My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.

FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:

• NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
• No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
• No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates

At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.

Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.

Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at emilujackson@gmail.com

GENERAL/ALL
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.

Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)

Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.

Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.

LD PARADIGM

Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.

I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.

Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.

On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.

Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.

Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.

Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.

Fairness is an internal link to education

AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate

Disclosure is good

1 condo advocacy fine

Nebel T is also silly

POLICY PARADIGM:

Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.

T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.

Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.

PF PARADIGM:

I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.

Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:

- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.

- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"

- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down

email- vivianlelong@gmail.com

she/her

do NOT be racist, transphobic, homophobic, bigoted, etc.

Competitive history: 4 years at Princeton High School (split time w/ LD and policy). 4-time national qualifier in policy, congress, and extemp. 4-time TFA qualifier in policy, LD (doubles), and extemp (qtrs). UIL state qualifier in policy. Competed primarily in TFA/Nat circuit, but I have experience in UIL circuit too. Policy was my main event, and I think this will be applicable if I’m judging you in LD too.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing.

TLDR: The best way to explain my evaluation of debate is offense-defense. I don’t think you should pref me high if you are a primarily K team, albeit I will listen to a K debate, I just have a very high threshold for voting for it without a non-jargon explanation (this is applicable to any arg, but for K’s it is especially relevant). I read a lot of soft-left affs. Aside from K debate, I’m comfortable listening to anything and I usually don’t have a predisposition for any arg. I love a clean line-by-line. I’m tech over truth and I try my best to not judge intervene. I am most comfortable judging CX debate.

Evidence: I do read the evidence in the round, so try not to falsify the warrants of your arguments, but I still think it is up to the debaters to call out bad evidence.

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold on abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case. I believe DA starts at the uniqueness, but I have voted for a non-unique DA sadly.

Counterplans: I don’t judgekick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more. Presumption flips aff if you read a CP.

Kritiks: I’m not familiar with/don’t remember all of your authors albeit I do know most of the criticism associate with the lit of these K’s, but it is still up to you to have a sufficient explanation. I mostly read gender and cap in high school, but this also requires your explanation to be better since I understand this lit the best. This is an argument where I would much rather you have a link that is specific to the aff because it makes it easier to convince me to vote for you. Generic links are fine too but make sure they are to the aff and not the status quo, but this is still up to the other team to make that argument. Explain your alt please. I will vote on a linear disad.

LD specific: I love a good framework debate and often find it to be the crux of winning arguments/rounds, I’m also generally lenient to the 1AR but that doesn’t mean you should be lazy with your theory shells. Progressive args and speed are fine.

PF specific: if you have me as a PF judge, see above.

Extemp specific: if you happen to have me as a judge more than once, I don’t care if you use the same attention-getter. I don’t have a pref for performance versus fact-telling, but I would like to see both and some sort of weaving of points to a coherent explanation.

i have a lot of experience and do a lot of tings ‼️ just do whatever you do best and tell me how to evaluate.

General Debate: I follow clear line-by-line arguments, I should not have to work hard to follow your arguments or understand what you are trying to prove. Clear extensions with solid analysis will win the round, but being rude won’t. If your plan to win is to interrupt your opponents you are going to have a tough time. I'm good with speed, just slow down in tags, dates, and authors. Just because it’s on your doc doesn’t mean you read it. If you set up an email chain my email is alyson.spencer@kellerisd.net. I have experience competing and judging in LD, CX, and PF so I know how the game is played. Let me know if you have any questions.

Case: Clear arguments that are well laid out are the way to go. I prefer the quality over quantity. Your goal should be to win because you have a better case not smother your opponent in arguments.
T: This is important. I don’t care how much of a positive impact comes from your case, if it doesn’t link in it will not win. Proving this sooner rather than later is key.
DAs and CPs: Do it, I’m game.
Ks and KAff: Prove that it is true and relevant and you got it.
Theory: I don’t buy theories that waste my time. If you are going to run a theory make it worth my time and energy.

Water Topic:

1) I haven't judged for two years and haven't done any research for the water topic. Therefore, I won't know what any of your acronyms mean, what the main Affs on the topic are, etc. Just make sure to explain your argument and emphasize clarity a little more.

2) I would prefer an email chain for receiving evidence: andrewdatnguyen564@gmail.com

Back when I was debating, I wanted to answer four questions about a judge when I was reading their paradigm. I will try to answer those questions concisely here.

1) Is the judge qualified to judge my debate?

