CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.

General info for all debate—

1) no speed - this is a communication event

2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.

4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.

Specifics

LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.

CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

I’m pretty lenient. I don’t care if you cuss, just tell your story the best you can. Make sure to have distinct characters, clean transitions, clear blocking and don’t yell as your way of “emotion “. Other wise I’m pretty cool with whatever. Just tell the stories to the best of your ability, DONT FORCE EMOTIONS. Thank you :)

POLICY

I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should vote on it. As long as you are winning that it is an argument that I should be listening to, then I will evaluate it. This also means that the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions.
Topicality - My default position is that there needs to be an abuse story. I am open to arguments otherwise, but be aware if you expect to win on potential abuse you need to spend a lot of time arguing why I should vote on potential abuse.

Disads - Whatever is probably fine. I think your internal link story should make sense.
Counterplans - Whatever is probably fine without any theoretical objections won by the aff.
Theory - Make sure you tell me how my ballot functions. I tend to think I should reject the argument, not the team. If you think I should reject the team you are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that that is the best remedy.
Kritiks - I'm not as well versed in the literature as I would like to be. I do not have a problem with Ks (aff or neg), but don't expect me to know what <insert your author> says about the topic. As such, without reading me the evidence, just telling me what the author says does not resonate with me. I want to know how my ballot functions in the world of the alternative and on what scale (am I taking a stance in the debate community, is it just an affirmation of the discussion we had, etc).

WHEN JUDGING AT UIL TOURNAMENTS...

I think you should adhere to the norms for the organization in which you are competing. I intend to respect UIL rules by reducing your speaker points if you choose to spread. I am able to flow your arguments and will make a decision based on the arguments in the round.

LD: To me, LD is still, at least somewhat, a Value debate. It isn't Policy debate for a reason. Yes, I understand that it has gotten more progressive, but understand judge adaptation too. However, you can still run a somewhat progressive case while respecting a Value Debate premise. That's the sweet spot. Weigh the impacts of both sides of the resolution. Give evidence (empirical, theoretical, philosophical), and give voters. Convince me which world I would rather live in - the affirmative or negative. In other words - if you don't tell me why, I'm not likely to vote. Spreading evidence only gets you half way.

CX: See most of LD, except remove the Value Debate part. Weigh impacts of both sides. Direct CLASH! I will not vote solely on T unless it is completely unanswered by the aff. Give empirical evidence - not a card that is just someone's onion that you are trying to pass off as evidence. Negative, clash with the aff's case, but bring some offense too.

CX and LD - be kind, professional and understandable.

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Congress: I am looking for fluid speeches that connect to previous arguments. I think it is important to have clash, refute and/or enhance your fellow representative's arguments.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

I HIGHLY APPRECIATE AN EMAIL CHAIN: My email is enriquemtz300@gmail.com.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments:

Hello Everyone! My name is Enrique Martinez, and I am:

Will be pursuing a MA in Economics at George Mason University: Fall 2022-May 2024 (projected)

Former coach at Mount Pleasant High School: 2020-2022

Mount Pleasant High School Class of 2018 (Go Tigers): Competed in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas Debate

UNT Class of 2019 (Go Mean Green): Judged debate, speech, interp at various tournaments. No competing.

I have expanded my knowledge of the various competitions that are readily available for students to participate in since competing as a student. So I am very aware of much of the workings of various speech and debate events.

Please let me know if there are any general questions before the round starts. I have outlined how I view several arguments for debate competitions below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

Thoughts: I lean more traditional (I don't mind which way you go tbh), but I am entirely open to the possibility of hearing critical arguments. If I hear a critical argument, you must explain it and its role in the round. LD debaters can cross-reference my views of policy debate. In regards to speed, keep it about 65-75%. Cool if you need to finish a point before the time is up, but make sure you're not going so fast that I don't understand you. (MORE COMING SOON, ASK FOR SPECIFICS)

Progressive vs. Traditional: I'm completely fine with either form of LD debate. If I were to put these on a spectrum, I would be closer to traditional than progressive, but I am not bothered by either form of debate. This is mainly because I have debated and judged in both CX and LD at some point.

Framework: Whether it be Value/Criterion or simply a framework, this is one of the most vital parts of an LD case. I like to see weighing going on between frameworks. I also want to see one side (respectfully) dismantle the opponent's fw. Lastly, I need to see and hear how the fw case ties to the resolution and the case as a whole.

