CX: Policymaker. Debating between two opposing viewpoints makes a bill a law. Simple right? In this activity we argue both sides of an issue, so as a debater you should use your past experiences as an aff or neg to your advantage when you are arguing your case. Be prepared, show me through your evidence and in your own words why the other side's contentions do not hold up versus your plan/disadvantages. Winners do not just read their evidence cards, they understand the content of their cards and use that content to their advantage when on offense or defense. Try to limit your dropped arguments, and if you are dropping any arguments then signal it to me in your speech (I will not penalize you for this). Most important, relax and have fun with this!

*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit.

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.

Debate Paradigm:

I am a open book clean slate judge. I come into the round with a blank sheet of paper and it is your job to tell me what to vote at the end of the day and what it means when I sign my ballot. Impact analysis is key for me.

I am not a fan of:

-K Debate

I prefer:

- Organization is key for me If i don't know where you are in the speech or how to put it in the flow It wont end a factor in my decision

I have no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. I expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. I know there is a resolution and two sides. I have no preference on specific arguments such Ks, or different frameworks.

I am comfortable with speed / spreading. If you have clarity problems at top speed slow down. Give me pin time while spreading through analytics.

I will evaluate the debate round in the best way I think it should, and I prefer a healthy debate on which are the biggest issues in the debate round over me trying to figure it out alone. Any assistance you can provide to help guide that evaluation in your final speech, and a clear articulation on why you have won the debate round is always appreciated. I take my evaluation very seriously and feel obligated to tell the debaters how I make my decisions to the best way I possibly can.

Structure of the debate is very important me, sign post, tell me where you are on the flow, help me keep my flow clean if you wish to make sure I follow the debate in the manor you wish me to.

I have experience judging all forms of debate, by CX is my home.

If you have specific questions, please ask. I am more than happy to help.

About me: I debated policy debate in Highschool for Hightower HS, Fort Bend Tx, 04-06. Won UIL state, and made it in the top 16 of TFA state. I debated at Uni of Houston, before they had a 'real' policy debate program, like they have now, self-entering tournament with a partnership with Vanderbilt University. Notable highlight was out rounds at USC's JvNATs freshman year. When debating for UH became impossible I focused on card cutting / assistant for Vanderbilt in their run to top up 16 at the NDT. I now am an employee for a multinational as an IT Professional. I have assisted with the Houston Urban Debate League where I have functioned as a debate judge and assistance coaches in past year for Yate HS and HIAS.

blake.e.gilson ( ~ at ~ ) gmail . com

riley.quinn.hardwick@gmail.com

DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

Each format has its own unique attributes, and you should always respect those attributes unless you explicitly read theory which compels me to respect your shirking of those attributes. I am willing to vote on unorthodoxy, but I have to have an important reason to vote on that unorthodoxy.

I am a former CX debater and a tab judge. CX is the format I'm most familiar with, but I have debated and judged virtually every format. When I say I am a tab judge, I don't mean to communicate that I won't evaluate claims based on my own knowledge and experience. If your case relies on my acceptance of your argument that the sky is red, you aren't going to win. I am a tab judge in the sense that you should not assume any one paradigm from me.

My philosophy is that each round has its own rules and must be evaluated depending on what emerges in-round. You should always tell me what is the focus of the round and why. Tell me what framework is most important, tell me what my role is, tell me what the role of my ballot is, tell me which voting issues are the most critical. Otherwise, I will make those decisions based on my own experiences and values.

It is not my job to automatically recognize an argument you are making or extend an argument on your behalf. I'm well-versed in a lot of the theory that might come up. But I prefer being exposed to new, niche, creative approaches and ideas. The caveat to that preference is I'm not well-versed in ideas I haven't yet been exposed to. Please loop me in.

Both traditional and progressive arguments are fine as long as you do them well. Don't ask me whether I prefer one argument over another, or whether I prefer one set of values over another. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's your argument to make. Context and evidence is everything, and it is very likely that I will prefer a sensible and empirically-backed argument over a sensible analytic. What I will say is that some arguments are extremely difficult (effectively impossible) to prove to me. For example, capitalism is a good or sustainable economic system, immigration causes overpopulation, the world is overpopulated, racism isn't alive and well, etc. I've seen ideas like those circulating in the debate space for a while. I don't know if debaters actually believe ideas like those, or if those are desperate grabs at a win, but don't run them on me. I would rather you collapse on ideas you are winning and prove to me why those are paramount voting issues than throw bigoted spaghetti at the wall and hope that breadth impresses me. It won't.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT:

You frame the round and my flow determines the W. In order to win my ballot, you must 1.) provide a framing mechanism or specify which framing mechanism should be preferred and why 2.) win offense to that framing mechanism and prove that your advocacy has the strongest link to that framework and 3.) provide an impact calculus.

