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. I do not form part of the email chain.

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.

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.

I have coached debate for 20 years. I have coached multiple state champions and National qualifiers. I like to see strong clash in the round and prefer the traditional style of should/would argumentation in LD. I don't like to see policy plans and K in LD. I don't mind them in CX, but do not like to see generic argumentation that you pull out round after round. That being said, I will adapt to you - your job is to make sure you define the framework of the round. Don't assume I have read your advocacy authors. Spell it out.

Slow down if you want me to flow it. There is a big difference between hearing and being able to process the information that is being presented.

Semantics are important. Rhetoric is important. A strong speaker with solid word choice is always going to score better than a spewing gasper. Analysis presented well, weighs as much as evidence that is not supported with argumentation.

I LOVE CONGRESS! and speaking events, and actors, and readers, and the forensic community. Don't be a jerk and we'll get along just swell.

In short: I'll vote for anything if it's impacted well. I'm not the fastest flow, so don't speed through arguments please, particularly in the later parts of debating theory and disads. Default to competing interpretations in T-debates, ok with CPs, and partial to the K. With Ks, I'm not so seasoned with the theory that is popular in K debates, so please explain the theory in its application to the aff. Clear taglines and be collegial.

I am an old school traditional judge.

In Congress - If you ask for an in house recess to pad a speech or to address the chamber because no one is speaking - DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK! Nothing annoys congress judges more than 15 minutes of caucusing and getting splits, only for no one to be ready. The PO should be running the round and is perfectly capable of admonishing those who are not ready to speak. Otherwise, I like a good intro with a 2 pt preview and good, creative arguments that show critical thinking. Be active in the round and ask good questions.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

James Allen
Hallsville '9-'13
University of Texas - Arlington '13-'17

I competed extensively on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits in North, East and South Texas as well as the TOC. Given the meta of that judging pool and its exceptionally diverse preferences on various aspects of debate, I highly value debaters' versatility and adaptability in meeting judges where they are most comfortable adjudicating rounds. Despite this, I believe my paradigm is more adaptable to debaters than is typical because I adjudicate based on what participants have to say, not on whether their content more closely aligns with my assumptions on a given topic. I frequently endorse debaters whose argumentation exhibits effectiveness and efficiency even though I might disagree with the logic of a particular argument.

Thusly, I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.

On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences:

I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary.

Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument.

Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a utopian/dystopian CP.

Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in a rebuttal if the argument is legitimate and strategic.

Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.

Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, will revolve around argumentative agency.

Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere or disingenuous.

Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Extensions- I will account for the time skew in the 1AR if I feel that it is necessary. You must extend the warrants and implications of arguments in the rebuttals for me to consider it as offense. If I end up having to intervene, I will be considerably displeased and will be lazy.

Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.

To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how and why I should vote. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to the quality of argumentation.

Notes regarding the virtual nature of online tournaments:

I would advise disclosing advocacies in constructive and rebuttal speeches through file sharing to avoid the tragic scenario in which connectivity issues degrade clarity. I suggest utilizing OBS to record speeches so that they may be made available in the event of technical difficulties. I most strongly advise that you disclose all of your evidence and strategies on the open evidence wiki.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.

Most of all, I must express how grateful I am for the opportunity to listen to what you each have to say. Thank you for challenging yourselves, facing your fears, and letting your voices be heard. Cherish this opportunity and wield it on your journeys to becoming the best version of yourselves.

For email chains - jaylonialvarado@gmail.com.

I competed in speech and debate events throughout high school. Specifically, LD debate all four years, and then Extemp in my last three years. So my source of knowledge in every debate round is primarily driven from my experiences in those events. I have a fair bit of knowledge of progressive debate. It would be to your benefit to ask me whether or not I am familiar with whatever you're wanting to run before the start of the round if it's more of a nontraditional argument/case. Chances are i will be okay with whatever it is your planning to run as long as you are able to explain it to me clear enough in round. If you don't think you know your case well enough to explain it, it will be a lot harder to vote up if i don't understand it either.

I don't prefer speed, but can handle it in any debate event as a long as you provide a clear and coherent speech. I'll flow it if I can understand it, but make sure you slow down on your tags. I value quality arguments over quantity. Don't expect me to flow incoherent speech/tags. If i can't hear the tag in constructive, i won't extend those arguments in rebuttals.

There are some arguments that as a judge I don't want to see in a debate round. Arguments that are sexist/trans-phobic/homo-phobic/racist/etc.... I will flow whatever you want to run in the round, just understand as you have your own views on certain topics, so do i.

Tag your arguments. Even if you're thinking it sounds repetitive it helps me as a judge follow the debate and make clear what is dropped in the round. The road-map you give is rarely 100% followed, so the best thing to do is tag as you go in the round.

K's- I enjoy well run K's quite a lot. The most important part of the K for me is the Link and has to be upheld throughout the round by whoever is running the K. Don't expect me just to automatically believe the Alt and the implications. Take your time to provide a strong amount of argumentation for the k if it the focal point of case.

DA's- Run whatever you feel is appropriate. Don't expect me to automatically flow any DA's through with out you properly extending them. Tell me the short tag for each DA in the road map so i can flow them properly.

CP's- Take your time to explain the plan text. I enjoy creative CP's as long as they remain probable. Even if the plan leans towards the more abstract side of debate these are still fun, but make sure you effectively explain them in the time you have.

T- T arguments is okay. Don't run it unless your confident there is a violation warranting the argument. Please take as much time as you can on this if you believe this changes the ballot. Don't forget to still extend your own case / arguments through because i will still consider them dropped if you don't extend them.

Theory- I'm not too familiar with any particular theory arguments. I'm okay with hearing them as long as the articulation of the argument is clear and then you still provide proper analysis on how its relevant to the round.

LD- I find my self to vote on the given role of the ballot if there is one. If you set up a burden make sure to point out whether or not it has been met and why it's relevant to the scope of the debate. Value / Criterion debate is important in every round as it established a ground for the basis of your case (only if there is one in case). Don't forget about them by the time we get to your final speech. please remember i am NOT flowing anything in CX, this is time allotted for the debaters to ask clarifying questions not to give voters. No open prep.

PF- Be clear about your impact calc and the clearer speakers tend to grab my ballot.

CX- I'm open to any type of debate the round turns into. Don't provide frivolous arguments just for the point of having them. i much rather hear quality arguments then those that are being thrown out simply to suck up time. Give clear road maps and address a clear order. Just ac/nc is okay but address the order of the DA's / CP's / and any other arguments that are going to be addressed. Establish drops first thing in your speech please. I don't want to see any prompting in cross.

Speaks...

The debate should be fun for everyone involved. Always just try to be respectful. Good spirited competitors will see that their energy reflects the speaker's points they earn in the round. But the same goes for those who try to bring the mood down with negative attitudes in the round. I understand in some events like CX the cross can be pretty heated, which is OK as long as all debaters are remaining respectful of each other.

Come to University of Houston for LD camp this summer! UH has a great staff, is reasonably priced, and has an excellent staff to student ratio. If you have questions feel free to email me.

Berkeley update not good for strategies that involve upwards of 7+ off case positions.

blakeandrews55@gmail.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.

Head Coach at McNeil.

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Head Coach at McNeil High School

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

About Me:

Pronouns: She/Her

Conflicts: Prosper HS, McNeil HS

Email: antonakakisas@gmail.com (this is the only email that should be put on the email chain. I don't care if you have another previous email of mine send the doc to this one.)