I debated three years at Hebron High School. During my senior year I qualified to the TOC and took 3rd at TFA state. I believe I can follow along with most debates and understand what's going on as long as the participants explain their arguments clearly.

2) What ideological/argumentative predispositions does this judge have?

There aren't many arguments that I can never see myself voting for, even those that seem dumb or offensive on face. What matters to me is how you argue, and not what you're arguing. I want to see well thought-out, well-researched strategies, and intelligent impact framing arguments. I dislike seeing teams go for arguments that they don't understand or misinterpret. The only kinds of arguments I won't vote for are those that rely on something the other team did outside the round being bad. These kinds of claims aren't verifiable and I don't want to become the arbiter of whether somebody is a good person or not.

During my career I almost exclusively ran critiques, and most of my debates were clash of civilizations or KvK. Nevertheless, I highly value clear explanation. Don't assume I know what your jargon means. I am more than happy to ignore arguments that were made because I didn't understand them.

Other points:

- I am more likely than other judges to vote on exclusionary framework arguments like "they don't get to weigh their Aff" or "critiques aren't allowed."

- I think reading performatively contradictory positions is both unstrategic and creates worse debates.

- In policy vs critique framework debates, I find that many judges intervene unnecessarily by just defaulting to a middle-ground where the Aff gets to weigh their case but the neg gets to critique Aff assumptions. I will try to minimize intervention by strictly picking only one framework interpretation from either team based on who I think is winning.

- In framework debates, fairness is usually an internal link, not an impact. If fairness is necessary to make a certain kind of competition possible, then I need to know why that form of competition is good, ie. the impact. Of course, this isn't true if both teams are agreeing that fairness is good. To explain this metaphorically, in most debates nuclear war is treated as an impact even though it is technically only an internal link to extinction/death/pain. However, as soon as someone says that death is good, nuclear war is only an internal link because there is no longer agreement on whether nuclear war is good or bad.

- Reasonability isn't about whether you "reasonably" meet their interpretation, its about whether one team should be voted against just because their interpretation isn't strictly better than the other team's.

3) How does this judge decide debates?

First I will evaluate any kind of theory/procedural arguments that exist by the end of the rebuttals. Then I will determine who is controlling the central question or framing for how I should decide who wins. Then I will compare the key arguments that each team is making, what the other team has responded to that claim with, and the implication if a team wins that claim.

4) Does this judge have any quirks or preferences I should be aware of?

- I will give you my flows and tell you what speaker points I gave if you ask.

- I highly value clarity. I want to be able to discern every single word you are saying in your evidence, and appreciate clear sign posting/roadmapping

- I will usually not read evidence unless there is some disagreement between the teams on what it says. If you want your evidence to matter, you have to explain what it says to me.

- You need to explicitly say you are kicking a position in the 2NR, otherwise you are stuck with it.

- Average speaker points are 28.5 unless the tournament wants me to do something else. "Average" means I think you are an average speaker for the skill level of the tournament.

- Rules I will always enforce: no touching, one winner and one loser, speech times, only one speaker per speech, no clipping or lying about evidence.

LD

I don't have a lot of experience judging LD and will judge it the same way I would CX. That being said, I am not inherently against RVIs and other theory tricks, but I am against people spreading through their theory frontlines at 100% speed incomprehensibly.

email- hannahrodriguez2003@gmail.com

pronouns- she/her

Coaching & Competitor History

(2023-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Prosper High School

(2018-2021): Policy Debate competitor, Princeton

Background:I approach debates with an emphasis on critical analysis, deconstruction of power structures, and engagement with alternative frameworks. My judging philosophy is centered around evaluating debates that delve into issues beyond the policy-oriented or traditional arguments. I appreciate debates that challenge mainstream ideologies, interrogate assumptions, and offer unique perspectives.

Deep Analysis: I value depth over breadth. I prefer in-depth analysis and thorough explanation of critical arguments rather than superficial coverage of multiple arguments.

Open-Mindedness: While I have a preference for critical arguments, I am open to all forms of debate. If traditional or policy-focused arguments are presented effectively, I will evaluate them accordingly.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing. If you are SPREADING through tag lines I AM NOT LISTENING !

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold for abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though as long as your doing the internal link devoplement. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case.

Counterplans: I don’t judge kick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.

Please, I beg, read the things I write here. I didn't write it for no reason.