I always use gateway issues (T, theory, framing) to help frame my decision. If those issues don't come up, or their clash lacks depth, I consider how well each team has met their burden and allow that to frame my decision. Notice that I say this is how I frame my decision. This alone will not win you my ballot. I vote holistically. You might win one important issue and lose every other issue on the flow, resulting in an overall loss.

Be considerate about how you construct your case, how you write analytics, and how you organize your speeches. I am a bit of a gamesplayer in that I track how the flow of your speech mirrors your opponent's flow. Spending the bulk of a constructive speech reading your evidence into the round without reading offense on your opponents' case or reading defensive arguments is poor strategy. Collapses should be intentional, not an accident resulting from mass concession.

Your advocacy suite should be strategically organized and directly communicated so as to make the decision abundantly clear for me. I want clear extensions, roadmapping, and signposting. If you are going to roadmap, give me a detailed roadmap of the distinct arguments you plan to cover in your speech. Do not tell me the order will be 'aff and then neg', or something to that effect. Those are literally the only two sides we will be discussing in any debate round. It's a given that you will cover one or the other at some point in the round.

INTERP EVENTS:

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a slate (contextualizing the piece, stating the theme, listing the title[s] and author[s] of the source material[s], and reiterating the central theme of the piece), complete the exposition, rise into the climax, and then fall into the resolution.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and your binder to block different elements of your piece or characterize different characters. Utilize eye contact considerately as well.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Utilize vocal inflection, pacing, clarity, enunciation, accents (where appropriate), and volume to discern between different characters and different scenes. The intentional application of these elements can be used to juxtapose different elements, emphasize important ideas, and discern between different characters.

Physically move from point to point in accordance with the speaker's triangle. Use gestures to illustrate or emphasize points

The plot of your piece should be clear and easy to map. Whether you are utilizing one source or multiple sources, your piece should be paced and organized with lots of consideration. You should fully embody each character depicted, and there should be a clear distinction between each characters, each scene, each action, and each section in your piece.

SPEECH EVENTS:

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a roadmap, two to three supporting arguments, a restatement of the roadmap, and a conclusion. Stick closely to this organization and signpost generously throughout your speech. Use verbal transitions and the speaker's triangle to help map your speech.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally throughout your piece. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and other elements to make your piece moving, memorable, and engaging. Utilize eye contact as well. Look at your judges and your audience-don't look through us.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Except on rare occasions when you may exercise a characterization, you should maintain even pacing, appropriate projection, varied inflection, vocal clarity, and a confident, conversational style. Avoid coming off as meek, stilted, confused, monotonous, etc.

For original oratory, make sure you clearly define your personal connection to the content in your introduction and conclusion.

For informative oratory, make sure your visual aids are simple, straightforward, easy to read, easy to decipher, and actually enhance your speech. Any attempts at humor are always a plus.

For any speech event, ensure that you are citing a healthy amount of sources in your speech. I like a balance between qualitative and quantitative evidence in the speeches I judge.

Content and presentation are equally important to me. I prefer three point speeches, but I will always prefer a holistically superior two-point speech to a superficial and sloppy three-point speech. The content should have depth and be logically organized.

Email: belahossain2002@gmail.com

To start with, I have about 4 years of experience in CX. I'm familiar with most of the stuff. I have also debated LD for a while. I try to keep myself updated with all of the terms and topics for both. However, I would like to be reminded or explained about a few terms or shorthand if I'm confused.

Speed and technical reasoning are more than welcome unless you exclude people. Relative Analysis, Clash, and Warranting shape the debate. I respect debaters who use verbal and nonverbal cues to mark crucial information as such, regardless of speech and skill. Slowing down, changing your tone, and repeating yourself are all effective ways to communicate that something is essential, and you should use it. To avoid me misinterpreting you or believing you're using jargon as a support, you should simplify whenever possible.

I flow most of my rounds electronically to be efficient. Make whatever use you choose of that.

I normally start at 28 speaker points and move up or down from there based on productivity, simplicity, clever strategic judgments, and overall essence. I don't mind if you're funny or serious. Simply do your job well.

Theory:

I appreciate the strategic application of theory, but you must slow down and allow me more time to write, construct comprehensive arguments with a claim, some justifications, and an impact, and participate in comparative analysis.

K-affs:

I'm not excessively specific with regards to how the aff connects with the topic; simply be certain that the relationship is clear. Knowing your portrayal and having consistency of clarification from 1AC to 2AR is significant. You would be all around served to have thoroughly considered a case list supported by your counter-interpretation against a structure so you can ventilate genuine discussions that would work out under your model.