Graduated from Prosper High School in 2019. I did LD for four years. I debated on the national circuit, TFA, NSDA, and UIL.

I mostly went for ks, particularly regarding post-modernism, post-structuralism, anarchism, security/militarism, and reps, but I also really like good case debate and phil/framework.

TFA State 2024 Update:

I have not been judging a significant amount of circuit debate the last two years. When it comes to speed feel free to spread. but I am not the fastest flow-er in the world so lower the speed of your spreading just a bit. I'll say clear three times before I stop flowing. Make sure you slow down significantly on tags and cites.

A few important things:

-If you're familiar with Blake Andrews' paradigm that's probably quite a similar way in which I view debate (given that he was my coach).

-Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent.

-If you read an independent voter I expect it to follow the actual structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact), it should hopefully be carded but it's not the end of the world, and it should have a clear and articulated terminal impact that is weighed and framed in terms of how it interacts with the other higher level arguments of the round. If its like 10 or 20 seconds long I will not vote on it.

I don't mind stock debate whatsoever and if that's what you're best at go for it. I think you should generally debate in the way you find most effective, but make your arguments clear and understand them well. I find that much more respectable than running arguments you aren't familiar with.

I'm inclined to err on reasonability. If there isn't any real abuse going on in the round I probably won't vote on theory.

If I think you're being toxic, offensive, or anything else related to this then your speaks will drop and you could lose the round for it as well. I've done it before and I'll do it again.

I am NOT the judge for intense theory debates. This means if you go for it I'll do my best to give a good adjudication, but don't be surprised if it's not explained incredibly.

I won't vote on arguments I deem offensive, which is like most judges, however, I also don't vote on arguments I deem unethical (the following args are not auto-losses, but I won't evaluate them): Edelman or any combination of queerness with some self-violence, ex: queer bomb. I will simply not flow the argument.

Also, I'm not the fastest judge when it comes to flowing, i.e. don't go full speed. If I had to quantify it maybe my speed is a 7.5-8/10. I'll say clear 3 times if you're too fast or unclear, after that I'll stop flowing your arguments until you decide to clear up. This will affect your speaks.

Preferences:

K: 1

Theory: 4

Topicality: 4

Policy: 2

Framework: 1

Tricks: 3

Performance: 1

Extra Things I Like:

-Impact Turns: I think these are underutilized in debate, but keep in mind I don't mean impact turning racism bad and that sorta thing.

-Creative Strategies

-Concise crystallization and voters

-Tell me when to clearly switch to a new flow for overviews/counter-interps.

-Clear signposting.

Extra Things I Don't Like:

-Recycled strategies and frameworks

-Rudeness or hostility. Here, I reserve the right to drop you or tank speaks as I see fit. This also applies to very rude or overly-critical post-rounding.

-Not a fan of blippy arguments and spikes

-When debaters who are objectively more experienced and skilled go overkill on their opponent. You can clearly win a round, but be easy and constructive.

-Frivolous/Time Suck Theory Strats (I won't down you for it. but I'm not gonna be thrilled and your speaks will reflect this.)

For Policy:

A lot of my views are pretty similar as LD generally. It comes down to a basic offense/defense paradigm as always. I default policymaking and competing interps, but can of course be persuaded otherwise.

For PF:

I view PF through an offense/defense paradigm as well. I don't judge it much, but I will apply the same basic paradigm that operates under util/policymaking unless you tell me a different way to frame the round.

Debated 4 years of policy in Texas on UIL and TFA and judged some after.

I'll vote on most anything if it's impacted out well enough, make sure and compare impacts especially between arguments of different kinds (T vs policy args vs Kritik) use framework or good impact calc when there are multiple args on the flow.

I'll vote on Topicality if you do the work on it. It does need to be a clear case of nontopicality though for me to vote. Feel free to just run it though as a test. Also on the aff feel free to read arguments against T or about it being a waste of time.

I'm cool with Kritiks. I can buy into any Kritik, but I'm a big fan of topic specific kritiks. Not well versed with Kritik affs, but I can surely vote on it. I'm less likely to vote on a kritik that is really far out there. Kritiks run as Disads are great.

Speed- I can generally keep up. I'll make it obvious if you need to slow down. Try to keep the flow clean. Use a roadmap before you start so the flow stays in order. Slow down on Tags please. And really enunciate/slow down on important parts of cards. You can do a lot for your speaker points by adding a little inflection in your speaking at the key argument points.

Cross-ex is my favorite part of the debate. Use it to your advantage. I don't consider it binding in cases of forgotten evidence or misspoken things, but if you prove something in cross-ex and bring it up in round, I'll give it a lot of weight.

I'm a tab judge. I prefer not to have to decide between a policy debate and a theory/Kritik debate, so you better lay it out for me. If you're a mean person in round, you'll get docked, but I surely appreciate some good heated debate.

If all else fails, I will default to policy judging. Those with the best links to their impacts and the largest impacts will win. I prefer though if there is some framework as to what I should vote on though rather than me having to resort to just being a policy judge. Do your impact calculus.

Email: reuelhsbautista@gmail.com

For LD:

Tabula Rasa

As long as the argument is well explained and the debater shows why it leads to a winning ballot, I will vote on anything.

I typically judge policy, so I might be somewhat biased to policy-esque arguments.

Make sure I'm on the email chain/speech drop and be clear on tags.

Do not make me make the arguments for you. Be clear on how and why a card or an analytic clashes with your opponent's arguments, or why it's a voter.

Make sure you have fun in the round. Do not take it too seriously. You are [probably] not actually a racist no matter what your opponent calls you.

For Policy:

Tabula Rasa

I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you explain why it leads to a winning ballot. Make it easy for me to judge the round by explaining to me what to vote for and why I should vote on it. If arguments become incomprehensible, I will default policy.

I do not like new arguments in the 2nd Negative Constructive.

Kritiks

I am mostly fine with Ks. I am not super well read on all K literature, so make sure that everything is well explained, defined and be specifically clear on the link debate. Again if the K debate gets too messy or incoherent, I will default policy.

Theory/T

Any theoretical conflict is up for debate. I will vote on T but it has to be well-developed and reasonable in the round. Otherwise, I will typically vote Aff on T as long as the aff has a reasonable response to the argument.

DA

Cool

CP

I am not the biggest fan of CP but I will usually vote on it as long as its properly debated.

Presentation

As long as I'm part of the email chain or speech doc, all you have to do is have clear tags. If for some reason I do not have access to your doc, make sure your reading is clear and comprehensible. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow anything I cannot understand. Do not make me make the arguments for you. Explain your arguments, provide analytics, and make sure you have a clear line by line. Make sure to go hard into voters in the last speech.

Don't be a jerk in-round. I will deduct speaks for unruly behavior.

My pet peeve is "in your own words" questions in cx.

Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)

GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.

Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down.

Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).

Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

I debated in high school. My late husband was a college debater and college debate coach, so I am familiar with college formats as well. I have been a speech/debate coach for the past 6 years on a high school level.

CX-

I like stock issues, but am willing to follow any argument laid out by debaters in the round. I flow, but need to know where to apply your arguments. I don't use written evidence or arguments shared via files. Information needs to come from debaters. Explain impacts and analysis. Speed should not interfere with intelligibility. I have to be able to understand what you are saying in order to follow your logic.

