Debated CX at Winston Churchill. Please add me to the email chain; my email is galcala0530@gmail.com

You can run anything as long as you can explain it. Don't expect me to know every acronym or specifics about any lit. That being said as long as you are clear and explain arguments I'm fine with it.

T- I default competing interps

CP/DA- Don't stress as long as you have a clear story as to whats going on.

K- I enjoy K debates, but i'm not an expert at every literature base so take time to explain these arguments. That's mainly for any funky K's, but cap or set col don't need a step by step explanation I understand those lmao.

FW- I evaluate it like normal.

General- Don't be rude. Your speaker points will reflect your behavior if this is a problem and I will really not want to vote for you.

if you have any more questions you can just ask me :)

Exp: I debated for four years at Winston Churchill High School in San Antonio, Texas between 2008-2012. I went to camps at UTNIF and GDI. And I've been judging since 2012. Needless to say policy debate and I go way back.

Overview: While I ended my debate career on the left side of argumentation, experimenting with form and critical theory, I would still bust out a strategic cp/D/A where strategy required. At this juncture I enjoy a great policy-oriented debate as much as I enjoy a well argued critical position. If your coach or buddy says they knew how I debated and high school and that you should do 'X' in front of me, disregard them. Be you. Do what you do best. Read the arguments you like to read, just take strategy into consideration.

How I Judge: I default to an offense/defense paradigm, regardless of whether critical or traditional arguments are being read. Given the nuanced uniqueness of the activity - that the rules can be debated while debating - I think it is important for debaters to establish their interpretations of what is acceptable through T, Theory, and Framework where it is applicable. It is on you to tell me how I should see the round, how I should evaluate the arguments within it and how I should vote. It's also on you to tell me what type of calculus to use when I vote (impact weighing, f/w, theory, etc). Should I be a utilitarian or should I look at the round in another way? What is the role of my ballot? Should an argument deemed theoretically objectionable in round be rejected or should the team that read it be voted down? You tell me.

Etiquette: Whether you think policy debate is a fun place to role play and prep for college or you think it is a revolutionary ground for X movement, above all this activity is two things: a student activity and an educational activity. As students, you are expected to interact on the spectrum between not rude and cordial. I understand that arguments can get heated, particularly those that a debater might have a personal connection with. Don't be afraid to express what you need to express and say what you need to say, but be mindful that stark disrespect and gratuitous foul language don't float in my boat. Be competitive, be authentic. As long as you are mindful of the line between competition and flat out aggression in terms of how you carry yourself, all should be well in my book.

Tech Considerations: Paperless debates tend to give me 1,001 headaches as a judge. A lack of proficiency amongst students causes rounds to drag on and reflects a lack of preparation. Ballpark estimate, I think 75% of you are bad at doing this in an efficient and effective manner. Don't be a statistic! Prep time ends when the flash drive is out or when the speech doc is sent.

I'm open to answering any specific questions pre-round.

For me, the round does not exist solely in the word document containing the evidence, and as well overcrowding your evidence usually does more harm than help. The analysis is crucial, how do your arguments fit together? How does your position (aff/neg) play into the story of the round, and more importantly why is it imperative that I vote for you?

I love Kritiks that intersect the round in a real way, if you would like to run a kritik I want the same analysis previously mentioned and really extrapolated links.

I am not a fan of throwaway arguments, please don't read arguments that aren't a viable winning strategy for you, within reason (I won't hold it against you I'd just rather not waste time, paper, and ink.

Keep in mind that your opponents are not your enemy, and do not deserve hostility. This is an event that does not function without competitors and we all deserve respect.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and bigotry will shutdown the round and result in a loss for the offending team, this is not a platform for hate and I won't listen to it or vote for a team that perpetuates that behavior. Again we all deserve respect. Continued misuse of someone's pronouns is considered bigotry.

Hi! I did debate in high school, and I loved it. I also love judging! I’m always willing to give critiques to the best of my ability, and I like to see a lot of clash in rounds. Make sure you address your opponents arguments. Don’t speak too fast, especially not online, and make sure that you are being polite while also maintaining a good presence in the room. Really speak to me and tell me why I should vote for you. I’m good with any type of argument, as long as it is done well. Collapsing arguments should also be done intentionally and only in the case of a wash. I don't flow cross, so bring up cross in speech if you want to use what your opponents says as ground.

