affected debater in higher regard than my own.

---

speaker points: higher when you utilize judge direction, make creative strategic choices rather than spamming args, and are good at cx. lower when you clearly haven't read my paradigm, comport yourself in an uncompassionate way, and read largely prewritten args. i average around 28.6 and i don't disclose speaks.

important notes, especially for west coast debaters:

• if you read reasonability without a brightline, say only that “good is good enough,” or tell me to “gut check,” i will gut check competing interps. reasonability should have a brightline that tells me how to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive scenarios.
• i would really prefer it if you read and normatively justify a rob/standard/vc, even if it's short. i tend to think that normative ethic spec is a true argument, and if neither debater indicates a framework and there is not a clear shared assumption of a certain framework, i will be forced to default to my intuitions to frame offense—which you likely don’t want because i’m not a utilitarian.
• i will vote on an rvi if won.
• i will vote on framework preclusion of impacts if won.
• i don’t care if your theory shell is frivolous. "this is frivolous" is not an argument.
• i think epistemic modesty is weird and have never understood it. (if it means strength of link, just say that instead?)
• ethos is created through persuasion/passion/showing you have a ton of knowledge about the subject—not snarky taglines and personal jabs—and good ethos never comes at the expense of safety in the round.

ask me if you have any questions (especially if you're a small school debater). good luck and have fun debating!

Competed for Dulles HS for 4 years. Mostly policy background but also a year or two of LD. I'm willing to vote on anything as long as it is explained. I don't have any argumentative preferences and if you weigh/make smart arguments you will not go wrong. If an argument is conceded my threshold for extending it is pretty low. Absolutely value clarity over speed (what I can't flow I can't judge) I'll say clear twice before I dock speaks. Oh and please weigh.

yangjunhao312@gmail.com for email chain.

Quick Prefs

1 - LARP

2 - K's

3 - T/Theory

4 - Phil, Tricks

Please go a little slower on analytics and anything not in a doc.

Policy (Plans, CP's, DA's)

1. This is what I was most comfortable debating. I'd appreciate explicit impact weighing and evidence comparison

2. I'll boost your speaks if its a hyper specific plan that I haven't seen before late into the topic

3. I have a low threshold for extending the advantage in the 1AR especially with conceded warrants

K

1. I debated a lot of K. Cap, SetCol, Antiblackness, Model Minority, etc. However, I have a high threshold of explanation. If you can coherently explain your theory of power, I'll vote on it. Try to have specific links to the mechanism or scholarship of the aff. It'll be a lot harder to vote on a K if the links are really shoddy. I should be able to understand what the alt does and why it solves after the 1N or CX at least.

2. Alt solves case is massively underused and should be used more

3. K debate evolves a lot based on new literature, so err on the side of overexplaining

Phil

I barely ever went for phil during my career. I know the basics but please overexplain, especially in a phil v phil debate.

Tricks

These are fine too. Just over-explain. I'm not going to vote on something I don't understand. I have a high threshold for what counts as an actual warranted spike in the 1ac. I will evaluate 1 line blips but please don't collapse the whole round to a single one. Also, please make the flow as clean as possible or else I'm going to just flow straight down.

Theory

I enjoy these debates a lot. This shouldn't be an excuse to spam shells but I think these can be fun to judge when executed well.

1. I don't really understand the distinction between what constitutes a shell being frivolous and what doesn't. I think that if an interp is truly frivolous or stupid then you should be able to respond to it easily. I will vote on any shell if it's won.

2. Weighing is what makes these debates resolvable. Please weigh

3. If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them. Please don't concede paradigm issues, they are a huge part of what makes a good theory debater good.

Evidence Ethics

If you stake the round and you lose L25. If you stake the round and you win W30.

I think the violation should have to be pretty egregious for me to intervene. Egregious violations can include miscutting or taking parts of the middle of the card out, misciting stuff, clipping, etc. This shouldn't discourage you from staking rounds on Evidence Ethics by any means just be sure the violation is legit yk.

Speaks

My default is 28.7. Lower speaks if your spreading is super unclear, higher speaks if I felt like you were very strategic or if you made me enjoy judging the round.

Oh and please weigh.

Racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry will absolutely not be tolerated.

intro:

ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!

please time yourself

worlds:

ask me anything before round!

ld:

i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: angelayufei@gmail.com

shortcuts:

1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory

2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!

3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.

speaks:

- have the doc ready to send ahead of time

- i enjoy a good cx

- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.

- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.

- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad

miscellaneous:

- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.

- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)

- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky

- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.

- send any relevant screenshot for violations

i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:

- comparative worlds

- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption

- epistemic confidence

- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis

- no judge kick