Topicality:

The more specific the explanation, the better. I refrain from competing interpretations, as I think one of the burdens of those involved is to defend their choice of support. Rationality is an argument for the counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. Limits discussion usually determines how I feel about the adequacy of aff. Accuracy standards are underutilized, and access to all sorts of interesting educational impacts that can be applied as a lack of solvency on a case-by-case basis.

Kritiks:

K-frame is theoretical. You ought to deal with it as such. I'm inquisitive about resolving questions of ways this debate, the wider activity, myself, you, your opponents, and any target that might be there are implicated inside your arguments.

Counter Plans:

A response plan for a specific case is better than a universal one. It depends on the multi-actor propensity, counseling conditions and conditions.

Disadvantages:

I tend to think that beginning conditions decide the course of occasions, so uniqueness as a rule decides the course of a connection. Be that as it may, I acknowledge the contention that typically not the case in certain cases, as distant as the proof base exists.

Framework:

Debate is an activity wonderful from other speech oriented activities, and I care about keeping that distinction. Right here are a few inquiries to guide your thinking regardless of your vision of debate: What kinds of discussions are counted and why do they count greater numbers than others we could be having? Why debate in preference to a few other modes of opposition or scholarly/activist work? What is the function of the aff? What's the function of the negative? How does conflict work? What limits exist below your interpretation?

Policymaker judges tend to take the theoretical viewpoint that they are the "policymaker," and as such, they vote for the side that presents the best policy option. Although I'm perfectly fine voting for Neg with no plan, and good DisAds, advocating for SQuo.

Typically, Policymakers vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments. The basic policy of this paradigm is the weighing of the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages.

The most important thing I look at is clash and consistency on my flow. Based on the major arguments in the round, the most sound reasoning and most consistent argumentation (team cohesion) will usually win.

Which world do I want to live in? What are the biggest issues (clash and drops)? Tell me why you win.

Communication and Resolution of the issues both important.

Quality of evidence is more important that quantity, but there should be a "sufficient" quantity of evidence.

I can't see a team winning a round without credible DisAds. Advantages help with weighing as well.

I prefer a more statesman-like, persuasive rate of speech. With faster rate of speech, please break to summarize and slow to highlight key points.

Kritiks can be overused. But when focused and paired with good DisAds, a relevant and well-explained kritik can further highlight an undesirable plan and faulty world view. Please use kritik wisely, if at all.

they/them

rylee.stgl@gmail.com for evidence sharing purposes.

I participated in policy debate at both the high school and collegiate level.

Spreading is okay. Open cross-examination and flex prep are okay as long as it is consensual between the competitors. All arguments are acceptable, K and Theory included. I default to policy-making. Defending the status quo is a valid negative position.

Disadvantages: Specific/non generic links are the most important thing.

Counterplans: Would honestly rather you read five good disadvantages than four good disadvantages and a medium counterplan that is going to have seven perms read on it. Counterplans are fine, obviously, but should be specific. Default position is that PICs are bad so just know you'll have to do more work to convince me.

Theory: There should be a very clear warrant for it. If there isn't a clear warrant for the argument, RVIs are hip and cool. I value clash, fairness, and education in that order so ideally I would rather you be having a conversation about the efficacy of the AFF's plan but there is an expectation to maintain competitive integrity.

Topicality: Most topicality arguments come off as time skews and I tend to value reasonability pretty highly so unless the AFF is clearly nontopical (effectually topical or extra topical included) there is a low chance I will vote on this. If the topicality argument is unfounded, RVIs are hip and cool.

Kritiks: Critique the AFF, not just the resolution. Prefer Ks with actionable alternatives.

Framework (CX): As mentioned above, I default to policy-making framework so I want to see the AFF's plan weighed against either the status quo, counterplan(s), or alternative(s). That said, probability > magnitude, provided the impacts are suitably large. Timeframe is tricky depending on impact, mass extinction tomorrow isn't necessarily as impactful as continued systemic violence, for instance, but there are reasonable arguments on both sides and I think that is a debate worth having.

Framework (LD): Most framework debates, in my experience, just dissolve to the frameworks being the same or similar enough that the winning side can solve using either. Your frameworks should have specific value criteria to help weigh the round.

If you have any questions not covered by the above or would like elaboration, please ask.

Paradigms: The main paradigm I have is pertaining to case debate is using "big picture" , meaning primarily main arguments along with supporting evidence without going too much into the technicalities of the subject at hand. In addition to this, spreading is fine, however if the competitor spreads to the point where what is being said is not understood by the judge and the competitors, it ultimately does not help the competitor in the debate. What helps me is slowing down once they are on the main arguments and as the competitor gets into the supporting evidence and arguments, they can speed up a bit. Other than this, there are no other specific paradigms.