I am also traditional in the sense that during round I would like the speakers to be standing up, rather than sitting down, and also facing the judge. Debate is also about presentation, as much as important arguments.

he/him.

I debated for Strake Jesuit for four years in Public forum and graduated in 2020. I am a senior at Georgetown University studying Science, Technology, and International Affairs. I won TFA State my senior year, and I qualified to the Gold TOC my senior year with bids from Glenbrooks and Grapevine.

Bold is the most important stuff, but everything else is still important.

email is cooper.carlile@gmail.com and you can facebook message me

Tell me what the structure of the speech is beforehand.

Please extend. If you don't extend, I wont vote for you. If it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it.

It has been a while since I have judged/flowed. Anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech docotherwise I probably wont catch everything especially if i'm unfamiliar with the topic, and its fair to the other team. if you PF spread and don't send a doc I will find that very irritating.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate any argument that you read.

I am TECH + TRUTH (on substance specifically). You should generally treat me as a tech judge though. I say tech + truth because my threshold for late responses to conceded arguments is very high, but I will evaluate them. My threshold for responses to arguments that I think are patently false is very low, but I will still evaluate those arguments. I think the best arguments are true arguments, since they are the easiest to defend and explain and justify a decision for. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded. You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

Theory is good and I like it. Frivolous theory sucks and I hate it. Theory is good because debaters should be held accountable for bad practices. Stuff like "must respond in second constructive" makes me want to find the nearest brick wall and try to dent it with my head. I will still evaluate it, but it would not bode well for you. You can make reasonability or competing interpretations arguments in front of me to respond to Theory and I'll be receptive to either as long as they are effectively warranted. Because it is PF, and it is much harder to read/respond to progressive arguments effectively in general, I will vote on an RVI if they win that their model of debate is better, not if they just beat back the shell.

Kritiks are super cool but difficult to pull off in PF due to time constraints. I have limited experience writing and evaluating Kritiks, but I will evaluate them to the best of my ability if they are read in front of me. My eval of a Topical K will probably be more accurate than a non-T K.

Fastest way to lose a round in front of me is to read tricks.

I determine speaks based on strategy, and only somewhat on speaking ability. I think that persuasion is a key part of both lay and tech debate so I would like to see something other than a monotone presentation.

You should be able to pull up called-for evidence very quickly. I will find it very weird if you can't.

Please for the love of god signpost PLEASE

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" also dont read defense on ur own case

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too. probably not on a panel tho

if im vibing with an arg then you'll probably be able to tell. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

I will disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians on big stage."

Have fun!

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Hey, I debated PF all four years of my High School so I am a flow judge but I value pretty speaking as well. Sneak in some clean rhetoric that'll make the speech more enjoyable and I'll award good speaks. I love listening to rhetoric lol but don't fill up your entire speech with it. (you can still get 30 speaks w/o rhetoric so dw)

I hate theory and any style of debate that extends out of the normal scope of PF, I prefer to hear a normal debate. If you read theories, Ks, or anything like that with me, I am likely to down you. I despise spreading more than anything. If I can't understand you, I can't up you. I also flow all rounds so make sure you are signposting.

Rebuttals can either be line by line or grouped- if you are grouping just say what your grouping. Both summaries have to mention and extend cards from rebuttal if you want to use them in ff, if they are not mentioned I will not flow them and they will be dropped in ff.

Weighing and impact calc are super important, show me why I should vote for you and explain why your impact is more important than the other team's. Give me a clear voters.

If you guys want to share evidence in the middle of round, set it up before round- I'll look at cards at the end of the round if you ask me to. I'll probably give oral critiques if time permits and disclose at end of round.

also time yourselves and time your own prep I won't be doing any of that.

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

i did pf for westlake high school for four years

i was a tech Debater, pls feel free to read theory, Ks, etc (progressive arguments are good for pf)

east coast <

I used to have a really long paradigm but honestly I don't even know if that's that helpful so here are some key things, ask me questions in round if you want to know about specifics:

- Don't be mean to each other (or me), please. Literally this is fun we should all be having fun!

- Don't just give me blippy one liners; every argument should have a clear warrant

- Please give me some kind of ballot story. I don't want to have to do any weighing or any work for y'all at the end of the round. I generally prefer final speeches to have some kind of crystalizing.