LD-

I am familiar with both value/criterion and more progressive forms. I will follow any argument as long as it is presented in the round. Some level of evidence and analysis should be presented, though not every statement has to be cited. I have to be able to understand what you are saying in order to apply arguments. I will flow, but need to know where to apply arguments on the flow sheet.

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.

LD Debate: I am a more traditional judge. Spreading is fine, but needs to be legible. Speaking quality is important. Debater should demonstrate quality in oratory skills, as well as argumentation. Values and criterion should support resolution with contentions that build. Cross-Examination should build level of discourse and be conducted with a high level of respect. Impacts and voter's appeal should be provided appropriately to drive home case. I am a first year Debate coach, but competed in debate in high school at Keller Central HS. I am not closed off to any type of debate, and am open-minded, despite my natural inclination to more traditional debate.

CX/Policy Debate: I am an open book and enjoy hearing nuanced and different arguments. Open to all kinds of Affs and Negs. I prefer the neg to break down to their best argument in the final rebuttals. Spreading is fine, but shouldn't interfere with ability to intake information.

Email for chains: chrisbrannen(at)gmail. com (Put the @ where the (at) is)

Teacher in Goose Creek CISD

I’ve been an educator for 15 years and coached Debate for 8 years.

On Policy:

* On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round.

* On Kritiks: I don't like kritiks much, but I recognize they are a thing and that even the actual government uses the reasoning present as a justification for some policy decisions. Personally, I find K logic to be circular and uncompelling. If you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it but I probably won't enjoy it much. :(

* On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you

*On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.

* On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.

* On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

* On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being mean after the round. I'll even go tell on them to their coach if they were really bad. :)

* On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.

* On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

* On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.

* If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On LD:

# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

# On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell.

# On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.

# On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP.

# On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

# On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

# On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)

# On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

# If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On PF:

% I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

% On Speed: I'm good on speed, but PF is about communication. Don't be too obnoxiously fast. If you're going faster than Ben Shapiro, you're going too fast. Also, I’m kind of deaf so yell.

% I like frameworks. If you don't give me a framework in the constructive, I will default to reasonability.

% On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

% On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

% You have to do the order of the speeches and crossfire the traditional way. Don't negotiate to change the times or skip the grand crossfire.

% Use the final focus to tell me why you won. Crystallize the round for me.

On Congress:

! On Structure: Speeches that have solid structure make me glad. Intro/Thesis/Transition/Body/Transition/Conclusion.

! On Clash: DEBATE!!! It is Congressional DEBATE! DEBATE! Clash with your opposition!

! On Decorum: But be nice about it.

! On Argumentation: I don't like or expect the same speech 4 or 5 times in a round. The flow ought to grow. Call out the names of other reps and agree and/or clash with them! I start giving lower scores for speeches where I just hear the same thing. Bring something new! (CLASH, baby, CLASH!!!)

Tab judge. I have coached, or actively coach events, on local UIL, TFA and national circuit for over a decade. For Debate, please ask specific preference/style questions before round and in the presence of your opponent(s).

Interpretation: Very open to community standards and performer specific interpretations of literature. I try not to bring any preconceived understanding of literature into the round. I do prefer a teaser of some length before the introduction. Blocking and vocal characterization should be as distinct and clearly separate throughout performance.

INFO: I do prefer the use of a visual aid throughout the speech. Topics that are creative and challenging, or inspiring, are most intriguing and tend to separate themselves in a section. Sources are not as important in quantity, but the information should be presented in a fresh and relevant manner.

Extemporaneous: I prefer a balance of information and speech fluidity and personality. Clearly answer the question with a unified answer and give enough background/context in the introduction. Sources should be used significantly throughout the speech, but do not sacrifice a personable delivery simply to provide facts/analysis.

Hi I'm Lee Carter. My email is bloopfourtyfour@gmail.com

I am 20 years old. My pronouns are he/him, I'm 4 years out of high school debate and I competed for Heights High School in Houston, Texas. I debated for 3 years starting out in Policy for about a year and a half and finishing with LD for the last year and a half. For reference, I was good enough to go to national tournaments and stuff but never good enough to clear. I got damn close though. When I debated I really liked theory and phil and when I couldn't run that I ran LARP. I was coached by Isaac Chao.

Pref Shortcuts:

Theory - 1

LARP - 1

T - 2

Phil - 2

K/Kaffs/Non-T stuff - 3

Tricks - 100% strike. Don't make me sit through a tricks round seriously.

I don't ever want to intervene

But I feel like so often debaters just let so much up to the judges interpretation you know? The point is to write your own ballot, so the less work I have to do the better. If you make it really obvious why you deserve the win by using substantive argument weighing, evidence comparison, etc. then me intervening should never become an issue. Just make sure you do your job 100%.

I default to comparative worlds

Of course, you can convince me otherwise. In fact, when I was a debater I was quite fond of truth testing since I ran a ton of Kant. But in general I think comparative worlds is better for debate and I will default to it if no one argues otherwise in the round.

Tech over truth 99.9% of the time

By that I mean, your argument has to contain a minimal amount of plausibility to me. For example, if you say "x is true because I say so", I'm not even going to entertain that argument nor hold your opponent to a burden of answering it. It's kind of hard to pin point exactly what I mean here, but essentially I will be receptive to anything you say unless it is totally dumb and unrealistic. No this doesn't mean I'll hack against your terminal impact, no this doesn't mean you can't run silly techy things in front of me, this just means that there's a certain brightline where I start losing receptiveness to arguments and the closest way I can identify / describe that brightline is when your argument has arbitrary / illegitimate / outlandish warrants.

Highlighting / reading / evidence rules

Always read what you highlight, never skip highlighted words without making it explicit to everyone in the room, never read anything in small print without making it explicit to everyone in the room, and lastly, do not refer to anything you didn't read as if you read it. I consider violating these rules cheating. I will usually never read the small print because the argument I'm presented as the judge is whatever words come out of the debater's mouth which is usually the highlighted words. I will typically only ever ask for evidence if I am suspicious of evidence fabrication. It makes me happy when I see good author qualifications and consistent and clean speech docs. I also fancy cyan highlighting.

Prep time

When using flash drives, prep time stops when the flash leaves your computer. When using email, prep time stops when the email is sent. Under no circumstances should you preview / look through your opponent's case or write anything down if your prep time is not being taken. I consider violating this rule cheating. I don't terribly care if your computer is messing up, it's your duty to make sure things are organized and orderly and sent where they need to be.

Signposting / roadmaps

Signpost well and effectively, tell me specifically where you are going on the flow, name arguments you're responding to, if there's a way your strategy unfolds then make it explicit rather than trying to keep it secret and holding me to the expectation of figuring it out. Roadmaps are a really good tool and you should always use them. If you can help it, try not to divert from your roadmap. If you must divert, make it explicit where you are going instead.

Speed

I'm fine with speed but keep in mind if I’m judging online, connection / quality might be scuffed. I'd say my threshold for speed is 6/10 where 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit. Slow down for important things like tags, author names, signposting, etc. If you spread through a condensed block without separating things properly by saying AND or NEXT or slowing down then I will likely miss things.

Weighing

Always weigh. Weigh preemptively if you want, certainly weigh when you have access to both impacts and always extend your weighing and impacts. Weight comparison goes a long way, and by this I mean "magnitude > timeframe" etc. I never really understood what an overview does. Your extension doesn't have to be individual cards, extending just the general thesis of your case in the overview is probably fine, but if you miss something crucial and don't explicitly extend it, I'm not gonna extend it for you.