I'm Fiker (pronounced like sticker). She/her/hers. I debated a bit in high school which is mostly unimportant, and then did four years (2015-2019) at Texas Tech University. I (and my partner) won the NRR and I won all 3 national top speaker awards in 2019. I judged and graduate-assistant coached for TTU in my masters (graduated 2021) and was acting Director for a year. I then spent a year as the Director of Debate at Grapevine High School. I now am the Associate Director of Debate at Mercer University. So it goes.

I generally think debate is a game, but a useful and important one. It may not be "fiat" but it does influence the real world by how we exist inside of it. Let's not forget we're human beings. Read what you want, I certainly did. However, I do not intend on imposing my own ideals onto debaters, so please have whatever round you want so long as we respect one another as humans. Speed isn't usually an issue but if we're blazing, let me know so I can use paper and not my laptop. 90% of debaters lose rounds in front of me because they have not read the specifics of my paradigm and how I tend to come down on questions of evaluation, so don’t let that be you, too. I don’t understand presumption most likely. Not something you want to stake your round.

Things to keep in mind: My favorite arguments are well warranted critical arguments that I can actually learn and grow from; also, Japan re-arm. I like to do as little work as possible when it comes to making decisions on the flow so please be incredibly explicit when making claims as I will not fill in arguments not being made in the round. Impact calculus is essential. However many warrants you have, double it. Condo is good, but don't test the decently sturdy limits. I don't really get presumption and may not be in your best interest to stake the round on it. Thought experiments aren't real. Jokes are fun. 9/10 the MG theory is not worth it. I will only evaluate what you tell me to. If I have not been given a way to evaluate arguments, everything becomes flow centric. This will not work out for you if things become a long chain of arguments as I will just default to whatever the most convincing and well-fleshed out argument is otherwise with no other weighing mechanism. Saying words is NOT the same thing as making an argument. I need to know either 1) what that means for the sake of the round/impact of the round, 2) how this helps me to evaluate/interpret other arguments or, 3) needs to be explicit enough to do all that in the nature of saying the argument. Cool you said it, but what am I supposed to do with it now?

Affs: Read them and be very well warranted within them. Pull from the aff throughout the debate as I feel this is one of the least utilized forms of offense in the round. K affs are fine (I'm a big fan) just make sure the things you say make sense and do something. I think because I have read a lot of Ks in my time that people think I will vote them up regardless, which is not true. I like offense and warrants and I like not doing work so whoever allows the most of that will be in the better spot regardless. Read case against the aff. Be clear and read texts twice.

DA/CP: Also read these. They need to be complete and fleshed out with good warrants and net benefits where they need to be. Warrant explicitness are your best friend. CPs should come with written texts, imo. I would say I have a slightly higher than average threshold for CP theory but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it if it is read and defended well (just remember MG theory isn't always worth it if you can just win the substantive).

Theory: I like this and my threshold is pretty equal to substance if run well, but I needneedneed good structure. Interpretations are key, please slow down and repeat them. Now, I don't need several sheets of theory, MG theory, overly high-level theory, and certainly not MO and later theory. Keep it at home. Have voters. Defend them. Competing interpretations is based on the way that the interpretations are being upheld through the resolution of the standards but standards alone do not win without a competitive interpretation. Theory is one shot kill to say both please don’t go hard for the substantive as a backup just go for theory or don’t and don’t go for theory if there’s no proven abuse or if you’re not explaining the abuse in clear detail. In other words, what is the violation AND why is that violation bad?

Ks: I love them, but I don't vote on nothing. Framework needs to be strong or it needs to not bog down the real parts of the argument. Links need to link..... please (generics won't save you)......Alt needs to make sense, repeat them twice for me, and if they're long, I'd like to be told in flex or given a copy. Even if I know your literature, I am not debating. Please do the work for me in round. Identity arguments are fine, do as you please just don't be offensive or overly satirical about real violence. You must still win the actual debate and make the actual arguments for me to vote. This runs both ways, so anyone reading the K should do so if you want but if this is your winning strategy then make sure I know why and am not filling anything in for you where you believe I should be able to. “Use of the state” is a link of omission at best. Not offense alone. You need external reason and if your “use of the state specifically” is just repetition of all the things the state either has done or could do is not enough of a link to prove in the context of the round. How is the METHOD uniquely causing this issue?

Any other questions about my paradigm or my opinions/feelings about debate can be directed to me by email at fikertesfaye15@gmail.com

Have your debate. Live your life. Yee, and dare I say it, haw.

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.