- I would prefer y'all go a little slower because I haven't been judging a ton since COVID started. However, you don't have to be at like, a conversational pace. Just slow down on taglines. Also, if we're doing email chains, speed isn't as much of a problem for cases.

- For LD, I'm generally a better K judge than a techy policy judge. I love critical theory; I read a bunch of it. I'm writing my senior thesis about queer/disabled utopian thought and its relationship to HIV/AIDS.

- For PF, I'm open to whatever fun experimental, progressive args you want to run. I don't think the event needs to stick to some model of what "correct" PF looks like--read Ks, theory, do performances, etc, have fun with it.

For email chains: glasscockbrett@gmail.com

email me emmaguan@utexas.edu

i am out of debate and if i’m back in and judging please call my therapist before round for 30 speaks. 734-394-7138

collapse weigh comparatively and don’t be mean

email: mitchellhagney@gmail.com

I think debate has lots of epistemological value, though I have voted that it is bad and should be destroyed more than once. I competed at the TOC and NDT, but eventually stopped debating to work in sustainable farming. Today, my day job is as the head farmer for the San Antonio Food Bank, operate a hydroponic farm and coworking kitchen space called LocalSprout (www.localsprout.com), and push local policy change to advance a sustainable and equitable food system through the Food Policy Council of San Antonio (www.fpcsa.org). I made these choices as a direct result of a decision-making style that I got from debate.

Evidence quality is important to me. +.1 speaker points if you mention a methods section in your or their articles.

For critical affs, teams that admit to being outside of the resolution need to describe what content and arguments debates would feature if their interpretation were adopted wholesale. It's best if that sounds like a version of debate where both sides stand a chance and is pedagogically valuable. There need to be strong answers to a topical version and reasons why awarding the ballot in a certain direction is good.

I miss the diversity of structural Ks debate used to feature. For those critiques, I like to know what the alternative looks like or why the details aren't important.

For counterplan theory, in each round there is an amount of conditional negative advocacies that is beyond the reasonable amount of testing the aff, which then degrades the quality of the discussion. Use your judgement on what that limit is. I don't like permanent/recurring inaction or attitudinal fiat. Solvency advocates are the best response to accused CP illegitimacy. If it was impossible to find a solvency advocate for a widely discussed aff, that's usually a bad sign. Multi-actor, international, and delay counterplans rarely seem to challenge the aff or the topic. They often put judges in a strange place between choosing between things no human has the authority over.

For politics DAs, I have a higher threshhold for the link debate than the community at large. I find fiat solves the link arguments persuasive if the aff requires that congresspeople change their mind. If it's normal means that the president expends capital to persuade them, I need reasons why that's normal means or why we should interpret the world that way. Delay, direct horsetrading, or focus links are different from usual political capital arguments and are often times more intrinsic to the aff.

Defense matters - No internal link, uniqueness overwhelms the link, empirically denied, impact inevitable - these arguments are some of the most persuasive to me and I am more likely to think you are smart if you say them.

I am likely to dismiss 2AR arguments entirely if I think they are new.

I usually make decisions based on comparative impact assessment. Relative to other judges, it seems like I pay more attention to impact uniqueness, which are often influenced by arguments like those that have been kicked earlier in the debate and turns case arguments. This is as true for critical debates as it is for policy ones.

Competed for Westlake for 3 years.

Not familiar with progressive argumentation, you can run it if you want practice just don’t trust I can evaluate it without explanation.

Please just treat me as flay judge.

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

I debated at Westlake for awhile.

he, him

debate is a game.

i am ok with whatever you run

speed is ok ✅

have fun

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

churchill '20

i competed in policy debate for 4 years and debated on the national circuit.

put me on the email chain - alexmdebatejudging@gmail.com

***i flow on paper. when reading topicality, theory, or framework arguments, please slow down. if i don't flow an argument, it's because you did not articulate it clearly.***

-- topicality --

i generally default to competing interpretations, but most certainly can be persuaded otherwise. have thorough explanations of the internal link and impact - repeating the phrase "they explode limits" 5 times tells me nothing.

-- counterplans --

good counterplan debates are great to watch. explain why the counterplan is distinct from the affirmative and why it solves. aff specific counterplans are always better than generic ones.