Framework

My thoughts on framework are pretty much identical to Isaac Chao's, your impacts matter so long as they are implicated under a warranted framework. And so my decision calculus goes: I first determine which layer is the highest, then find the winning framework on that layer, and lastly adjudicate the offense to that framework.

Theory

I reeeeeeaaaaaaaalllllly love theory rounds. I default competing interpretations. Reasonability is fine but my expectations for your brightline are a bit higher than typical I think, it is not enough just to establish your brightline but you also have to tell me why your brightline is good / true. Whenever I hear "if it's link turnable, it's sufficiently reasonable", I immediately think: well, you have yet to tell me why that's true or a good brightline at all. I default no RVIs. An implication to your shell is imperative. If you don't tell me what to do about your opponent's abuse, I'm just not going to do anything. Additionally, I think weighing on the theory debate is more important that most other places, since theory usually comes first. If I have 2 instances of abuse from both debaters but no weighing between the two, I'm just going to label the flow irresolvable without intervening and move on to the next layer.

LARP

Since I was kind of a noob most of my debate career, I have the easiest time adjudicating LARP rounds because they make the most sense to me and I have the most familiarity with them. Specificity is good. Keep your cards updated, recent, and relevant. You have to tell me if you are kicking out of a conditional counterplan. I don't understand at all what judge kick is, but on a surface level to me it just sounds like asking the judge to intervene if doing so would be favorable for the debater. That being said, don't bring up judge kick.

T

T is good with me, only reason I put T at a 2 is because I'm not totally versed in the semantics vs pragmatics debate within Nebel type shells, so if your T strat involves that then either don't run it or do extra explaining to ensure that I understand.

Phil

I love a good phil debate, but at the same time about 75% of the phil debates I've experienced have been ones that have left me totally puzzled. I would love to judge your phil round, but know that the only phil I'm super knowledgeable about is util and kant. If the phil you read is not util or kant, assume that I don't know it, and let that inform your strategy.

K

If 1 off K is your strat of choice, you definitely don't want me. Here are Ks that might work out in front of me: cap, fem, security. Anything else usually requires some previous knowledge from the judge, which I just frankly don't have. Keep in mind that judges who are capable of adjudicating K heavy rounds containing stuff like Afropess, POMO, other really hard Ks probably studied them extensively within a camp or even university. I wouldn't suggest reading that kind of stuff in front of me because the likelihood that you can teach me the thesis of your K in 45 minutes (when people good enough to be considered versed and competent judges in it have probably studied it for years) is highly unlikely. Additionally, I don't understand most role of the ballot arguments, they all sound self-serving to me and are typically along the lines of "if it's not the K offense, then it doesn't matter" and it's usually warranted with "the impacts of the K are bad". Also I have yet to be convinced there's a substantive difference between role of the ballot and role of the judge. Essentially, if your strategy is "Muahahaha my opponent will surely not understand this, I'll sit back while he foolishly concedes the whole flow and ensure my win on the ballot with the judge like some kind of sick inside joke !!", you probably don't want me as your judge because I'm not going to understand your position either and I'm going to be very receptive to your opponent's (probably surface level) arguments against it. If it's not one of the 3 Ks I listed at the top, assume I don't know it.

Non-T

I think the Non-T debate can be really entertaining. When I competed I ran a case called Absurdism where I (and my partner when I had one) would essentially just try to establish change in the debate space by ignoring the rules and even sometimes settling rounds with coin flips, and spending time just educating our opponents and judges with our personal experiences with debate and creating a space where our opponents and judges could share their own. Realistically, this was an utterly awful competitive strategy. I ran it probably 25 times and won like twice. Additionally, I did not understand at all how I was supposed to defend Non T, so when people ran T on me I just kind of ignored it lmao. What I'm trying to say is, the Non T debate can make debate really fun and I like to experience it, but from a competitive standpoint I don't understand it a whole lot and if it's your strat I'm also probably not the judge for you. Like, you'll make me very happy by reading fun non T things in front of me, but I won't understand what the heck is going on, will likely not judge competently, and you’ll probably lose…

Speaks

I've never really had to give speaks in a space where it terribly mattered, what I will say is that you can generally expect over a 27. From my 3 years in debate I don't think I have once seen a round where a debater actually deserved a 30, so I will probably not give you one. Although, the easier you make my life as a judge the higher you can expect your speaks to be. I usually don't let ethos effect my speaks because I think that enables things like perceptual dominance, but at the same time make sure you are confident in what you say and make sure your voice is heard.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

I debated for J.W Nixon highschool. I was a previous UIL state and TFA state debater. I have been helping as an assistant coach with students from Nixon for the past 4 years. I've judged several rounds for this year's topic. I am very open and have been exposed to a variety of styles within policy.

In general, I believe every debate round should be confined to the rules agreed upon. If you are going to make an argument, it's important to stress the impact. I always prefer clarity, explain to me what the deciding votes should be. I will then weigh based on the arguments provided.

Base framework:

I am in every sense of the word a "blank slate" judge. From my perspective, each round is unique, and debaters should establish essential issues in each round. I am open to a wide range of analytical, evidence-based, and theory arguments. However, a central part of a blank slate is having the debaters define what should matter in the round. This translates to establishing why I should flow certain arguments and their potential impacts in the round. Impacts can range from in the theoretical world of the Aff or status quo to what this round will mean for the equity in policy debate. I will flow each argument, however, I will not cross apply or extend unless the debater has specified to do so. I believe it is the judge's role to evaluate the round as prescribed by the debaters, but it is key to never make arguments on behalf of either side.

However, I am comfortable evaluating rounds from traditional perspectives as well. If you would like for me to view the debate round from a stock issue or policymaker perspective, I will assume a base level of traditional CX debate values. This means the AFF must uphold the stock issues and the neg is responsible for clash. Please note that I will vote on presumption if I am asked to view the round from a traditional perspective

Scale for typical arguments - (1 bring the worst - 5 being preferred)

Conditionality - 5

DA - 5

CP - 5

K - 4

T- 3

Style and Delivery preferences:

No specific style or delivery preferences. Spreading is fine – if doing so, please be sure to enunciate specific tag lines, card endings, argument transitions. Please provide a roadmap when applicable. I like to see summaries at the end of speeches where impactful. Be professional and respectful of everyone in the debate round.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

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.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Background:

Currently a Law Student at Wake Forest Law School 2022-present

Debated for UT Austin from 2018 – 2021

Debated for Winston Churchill (tx) 2014- 2018

Work for Winston Churchill HS and Texas.

Add me to the email chain: williamcoltzer@gmail.com

TLDR: Debate the way you debate best, focus on impact comparison on all levels of the debate, and give me a clear ballot story in the last two speeches. I prefer debates over hypothetical enactment of a policy. My favorite rounds are high-level topicality debates against a plan.

Meta Issues:

· Do not try to over adapt to me. I’d rather listen to a CP/Politics debate, but I would much rather listen to what you debate best.

· Tech > Truth – Debates should be left to the debaters, so I will try to revert to my flow as much as possible. This isn’t to say you need to repeat the same answer to 5 args. You should group or cross-apply your answers. I will try my best to place arguments w because where they apply because expecting you to crossapply all the arguments that are relevant is unrealistic, but the cleaner you make my flow the better your chances are of picking up my ballot.

