IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

My paradigm is simple- be good.

When it comes to debate, I won't reward "debate tricks"... you need to do a better job with your case than the opponent, not Reductio Ad Absurdum.

I have a background as a History and Government & Economics instructor; getting simple statistics, historical precedent, and overall facts incorrect will hurt you. I don't judge that way to "gotcha"- I judge that way because winning debate requires you to be "the expert in the room."

I can adjust to different styles of debate but spreading is likely to hurt you more than help you.

With speech, I want to believe the character(s) you create. With humorous pieces, I want to be entertained (and maybe even smile). With dramatic pieces, create the scene for me... you do not advance/place because you have the "saddest" piece.

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

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.

My paradigm is that I don't believe in one. This is your round, I am open to any argument, which means that you frame and tell me how to weigh the round. Speed is fine. Do you, basically. If you have more specific questions feel free to ask!

Hello,

My name is Justin Dwyer and this is my judge paradigm. A little bit about myself before I get into the specific things i look for when judging each event. I competed in speech and debate all 4 years of high school and also competed for 3 years in college in NPDA and IPDA debate. I at one point or another have competed in every debate type and most speech events. The main outcome that I think debate rounds should have is some educational aspect where each competitor leaves the round better than when they walked in. The other key component to every debate is clash. Clash is important when evaluating debaters and their cases. But now for the line by line of what i look for in each event.

LD:

In LD I was a very traditional debater. The philosophy aspect is huge when it come to deciding the round. That being said, you can win or lose a round with me strictly on the value debate. If you cannot uphold your own value or show me why yours is what should be looked at first it is very had to win. After that it is up to you as a debater to steer me to what you want me to vote for. If the value and framework debate is a wash I will look towards the voting issues brought up by both debaters. That being said, the more flushed out your argumentation is the better. I will not do the work on the flow for you.

CX:

When it comes to CX I am a judge that is very persuaded by the flow. If you do the work on the flow and give me reasons why that is important to the round I will be more inclined to vote for that side. I feel that K's and off case hold a lot of weight if used effectively to combat the AFF. I am willing to listen to any and all argumentations but, if it is more of a out of the box argument then you need to do the work to guide me on how it is relevant and how it adds to the debate. For the Affirmative the best defense is a good offence. If you can prove to me that voting for the AFF would in any way lead to a 1% net positive increase from the status que the round is almost decided for me. At the end of the day just make sure there is clash and all information presented is relevant and realistic to what the topic is asking for.

PF:

When it comes to PF I am a very lay judge. If you can persuade me to vote for you in a realistic way you win my ballot. In PF there is many ways to do that but for me the easiest is the flow.

When it comes to speaker points I feel like I might stray from some judges. I enjoy a nice pleasant voice as a lot of judges do but, the content of your speech also effects your points. Be effective and on topic along with that and you will garner more speaker points from me.

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

2 year Lincoln Douglas Debater

2 year CX Debater

2 year State Qualifier, 4th Place State 2019, 4th Place Speaker

Mass Communications/ Theatre Technology and Design major Midwestern State University '23

Email: haggardtiff@gmail.com

Please include me in all email chains.

I am a tab judge, but I am not a fan of Kritiks, so it will take some extra work to sell me on those.

I do not tolerate any form of disrespect or hate in a round, and I will flatline your speaker points at 20.

Key Notes:

I will not include flashing in your prep time unless I find you are abusing the time.

Quality>Quantity

If you would like to keep your own prep, just announce starting and ending times during each prep, or I can keep it for you.

If your audio cuts out, I will ask you to start back from the last thing I heard.

I do require cameras to be on unless extreme circumstances.

Overall, I will judge based on the highest quality evidence, arguments, and organization skills brought into the round. I wish the best for all of you!

It’s easiest to say that I’m heavy on value and framework and light on the k and theory. This is not to say avoid the theory and kritik; it’s just rare that I am convinced by the reasoning there as it is most often used as a means to limit the scope of discourse which is fundamentally anti-debate. Spreading is a similar issue. I’m fine with moderate speed spreading, but if you’re tripping over words more often than not, I’m simply not going to be able to understand you. Additionally, I’ve often seen it as a means to flood the field or refer to niche theories or data with uncommon abbreviations or buzzwords that are often not going to be immediately understood by the average debater. This is abusive. Your cards can often be summed up in fewer words than would necessitate spreading.

My paradigm is pretty traditional. Whether it's a debate or a speech, you must follow the format for that particular category. For example, LD Debate must follow the value/criterion/contention format. If you substitute a policy debater for a round, make sure they are at least familiar with the basics of LD! If they don't have a value/criterion, I will automatically give the round to the opponent.

If you start spreading to where I cannot understand you, I will automatically give the round to the opponent. Simply put, if I cannot understand what you are saying, I cannot judge it.

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.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 22 years and I am an NSDA Two-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

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.

Last updated - 9/22/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

Policy -

I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.

I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

LD Paradigm

I prefer a case directly centered around the value and criteria. I am ok with facts and statistic, but being a value debate arguing facts will not necessarily win my ballot. I flow the cases and write extensive ballots so there is not a question as to how I vote. I like a communication round, so I am not a fan of speed or spreading. If an argument is dropped, I will not vote on that drop unless the opponent points out the drop. I pay close attention during CX time and how the q and a are used in follow up speeches. I am not a fan of pre-written argumentation on the resolution when it is read in isolation to the arguments presented in an individual’s case. I like a good strong final speech and will weigh voters. I like to judge JV debaters and help grow them as speakers using the comments I make on my ballot. I do not like to disclose. I do like to keep my own time because I like to see how the debater utilizes his/her time. I am NOT a policy judge, so policy terms are not going to sway my decision.

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.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

tab judge; will vote on what is presented.

spreading is accepted

will vote on quality of arguments vs. quantity of arguments

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.