-- disadvantages --

have impact analysis and comparison of internal links. turn case arguments are important and underutilized. always answer the framing debate. there should be comparison between models of decision making. surface level, tag-line phrases about extinction being irreversible aren't enough to persuade me to value extinction first, especially when aff teams have well warranted framing args - the 2nr needs a clear, warranted link story, particularly true with politics disads because the evidence is notoriously shallow

-- kritiks --

for neg teams reading the k: no large overviews, i'd rather have that explanation done on the line by line. regarding framework, i generally default to weighing the aff. framework on the kritik is a link-framing argument. i need warrants why your interpretation/model of debate/role of the ballot is preferable and/or resolves the affirmative's offense. why should i utilize your framing as the lens through which i make my decision?

have specific links to the aff. even if you read a generic piece of link evidence, you can still utilize the warrants in that evidence and contextualize it to rhetoric or action of the 1ac. if you're making an ontology claim, i won't just vote on ontology - you still need a link to the aff. you should make arguments as to why the links turn the case.

i'm not familiar with a majority of kritik literature, so don't assume that i know what you're talking about. please explain your theory/thesis. buzzwords are vague and don't actually articulate the implication of your argument. i need to know what the alternative is, what it does, and why is the ballot necessary. arguments about why the alternative resolves the impact of the affirmative are always useful. generally i think you need an alternative in the 2nr, but can be convinced that you don't - just explain why

***no death good/death inevitable args -- i don't find those arguments persuasive at all***

aff teams debating the k: far too often i think affirmative teams are too defensive and aren't prepared to defend why the aff is good. have reasons why discussions about the 1ac and its content are good for debate. framework interpretations along the lines of "neg should read a competitive policy option" are not that strategic or compelling. make sure you're responding to the negative's specific framework standards.

the 2ac should line by line each link argument; waiting till the 1ar will put you behind in the debate. don't group the all of links. saying "their ev is not specific to the affirmative" is also no a sufficient response. you should address the argument made by their evidence and explain why the aff doesn't say/do that. please explain what the permutation is and how it functions. have warranted analysis as to why the permutation resolves the negative's offense.

-- k affs/performance/framework --

i'm more inclined to vote for framework but can definitely be persuaded to vote against it. i need to know what your model of debate looks like and how that compares to their model of debate.

neg teams: just like with topicality, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. fairness is probably more of an internal link to education than its own impact, but you should make the argument that fairness is an intrinsic good. you'll likely need a tva otherwise aff arguments about why you exclude their education become more convincing.

aff teams: i'd prefer that the 1ac would have a close connection to the topic. i need to know what the 1ac means and what it does. if the speech act of the 1ac is significant, why? why does the ballot have a causal influence on that?

-- theory --

what specifically did your opponent do? why did that make it structurally more difficult for you to debate? new affs bad and aspec are 2 arguments in debate i never want to vote for. please slow down when you're reading theory.

-- for LD debaters --

everything i said above about how i evaluate policy debates applies to LD too.

i don't like a lot of the theory stuff that y'all do. if you must go for theory, like any other procedural argument, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. i won't vote on an RVIs. they don't make sense, and you shouldn't be punished for reading a theory argument.

-- for PF debaters --

at the beginning of the round, the team speaking first should start an email chain. both teams should email out your entire case before your first constructive speech. in speeches after the first constructive, send out all the evidence you read *again before the speech* -- the amount of time wasted after/in between speeches asking for and sending evidence is ridiculous -- if you don't flash evidence, that will be reflected in your speaker points

-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

TL;DR. I’m cool with whatever you have to say in whatever format you would like to say it. I think that your arguments should interact with the topic in some way, though that doesn't necessitate having a plan text or defending the federal government. Assume you need to over-explain arguments and link stories, I like to refrain from doing work for the debater(s) - that has gone poorly for some folks I've judged in the past that assumed too much. I’ve lost some flowing proficiency since high school, but I will try my best to keep up.

Stuff about me:

I haven't debated for several years, so I’m not going to trick myself into thinking that I remember everything about every debate argument or that I'm still able to effectively flow at super high speeds. However, I vow that I will do everything in my power to be present and alert of what is happening in the round and be respectful of your time. I will also do my best to explain my thought process for every decision so that you understand why I voted a certain way if the tournament allows. If not, I will make myself available to you to provide my insight or comments if you wish.