· Evidence comparison – ev comparison is under-utilized and is very important in deciding close debates. Evidence carries great weight in most debates. Evidence is the only thing that gives credibility to the arguments of a high schooler. In critical debates, I am far more willing to allow for uncarded arguments. You SHOULD still read cards that define your theory and explains the alternative else you don’t have the foundation to make uncarded args.

· Mark your own cards

· In LD Debates – I use moral hedging/modesty – I don’t think that a framework is a preclusive impact filter. Rather, I view it as a weighing mechanism.

Framework:

· * Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.

· * I don’t view TVA’s as counterplans. They don’t need to have specific texts of a 1AC – your job isn’t to write a 1AC, but to prove that another plan can meet the negs interp and resolve some of their offense. However, better TVAs are often more specific bc you can no link their generic answer to TVAs. The neg needs to provide either topic areas or specific plans that meet your interp and access some of their education/fairness disads. The affirmative shouldn’t read a case neg against the TVA bc it is not supposed to be impenetrable. The aff responses should be about the effective solvency of that TVA to the your offense.

· * When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).

· * When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR. Without a credible counter-interpretation that the aff meets and that establishes some sufficient limits on the scope of debates, I lean negative.

Topicality:

§ I'm a stickler for the quality of a definition, especially if it's from a source that's contextual to the topic, has some intent to define, is exclusive and not just inclusive, etc.

§ Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks

§ The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structured speeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.

§ Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

§ I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.

§ Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Usually, I find myself somewhere in the middle: the neg always has the right to read kritiks, but the aff should have the right to access their advantages. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.

§ I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.

§ I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans

§ Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.

§ I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.

§ I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.

§ Presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a CP.

Disads

§ I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.

§ Uniqueness is important, but I will default to “link controls the direction of the disad” unless told otherwise and conceded by the other team.

§ Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory

· * I default on drop the argument – I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. This means don’t read generic “drop debater on theory.” You need to articulate a sufficiently offense reason to vote for your shell then articulate how rejecting the team resolves that offense.

· * Potential abuse can be a voter, but I am far less persuaded by potential abuse on theory as compared to T.

· * I am really persuaded by reasonability on theory – I find a lot of the “bad” and “frivolous” shells essentially have no disads to the counterinterp. For example, It might be true that disclosing open source vs just cites can lead to more educational debates, BUT this does not mean that the debates we have under sending cites is uneducaitonal. A marginal improvement in education is unlikely to be enough to gain by ballot.

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.

School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School

Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016

Email: jakecosio123@gmail.com

On CX and LD:

Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.

Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.

Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).

Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).

On CX specifically:

To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).

In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.

On LD specifically:

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.

On PF:

Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me.

Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.

Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters

Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.

Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.

Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).

Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.

Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).

A few questions you may want answers to:

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.

Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

Anything else:

Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.

Email chain: jcox2@neisd.net

Debate

Stock issues with slight emphasis on communication skills as a whole. The three appeals should all be made in your case and have equal strength. Stay on topic. Spreading is fine, just understand that I have to be able to understand you in order to judge you. Not doing so might result in some misunderstandings on my part, which would help your opposition. I like listening to you speak, and Debate is a speaking competition. I am finding through the tournament that I am also judging on an offense/defense stature between the two opposing teams. The more time you spend attacking your opposition's case, the better.

Interp

Characterization and emotion are big with me. If you can move me and make me believe you are your characters, you have a great shot at high rank.

Speech (Extemp & Prepared)

Structure is huge, especially in extemp. Using time and space are icing on the cake. Utilizing the three appeals in OO and persuasive speeches are excellent ways to "win me over."

PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.

LD/CX: Tabula Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.

WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.

While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created (clash). Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason(s) why.

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.

Debate Paradigm:

I am about as traditional as traditional can be. I typically won't disclose, please don't ask about it.

I am not a fan of:

-the k debate

-plans/counterplans in debates other than CX

-not standing when you are speaking or during CX

-disclosing before the debate starts

-talking fast unnecessarily

-being a part of email chains, I shouldn't have to read your evidence, I should be able to hear it and understand within the confines of your speech

I prefer:

-a slower more methodical debate

-actual discussion on the topic/resolution

-standing up when speaking

-understanding what the debater is saying

Congress Paradigm:

I have judged congress for over two decades, even before it became a National standardized qualifying event and have advocated for it all that time because I believe it to be the best overall, well-rounded event that we offer in forensic competition.

It encompasses the benefits of acting because you are playing a role as a representative and the more you understand the motivation of your position, the greater the performance. It is one of the purest of speaking events, because a great representative is a great orator, in life and in your chamber. The writing and interpretation of legislation is at the core of the event and illustrating your deep understanding of that legislation is paramount in your performance. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a debate event, where civil clash is necessary.

All that being said, to understand how I view the event holistically, there are specific standards I prefer.

I do believe that in a three to four minute speech the speaker should get our attention in a creative way and give us a clear call for action and preview of their arguments, coming back to that AGD at the end, time permitting. Preparing us for what you are about to argue is important. There is no actual grace, so 3:08 is abusing the time of the next speaker. I prefer fewer, well developed arguments, than many blipped ones. Sources are important and both the quantity and quality of such sources, Q2, are vital. Representatives do not just rely on periodicals, but government reports, experts in the field, think-tanks, etc. These considerations are important, not just the number of sources. Consideration and knowledge of how our government actually works and the type of legislation at hand is also vital. We are debating issues present in the real world, so take that into consideration and consider what are the real-world implications to your constituents? Know and use parliamentary procedure to benefit the progress of debate; do not abuse it.

PO's are a vital part to any chamber and I look for a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure and efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance. If you have not read "Robert's Rules." it behooves you to do so, then be aware of all NSDA guidelines in adapting them. A good PO should run an efficient chamber and be pro-active in enforcing a fair chamber. Any perception of recognizing speakers unfairly will be penalized. Make sure you are clear with your procedures from the start and follow them consistently.

Overall, consider the above standards in your performance and you will do well. Remember, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are truly representing your school, your state, and your nation. We need good role models.

Policy Debate CX Paradigm:

I have judge policy for almost three decades and prefer traditional policy making focused debates with well weighed impacts.

That being said, I can handle speed, but clarity and articulation are key. I will not say clear, so if I put down my pen and you don't adjust, it is on you. If I don't flow it, it's not on the flow; I will not just read your files. This is an oral exercise in debate, so if it's important, make sure I get it.

My teams also have had great success with progressive arguments and K's, so I'm fine with it if you really know the literature and have clear links. I don't like K's, so make sure the story, links, and alternative are clear. All types of arguments are fine, as long as you know how to run them and they are relevant to your debate. I don't vote on T often, but it must be ran and answered correctly, not "they aren't topical, or "yeah, we are topical", and there should be clear in-round abuse.

Make sure there is direct clash and not just random generic arguments with weak links and no direct weighing. I love those debating actually debating case, so don't ignore it.

Probability and meaningful impacts are a must.

Be civil and debate well and every round will be fulfilling.

Communication is key to the performance of all events. Analysis, and reasoning are essential to debate. Persuasion is also a key to the Communication. In debate I want to see clashes supported with evidence. In Oral Interp, play with my emotions. In public speaking, educate me and persuade me.

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!

I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.

Debate:

I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Speech:

Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.

Interp:

I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.

Clarity:

If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

Speech: Long history judging/coaching all events after competing in policy debate for both high school and college.