Kritik: I need the presenter of the K to explain how it is applicable in the sense of the round. I am okay with hearing the K, but I am unaware of all literature involved in these arguments. Even if I was, it is the competitors' responsibility to show their understanding of the K, doesn't expect me to make any leaps. In my perspective, viability and empirics are vital for the NEG to win the K. In addition to commonly accepted ideas, I would discourage reading a communist alternative in a K, as my research and background make it difficult to vote for it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-Examination/Policy Debate:

Overview: As a policymaker judge, I prefer that argument stay within the realm of the resolution. I am okay with K's, T's, and theory arguments as long as you can explain their applicability in the round or policymaking. I will break down my thoughts on most arguments. If you have any questions, please ask. As for my experience: I was a CX debater for two years and occasionally did LD as well as an HS student, and I have been coaching since 2020.

Comments: I will STRONGLY ENCOURAGE that you do not run a whole chunk of off-case arguments if you're going to throw them out. At the same time, go for whatever suits you best within the round, but please explain why you are kicking an argument.

DA- With every DA, make sure it covers everything in a DA, such as impacts. Also, generic DA's are fine, but the more specific it is to the AFF, the better.

CP- I am good with CP's, but ensure you cover everything when presenting it in the 2AC. Explain how the resolution is not plausible or why the CP is preferable. Make sure that I can completely understand

T- Topicality is fine with me, with the most crucial thing in the round being the interpretations. It would help if you also conveyed to the judge why your interpretation is preferable to the opposition's definition.

K- While I am a policymaker judge, I am willing to hear K's out. I ask each team running the K to take some time to explain how the K lit because I may not be as familiar with it depending on the K. Also, explain how the K does/doesn't relate to the actual resolution and policy. In my perspective, viability and empirics are vital for the NEG to win the K. In addition to commonly accepted ideas, I would discourage reading a communist alternative in a K, as my research and background make it difficult to vote for it.

Theory- This argument is fine with me, but ensure it runs correctly. Be able to explain if there is/isn't an abuse issue.

Framework- Framework is a debatable issue in the round. Be able to explain why I should prefer your framework over the one presented by the opponent.

Impact Calc-Highly appreciated.

Speed: Keep it about 60-70%, or about 215-245 words per minute, if that helps more. I tend to prefer that your arguments are well thought out and that you can express your arguments to the fullest of your ability without risking the possibility that the message is not conveyed. I understand that spreading can be the norm and the benefits, such as creating valuable skills like processing thoughts rapidly. Still, it is not how most people, especially policymakers, discuss their ideas. Cool if you need to finish a point before the time is up, but make sure you're not going so fast that I don't understand you.

Speaker Points-Top speaker (usually) gets a 30. Everyone else falls according to volume, clarity, and appropriate tone (not as vital). The only exception is if there is no outstanding speaker in the round. If there is a preset speaker point system on my end with details provided by the tournament organizers, I will default to those and judge accordingly. Since I judge many schools from different backgrounds, having one set of speaker points is challenging.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech:

Extemp-I prefer more substantive analysis rather than the number of sources. With that said, 1-2 sources per point are usually safe. Ensure the speech is well-structured, including signposts to facilitate following along.

Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

I am an old school judge. I like framework and do not enjoy listing to spread. I will take some speed as long as I can understand. I do not like theory. Debate the resolution.

My name is Michael Williams and I have been involved in Interp/speech for the last 10 years, competing and coaching these events. What I look for is voice and interpretation to the story or speech that you are presenting. I seek ample evidence for extemp so that you can get your point across. Don't forget however to draw me in with a hook and have an organized flow to your speech. I look forward to your presentations and congratulations on all of your hard work and accomplishments.

Hello All! My Name is Ryan Williams and I have been involved in Interp for over 15 years both as a competitor and as a coach. What I am particularly influenced by, when judging a round, is how well the interpreter uses their voice in register and tonality. I also look for how well the interpreter tells the story and invokes emotion in their performance whether it be humorous or dramatic.

In OO, IX, DX or any other speaking event, I look for how well a person presents their perspective using the entire space naturally while maintaining eye contact with the entire audience. I also look for how well the speaker utilizes their voice and communicates their points in a clear and logical way so that the presentation is easy to follow.