I debated for 4 years at Ronald Reagan HS in San Antonio, TX (2012-2016) and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (hook'em). In my first three years, I did exclusively LD and Extemporaneous Speaking. I attended many national tournaments for LD, so I am very familiar with the argument types and strategies on the national circuit. I also attended UIL State for Informative Speaking. Policy debate, however, was the highlight of my senior year. As a 2A/1N, my partner and I attended elimination rounds at various national tournaments, was the top seed at TFA State where I was 5th overall speaker, was in late elims of NSDA Nationals, and attended the Tournament of Champions.

My advice to you: Do what you do best. That doesn’t mean that adaptation isn’t important. I’ve had to do my fair share and I know of its challenges and rewards. The big takeaway is that I am open to anything you have to say in any manner or format to which you would like to say it.

Some house-keeping items:

- Be Kind. Please.

- Prep stops when the email is sent/when the document is saved to the flash drive and is out of the computer.

- Speed is fine. Go slower on Theory/T Interpretations and CP Texts, as you should. I try to flow everything said in the round including the text of evidence and cross ex. Hopefully this isn’t anything new, but clarity is very important.

- I like reading evidence, and I'll call for it if it's pertinent to my thought process at the end of the round.

- Sure I'll be on the email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

Affs -- Read whatever you're comfortable with.

- I believe that affs should be a critical discussion of the topic. What that "critical discussion" entails is entirely up to the debaters. Heg/Econ scenarios, poetic performances, whatever you do best, do it. Though, I'm likely not going to be persuaded by an aff that I feel could be cross-applied to any other topic (I think you lose out too).

- In order of how much I've read them in HS (from the most to the least), it would go "middle-of-the-road" affs, K affs, then Policy affs. I do not have a proclivity towards any one of them: I've enjoyed reading them all.

- In LD, I do not have a preference as to what the aff should look like. You can do the traditional "definitions, framework, contentions," thing or you can switch it up and do it in reverse, I don't care. As long as the information is read.

Topicality -- I enjoy Topicality debates and have no qualms voting on a well-executed topicality shell.

- I default to competing interpretations if all things are equal - actually, I probably default to an offense/defense paradigm on most things.

- In HS, I rarely read any other standard than predictable limits; I intuitively think that both sides have reasonable ground for argumentation if they're smart enough, but I can be persuaded to vote for other standards. That being said, I generally think along the lines of "the caselist" in topicality debates, so doing your due diligence in these debates should be rewarded.

- I don’t think that RVI’s are a thing and I'm not sure why they ever were; I've yet to vote for an RVI argument I thought was persuasive. BUT, *shrugs* if it's conceded, then there's not much I can do about that, now can I?

Framework/T-USFG -- Go for it.

- As a 2A I've both defended and not defended a plan text, so I have experience with both sides of the framework debate. I've also read it quite a few times on the negative, so I'm familiar with how it ought to be executed.

- I don't think that FW is inherently violent, but that doesn't mean there aren't sweet impact turns to roleplaying/policy education.

- Carded topical versions of the aff are very persuasive for me.

LD Frameworks -- Do your thing.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the Framework should look like for the aff or neg. You can do the Value/Value-Criterion if you want. You can do a Standard if you want. You can read a Role of the Ballot/Judge interpretation if you want.

Theory -- With me, you should explain the violation more than normal if it's anything other than disclosure or condo.

- In all honesty, based on my skill level I'm probably not a good judge for you if your strategy is to spam 4 tricky theoretical violations and go for the undercovered ones.

- Except for conditionality and disclosure, I am not really experienced with the various types of theoretical violations floating out there, especially on the LD national circuit. In my HS experience, I'd never read anything on the affirmative that justified opponents making theory a 2NR position, so I rarely had to give a substantive 2AR on anything other than condo.

- If theory ends up being a "game-winning" 2NR/2AR strategy, I would implore you to please go slow and over-explain the argument. It’s not that I am incapable of understanding theory (I think I'm actually selling myself a little short), it's just an area of the argument spectrum that I don't have much personal experience with.

- I am more receptive to theory as a result of actual cheating, whatever that means for the debate.

- I don't think theory needs to be in a traditional "shell" format - as long as all the components are there, we should be good.

Counterplans -- Explain to me what they actually do.