Extemporaneous speaking: 1. Avoid the generic attention getters and jump into content as quickly as possible. 2. Cite lots of sources (accurately and fluidly--I'd aim for about 10); 3. Delivery/style: word economy is crucial in this event...rate is conversational, but 7:00 is not a lot of time to answer a complex question; 4. I will keep close time and look closely at the extent to which the speech is balanced. 5. All this said, I appreciate a good joke and an effort to breath personality into the speech--be bold and don't be afraid to take chances.

Platform speech events (oratory, informative, etc.): 1. A lot of my thoughts on extemporaneous speaking are applicable, recognizing this is a different genre of speech--it's geared to reach a broader audience. Thus, I might temper my comments on word economy a little--probably makes sense to take your time a little more and utilize a pace that provides more time to let points sink in, etc. Still, I value a quantity of information over cheesy jokes, etc. 2. I really, really appreciate a speaker who digs deep and finds a unique topic that is meaningful to her. So often, especially in out rounds, speakers are very equal in a lot of ways (organization, delivery, etc.), and it's the topic that helps provide a degree of separation--generic topics are fairly easy to spot. This is your chance--you can pick any topic to talk about; make it worth your while--this will make it worth my while.

Oral Interpretation: I'm not the best oral interpretation coach in the world--just never did it myself or anything like it. But, I'm not the worst either and have seen/judged a lot of INCREDIBLE rounds at the highest levels of competition. The great oral interpers make me forget that I'm judging for a few minutes. I definitely recognize great interp when I see it and am more impressed by performers who move me through pace and facial expressions than I am through volume--though the great interpers will use all the vocal qualities and have a knack for what is needed in each exact moment. The material is key--I love seeing unique themes and performers choosing material that they personally identify with. The introduction is incredibly important--here you have the opportunity to take any topic and make it your own--a source or 2 in the intro can often be effective at contextualizing your message. Take risks. Have fun. Speak your truth.

Policy Debate:

Philosophy/Overview:

I began policy debate decades ago as a policymaker (1990's when a good counterplan/disadvantage strategy ruled the day). Critical arguments are fine but don't assume that's a beginning point for me--be sure and frame the debate by discussing its pre-fiat implications. As far as performative based arguments and other more progressive styles of debate, I'm not against them...just don't have a lot of experience with them--definitely not my starting point--be sure and invest time helping me get there. Generally speaking, I feel the Affirmative should Affirm the resolution and any arguments ought to have a pretty specific link/buy-in to it. While I don't consider my understanding of debate to be inflexible or permanent, a few very gifted and persuasive college NPDA/NPTE teams have tried to convince me that the topic doesn't matter and haven't been successful.

Delivery:

Once upon a time, I erroneously gave myself credit as being a speedster from both a delivery and flowing perspective. I've gotten older (OLD) and am not in that kind of shape any more. I haven't coached or judged national circuit style of debate in a LONG time. I value efficient, quick delivery with lots of arguments--but; word economy is more impressive to me than the rate of speaking. If you must talk as quickly as possible, I'll do my best to keep up but don't be surprised if I miss stuff and/or don't have enough time to process it in a way that does you a lot of good. Definitely go slow on tag lines, game-winning arguments, transitions between arguments, and anything that you'd like to have show up on the RFD. If you enjoy "rapid fire," I get it--it's fun and I want you to have fun--and I don't question the pedagogical value in any way; but if you want me to get most of everything on my flow, I recommend slowing it down to at least 75% of your norm.

e-mail: timothy.doty@lubbockisd.org

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.

About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.

Typically I am an LD Tech judge, but I am comfortable judging a multitude of events and I'll list paradigms for each of them below. I have competed competitively in LD, CX, Extemp, and Congress, but I also judge PF.

LD- Speed is fine as long as you always share your docs with me and your opponent and slow town on the tags. I am fine with essentially any argument you want to run as long as they aren't offensive to your opponent or any group of people. I also don't like tricks debate and am very unlikely to vote on it. I am cool with flex prep as long as your opponent is as well. As for speaks, I find them to be archaic and a poor way to break ties when breaking, especially when compared to opponent win loss record. I'll typically just give 29s to everyone if I can, unless you are exceptionally well spoken or exceptionally poor, in which case you'll get a 30 or 28 respectively. I'll only give lower than a 28 if you are rude, degrading, or offensive.

K- I am well versed in almost all forms of debate, but I'm an a little less knowledgeable in areas of kritical debate that don't deal with well established philosophers (deleuze, baudrillard, foucault) or preexisting kritics in the debate space or topic lit (cap, fem, bio power, abelism, afro pec). If you choose to read a k that isn't super well known or more in depth, just make sure to really slow down on the tags and give a clear underview at the end, emphasizing the link and alt.

Theory/T- I vote on any shell as long as the warrants make sense and the arguments are laid out clearly, but I would much rather vote on substance instead so I slightly lean against it. I won't ever vote on friv theory that is useless and wastes my and your opponents time. I think the aff always carries the burden of topicality and I'm more comfortable voting on T that theory. I typically like counter interps and reasonability best when arguing against theory, and I will vote off of RVIs as long as there is more of a justification than just "I have to spend time on the shell".

CP- CPs are fine as long as they are well researched and explained. Picps are fine as well, though I think they run the risk of engaging in a Picps bad debate which I am comfortable voting off on if the win the shell.

Framing- I typically don't care if you read a FW or not, but I do like creative and unique framing metrics that shape the round in an interesting way.

I am most likely to vote for the person that best compares and contrasts their argument with the opponent using reasonable metrics of comparison, like probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc. Please please weigh your arguments, so I don't end up debating the round in my head for you guys.

CX- I am open to pretty much any argument you want to read, just like in LD. Most of my paradigms stack up the same way here, but I'll go more in depth on each here. Please do not read new arguments in the second half of the neg block, I will not flow any of them. Additionally, I don't love hearing completely new, complex arguments in the 2AC (i.e. a performance k in the 2AC) and won't flow them. If you're reading an extension of an argument in the 1AC or a more basic disad, case turn(s), or theory shell I will flow them.

K- Same goes as above. I am more likely to vote off of a performance k in CX than LD since there is a lot more time for either the off or neg to flesh out the k.

Theory/T- Same as in LD, though I can guarantee I will never vote off of substantial T unless it goes 100% conceded. It is a lazy argument that almost never wins rounds. I am far less likely to vote off of RVIs in CX since there is so much time that can be dedicated to the theory debate. Unfortunately, all that time also means I usually end up evaluating theory as a wash unless there is a clear winner, which there usually isn't.

CP- Same as above

Stock Issues- While I am a progressive, modern CX judge, if both teams want to debate stock issues I am comfortable evaluating that as well. I usually end up voting on inherency or topicality out of the bunch.

PF- I am a firmly traditional PF judge. I never debated PF competitively but I am familiar with the event and can judge it aptly. I think if you want to read progressive arguments in a 45 minute debate, do LD. If you want to read progressive arguments with a partner, do CX. I do not like spreading, Ks, or theory in PF. CPs and T are fine as long as they are well constructed and thought out. I typically will vote on impact debate and weighing the most, which I find extremely important in a more traditional debate setting. Speaks are the same as in LD.