- The only caveat I have with CPs is the quality of solvency advocate evidence; I'm just a sucker for evidence that actually says what you're claiming it says.

- An explanation as to what the counterplan actually does would really help me conceptualize how it interacts with and is different from the plan, especially if it deviates from being textually and functionally competitive.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the net benefit should be. Internal Net Benefits, DA's, on-case DA's. All fair game.

Disadvantages -- I'm game for anything you've got.

- I'm a stickler for strong, definitive pieces of evidence, especially on the uniqueness debate. Though, I'll probably give you the benefit of the doubt if you do a fair amount of explanation as to why that piece of evidence may be true.

- I've read politics, linear, and on-case DA's with extinction-level or structural violence impacts so I shouldn't be unfamiliar with whatever you decide to read.

- I've done my fair share of impact turning DA's on the affirmative (I am particularly familiar with dedev or "warming irreversible" arguments) and I think these can be particularly strategic.

Case debate -- Underrated, and that is a darn shame.

- I've had some 1NRs where I just extended the warrants of 1NC evidence, read 5 minutes of cards, or a mix of the two. I’ve got no qualms voting negative on presumption if the aff’s responses are lackluster.

- Some of my best and most fun 1NRs to give were impact turns to the aff (dedev and "warming irreversible" again).

"Critical" arguments/K Affs/The K -- Read whatever you want, but be smart.

- Out of anything on this page, the K is probably what I have the most experience reading in HS. K affs and one-off K strategies were the bread and butter of my senior year.

- Some authors/criticisms that I enjoyed reading and deploying in-round include: Anti-Blackness, Berlant, Oliver, Settler Colonialism (plus every Eve Tuck article, ever), Critical Asian Studies/Orientalism/Model Minority Myth, (Racialized) Capitalism, and the Academy K.

- I prefer the line-by-line to long-winded overviews (oftentimes, they are hard to reconcile).

- Big overarching theme: you do you. This also encapsulates different arguments characterized as “performance,” though I tend to think that how you choose to debate is a performance of sorts. If you need to play music, dance, scream, do your thing.

In conclusion, some parting words.

Since my paradigm page is part love-letter-to-debate, part diary, I would like to share a thought about my philosophy on judging that may be helpful for you to know. Reflecting on my experiences as both a debater and a judge, I am a firm believer that debate, while an educational activity, is also primarily a persuasive activity. I have become increasingly annoyed with debaters and judges that are disappointed with someone's skill level (particularly if they are a novice debater or judge) and verbally express those frustrations to the public or behind their backs. Yes, having an experienced judge gives you more options to deploy different arguments and strategies, and that can certainly make for a more entertaining and enjoyable debate. But the world is not full of debate hardos. The next time you have a "lay" judge in the back of your debate, consider this: if you lose, perhaps it has less to do with the judge missing something and more about your inability to persuade someone outside of the activity (i.e. 99.9999% of people). This academically elitist pedestal some debaters find themselves upon is incredibly insufferable. So don't vent to me about how your last round's judge was a random mom or pop, you will find the opposite of sympathy from me.

If there are any lingering questions about how I view the debate or argument types I haven't listed above, don’t hesitate to ask!

Thanks y’all. Happy debating, and good luck!

Loic Rocheleau

Kapaun Mt Carmel '19

Trinity University '23

Add me to the chain:

elrocheleau@gmail.com

The team that best debates will win - I will have an unreasonably high threshold for ignoring tech

--Things that meet that threshold: saying fairness doesn't matter, etc.

Misc

There's no such thing as zero risk but I'll ignore something minuscule

I have a strong disliking for framing pages but neg teams don't do enough work

Unless your author is explicitly unethical, indicts mean nothing by themselves - explain why it matters

Your overview doesn't need to exist and I'm not just talking to k teams - the 1NR doesn't need to start with two minutes on why warming is bad and then assume that answers their impact defense

Disads

Pretty straightforward here - uniqueness shapes the link - I love the politics disad - if your politics disad is actually fake (not what hipsters that are too cool to talk about Washington call fake) I'll have a very low threshold for not voting on it

Counterplans

Judge-kick is lazy - if the aff doesn't contest it and the neg explicitly says judge-kick then I guess I'll kick the counterplan for you - start the debate early if your neg - if it only shows up in the 2NR/2AR I'll most likely default aff

-Assuming no judge-kick, presumption flips aff

Condo - neutral on this (besides judge-kick) - I've yet to hear a convincing reason why dispo is insufficient for the neg - potential abuse stories have no sway on me if the neg just reads advantage counterplans

Solvency advocates - high threshold for what qualifies as one - I don't necessarily care if your counterplan has a solvency advocate, but know which battles you're winning

Process counterplans - topic specific ones are fantastic - consult NATO belongs in the trash

International fiat - if there's a solvency advocate it's probably fine - lack of one makes the abuse story a bit more persuasive

PICs - they're cool - don't PIC out of words in their cards - if it's an ethical issue make it a procedural

Topicality (versus plans)

Topic education claims are usually not persuasive unless said interp excludes a topic area explicitly in the resolution

I'll default competing interps but reasonability can make sense to me as a filter for a limits explosion claim from the neg - generally has to be backed by a supplemental standard their interp can't access

Kritiks

Reading them on the neg

-Generally fine as long as it pertains to things in-round

-The aff will probably get to weigh the aff - can be convinced otherwise but shouldn't be the A strat

-Root cause claims don't mean you solve the aff

Reading them on the aff versus framework

-Affs should defend hypothetical USfg action as per the resolution

-Things I think are impacts: procedural fairness, legal education, research skills, decision-making - you will have a hard time convincing me otherwise

-I don't think a TVA matters that much

Reading them on the aff versus anything else

-Affs probably don't get a perm - the whole "this is a method debate" is cringey but probably true

-Impact turn things - if an aff says interventions are bad and you're a heg debater there's no reason that shouldn't explode in the block - as much as I think affs should read a plan I would much rather watch a heg debate

Earl Warren '19

UT Austin '23

Email: morgan.tucker02@gmail.com

I primarily competed in Congress primarily but also did LD, DX, and IX.

Overall, I'm cool with just about anything. Do what YOU want, but do it well.

Congress Paradigms

Please engage in clash if you're past the 3rd speaker. i mostly give 4-6 rankings for speeches. i'll normally rank the PO 4-8 if they didn't mess up big time.

LD and PF

- don't be mean.

'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework, meta-weighing, kritiks, plans, cps, disads, and (kinda) theory. trix are bad but I am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.

Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through, then, it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extend what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.

Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two arguments, then I will default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing, I will be forced to make the decision on my own.

Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow, but keep in mind that I have never been the best at flowing. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' three times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down.

Team cases are the worst, I prob won't be very happy to hear and judge a case that I have heard before and will likely give lower speaks. Team cases ruin the integrity of debate and make me sad :( -- The purpose of debate isn't to win, it is to develop yourself and your cognitive reasoning. Case writing and research is essential to that.

Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

Updated January 2024

About me:

I am currently the speech and debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt HS.

I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.

I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

TL;DR version:

I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and warrant arguments. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Evidence Standards:

Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.

Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/

You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.

Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.

If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.

Prep Time Standards:

Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.

If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.

Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.

-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.

-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.

-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.

-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.

Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.


CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.

DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.

Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.

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

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Westlake 21, Wharton 25

Debated for five years. Currently coach for Potomac Debate Academy. I like warrants and implications a lot.

- If you go a regular pace and win the round, I will award you with fantastic speaks. Don't go fast for the sake of going fast.

- I will vote for the easiest path to the ballot. Do extend and do weigh. If you don't, don't expect to get >27.5 speaks.

- Time yourself and your opponents. No one does and it is annoying.

- Preflow before round. If you show up to round not preflowed, I will dock speaks heavily.

- Can and will evaluate prog. I am best at evaluating theory, and then more basic Ks. If you're gonna run anything be very clear about how it functions in the round. I am now three years out from my last K debate. I have forgotten a lot. Please run things well.

- Docking speaks a lot if it takes a long time to pull up evidence.

- If you disclose, lmk and I'll add 0.5 speaks.

You can email me at xyz85678@gmail.com or FB message me. Sometimes I don't see message requests though.

Since I am an English teacher, I care about the organization of your speeches. If I have a hard time figuring out your argument, I will be more likely to dock speech points. I absolutely do not tolerate any discrimination in my rounds. I prefer hard facts that are relevant and up to date, and if you lie or exaggerate/understate your evidence, I will vote that down.