Congress- While congress was not my main event I did fairly well on the state and local circuit, but I'll typically evaluate the event like any other judge. That being said, I don't like a heavy emphasis on LARPing and I prefer more of a conversational style and deep analysis. However, I will rank someone with more charisma and presence over someone with deep analysis. I don't enjoy vocal cadences and they bother me when they get too repetitive. I also dislike planned out rhetoric or AGDs that get recycled throughout rounds. Besides that, I will rank people with 2 good speeches above those with 3 poor ones, but 3 mediocre speeches will outrank someone with 2 good speeches. 2 amazing speeches will trump pretty much anything else in my book, though. I rank normal POs 4th, and for each mistake the get knocked down a spot. If they do something amazing, they will advance a rank.

Extemp- Speaking quality is the same as congress, I prefer those with more charisma and presence over those with in depth analysis. I really enjoy a conversational style and good jokes, especially meta ones about the round or extemp. Just be natural, stay conversational, and speak at least 6:30 and you'll get a good rank from me.

I'm going to provide a quick(ish) note that may seem kind of pessimistic towards debate as a whole, but I promise I still love the community and activity as a whole. The further I get away from debate, the more I feel that people treat debate as a sport or a game rather than treating each issue with the gravity that it requires. I find it pretty obnoxious that people treat each horrendous "impact" as nothing more to just weigh out rather than highlighting the humanity of each situation. Its really disheartening to see young people with such bright minds advocating for or ignoring pretty foul stuff in service of just trying to "one up" their opponent or "win the round" a lot of people who read theory spikes or counters or just reading any kind of an interp will either say "debate is a game" or "the purpose of debate is to educate". Frankly, I see these as being mutually exclusive. By treating each round as a contest to be won, I find that people often lose sight of the educational aspect that debate and the people in the community who support the activity champion so enthusiastically. That being said, I still have to pick a winner and as I've outlined above, I'm more than capable of putting my personal feeling aside and judging a tech round within the meta of whatever is being read at the time. However, don't be scared to read performance and point out the absurdity of debate, or just read any kind of performance period. Just make sure that all of your arguments, performance or not, are cognizant of what and who you are debating about, and make sure that what you argue for is both ethical, moral, and educational. At the end of the day, we should all be here to learn more about whatever the topic is this year (or couple of months or month), and I want to ensure that you aren't just reading what you think is going to "win" the round, rather read what you want to educate your fellow debaters, and especially your judges! :)

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.

*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!

CX: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 policy rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I will let you know if you are going too fast. It is typically theory/T standards/voters where I will lose you if you spread through them. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I would say that I am more a policy maker judge than anything else. This means that I will vote for the best advocacy in the round, which means you have 3 options as the negative (squo good, CP, or K). I would say very much tech over truth. Default condo good. On T I prefer a well developed standard debate. I tend to default reasonability but at the end of the day if you can sell me on competing interps, I'm not opposed. This should be the only thing you are going for in the 2NR if this is your strategy. DA's - I love good uniqueness updates on DA's and 2AC N/Us. Love a good Politics scenario. Will vote on the impact turn on either the DA or the ADV. I'm cool with CPs. On the K debate, I am unfamiliar with a lot of K literature, I know the basics of Cap and Security but because I haven't engaged with the arguments in a few years, I'm definitely a little hazy on the details. If you are going to run a K or a K AFF please make sure you can explain it well. I want to feel comfortable after the initial cross-x that I know what your world looks like. I will vote on Framework regarding the K debate. Finally, on the Theory debate, make sure there is a clear violation and that you have some real offense coming off the argument if it is something you are going to commit to.

PF: I typically judge policy debate. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I need reasons why your world is a better world for me. I don't think PF is the place for frivolous theory. I don't mind voting on critical arguments although I will grant leeway if you butcher the explanation of the criticism to your opponents. I am cool with speed, however, seeing as we will be online I urge you to stay at about 80%. Defense isn't sticky. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. I would like to be on the email chain. Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com.

LD: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. Please slow down for theory spikes, any analysis, or what you deem important. I flow on paper, if I can't write it down it doesn't show up on my flow. I prefer not to flow off the document, if you are going to go so fast that I need to, send me your analytics. I would like to hear taglines. During the rebuttals when you are doing comparative work, please please please slow down. I'm not the fastest flow judge anymore. I will vote on the RVI especially if you can link in round abuse. I'm not familiar with the skep stuff. I'm not familiar with most K literature. I understand the basics of Cap and Security but outside of that don't assume I know your author/method/K. Your lack of explanation on the K lowers my thresholds on what it takes for your opponent to beat it. I feel you should probably defend some sort of alternative/advocacy statement. Feel free to reach out for any other questions. Add me to the chain Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com please.

I am a tab judge. I will take into consideration any argument presented by the negation. I expect both the affirmative and negation to provide competing frameworks. I will default to whichever team provides a framework if the other is lacking. I will evaluate all arguments equally, however I am less favorable of topicalities and more favorable of kritiks and theory. I expect all debaters to be cordial with one another.

I think that a policy debate round should include a clear presentation of the case, a focus on stock issues, and should develop a clear policy that can be implemented. On the negative side I like to see clear, easy to follow arguments presented. If the neg team runs off case arguments, they should know them well and present them as common sense arguments, not just the reading of evidence. They negative arguments should be logical, real world, and pertinant to the case being discussed.
I like to see how arguments work in the real world and believe policy debate is an oral excercise so delivery is important, although quality of arguments are vital. Be polite, extend arguments clearly, and give strong voters.

She/her

Coach at Plano East Senior High (2018 - current)

I like reading, quilting, and hockey (go Stars!) Also, I am learning Finnish (Minulla on oranssi kissa ja yksi poika ja pidän velhoista. Onnea!)

I enjoy judging IEs most.
In Extemp: I judge and coach extemp more than any other event. It is my favorite event. If speech 1 has amazing content but bad fluency, and speech 2 is beautifully fluent but all the content is made up, outdated, or wrong, I would rank Speech 1 higher. If you don't answer the ACTUAL question, you will not be ranked high, no matter what. I will be randomly source/fact checking 1 source per speech, plz don't make up your sources.

In Interp: you should be making an argument with your chosen piece. Explain that argument in the intro!! I do not like giving time signals in Interp, I will give them if you ask for them but I will be grumpy about it. The piece should be exactly the same every round, so the time should be about the same. Also giving time signals distracts me from fully evaluating and taking in your performance.

In OO/Info: be unique. Think outside the box. If you are using a traditional topic, put a spin on it. If I don't learn something new during your speech, I probably won't rank you high. Same as above about time signals.

Everything you do in round is judge-able!!! Be a good steward of this activity. Be quiet while judges are writing feedback between speakers. You should NOT be on your phone during round. Your commentary on or critiques of other competitors/performances are what we call "inside thoughts" and should not be uttered into existence.

In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.

-I generally do not like Kritiks in LD. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem - lazy debating. If you choose to run a K in an LD round I am judging, slow down and explain your arguments in your own words.

-On case attacks are important!

-Theory*** & CPs good.

-Do not read at me while giving voters.

-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.

-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.

In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.

In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit - you still should slow down probably and explain your args really really well. I have less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge. My favorite thing about policy debate is when we have fun - read an unexpected case or a crazy off.

***Theory is fine, except for disclosure theory. Not a fan. For almost a century, competitive high school debate has existed successfully and educationally without needing to read your opponent's case ahead of time.

In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible. Especially don't be rude or go ham when you have an obvious experience advantage (4yr debater vs 1yr).

FOR ALL EVENTS IN BOTH SPEECH AND DEBATE

Things you shouldn't say in a round in front of me (or really at all tbh): r*tarded (it's a slur), anything demeaning to or derogatory about teen moms (I was one)

When rounds finish, don't say how bad you did or how you "definitely lost" while your judges are sitting right there literally still making a decision. You never know, maybe we thought you won.

If you must have an email chain, include me: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu (see above note about how I think you should be able to debate without reading your opponent's case)

I look forward to hearing you speak!

Email: Include me in the email chain please - jdaviangarcia@gmail.com

General:

tell me how/why to vote

refocus the debate on the central issues of the round during the rebuttals

clarity > speed: try to slow down on or at least emphasize tag lines and analytics

In most cases tech > truth, but that doesn't mean a concession is an automatic loss; warrant out why each argument matters

I'm generous with speaks

Topicality:

Regarding interpretations, I focus more on the relevancy/quality of the source of the definition, especially in relation to the topic at hand. I do tend to default to reasonability, but can probably be convinced to default to competing interpretation. If you can prove abuse, you have a good chance at winning T.

Framework:

Go for whatever impact you would like in framework (procedural fairness, advocacy skills, topic education, clash, etc.). It really comes down to the impact calculus and interpretation comparisons for in and out of the debate space.

Theory:

Theory debates can be interesting, but when it it an actual strong theory and not a 15 second shell. Tell me why/how to vote especially on theory arguments.

Disadvantages:

I prefer to listen to case-specific arguments that link to the affirmative rather than generic disadvantages that link primarily to the resolution, but I can probably be convinced that generic arguments are good too. Uniqueness matters a lot on time-sensitive DAs like politics DAs. Clear and concise link chains always help. Impact calculus is super important!

Counterplans:

I prefer case-specific counterplans over generic CPs, but again, I can probably be convinced otherwise. Solvency advocates and clear net benefits should always be included for me to weigh your CP against the aff.

Kritiks:

I'm not familiar with a ton of lit, so be sure to explain the theory thoroughly and any buzzwords. Probably try not to read something you're not able to explain. Explain the alt thoroughly and why perms can/can't solve. Framing could go a long way. Overviews and line-by-line explanations/argumentation help a ton too.

Congress should be a balance of conviction, research and clash. Students should practice a mutual respect for each other but also be able to address and attack each other's arguments impactfully.

Congress Judge-I want to hear evidence in your speech. Your opinion does not usually impact the speech very much. Try to address issues brought up by other members of the chamber. Try to avoid rehashing positions unless you are giving very late speeches. I am fairly hard on the PO. I expect them to know the procedures and pay attention. Slowing the chamber down a bit to avoid mistakes is better than going quickly and making errors that get called out.

Speech Events-I am not a speech judge normally. I will fill in for OO, Info, and Extemporaneous Rounds as needed. Anything beyond these speech events, I have not judged or have less than 3 rounds total in my life. I will look towards the piece as a whole. A typical selection that is POI, HI, DI, or Duo/Duet will mean very little to me as I really do not have the background to judge if a piece is a great standard. As such, I will be looking for pieces that make me feel like the performance was a selection or segment of the real life situation that is unfolding. I have watched a few pieces performed that were so real, the actor could have been the author of the selection.

For really any style of debate I am willing to listen to any argument as long as it makes sense. For CX, persuade me but make your case make sense, for the most part I will not do the work for you (this applies to both aff and neg) however if I feel like an argument is so ridiculous that I think it should not be considered then I won't but this has not really happened.

If you are going to run a K make sure the aff is actually causing considerable harm, I do not want a K for a Ks sake. Try not to have excessive offs, quality over quantity is always better. Explain your links and impacts thoroughly, don't assume I'm going to immediately understand your arguments just because you read them. Also, you can spread but just make sure it is clear, slow down on tag lines and authors, and if you can, on analytical arguments. If you do not wish to spread you do not have to. As for speaker points, do not worry too hard about it.

PF: I did a lot of PF in high school at every level. That being said, don't spread in PF, that's not how the debate is supposed to be. Progressive argumentation also shouldn't be used in PF in my opinion, and I won't vote for it. Evidence does not always mean your argument is better, but a good argument with evidence to back it up will always beat a good argument without evidence to back it. Tell me what to vote on in the final focus, and don't bring up new evidence in the summary UNLESS you are the team that spoke first in the round, and you are using new evidence that can extend or defend an argument. Overall, just debate the way PF is supposed to be debated, be courteous to your opponents, and everything should be good.

CX: I did a substantial amount of policy debate in high school as well. I consider myself traditional, I hate spreading, (easiest way to lose my ballot, spreading just isn't debate to me) and I normally won't vote for a K. That being said, if you can EXPLAIN the argument to me, and it's logical and reasonable, I will always weigh it. I love a creative CP, and I'm huge on T. Theory is good with me, but disclosure theory is lame and will almost never get my ballot (we came here to debate and come up with args on the fly, not to debate about whether cases should be shared before the round). Solvency, solvency, solvency. Be courteous of your opponents, tell me what to vote on in the final rebuttals, and everything should be good.

LD: Not much LD experience, but I want to hear value criterion debate. Just because I did a lot of PF and CX doesn't mean I want to hear that type of debate in an LD round. Give me value criterion debate, with a solid amount of debate at the contention level. I really don't like spreading, If I can't understand you I won't flow it.

Include me on the email chain: ethanwake97@gmail.com

I have 4 years experience in policy debate, qualified to UIL state (2X) and TFA (2X). I'm a tabs judge, open to all kinds of arguments, but what I'm looking for is understanding of the resolution and arguments presented, as well as persuasion to buy your args (also, clash!!!). Keep in mind that this early in the year, I may not have the scope of understanding of the resolution that you do, so if I don't see any comprehension from your side, it won't look good. I'm fine with speed, but I'm not a superhuman who can flow at the speed of lightning, and at some point, if it sounds like you're speaking gibberish, I'm not going to flow; I'll give you two warnings, and then stop flowing. Bottom line, we're all here because we love the sport, so let's have some fun and debate!

*If you are reading this before a debate. Stop. Set up your email chain, include me - mgregg@dallasisd.org. I would also like to sit far away, near an outlet. Thank you for respecting me and my space <3

I am currently the Analytics Coordinator and Director of Debate at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School in Dallas. I am also a teacher - AP Statistics, AP Seminar, Government, and Debate. Short version: I was deeply involved in high school and college debate (as a competitor and coach) a decade ago. I am now a teacher/administrator and work closely with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance to create curriculum, files, coach support, and more.

This is too lengthy, but better to overdo I suppose...

Background:

-High School: 3 years at Oak Park River Forest HS (IL) - 2005-2007 (TOC)

-College: 4 years at Northwestern University 2007-2011 (top-ten first round, 2 time NDT elims)

-High School coaching during college: Oak Park River Forest HS (2007-2011)

-High School coaching after college: Glenbrook North HS (IL), Niles North High School (IL) (2012-2013), Stephen F. Austin High School (2013-2014)

-High School coaching as a teacher: The Science and Engineering Magnet High School, 2014-2019, The Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School, 2019-present (Dallas Urban Debate Alliance)

-I've taught at the Northwestern Debate Institute, the Jayhawk Debate Institute, and the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Too old for that now.

Two general things:

1. I will not read along with you. I would like to be on the email chain for after the debate. Keep this in mind as you make decisions about clarity/speed.

2. I value evidence quality very very much. I will vote on no link.

(3.) If this is UIL state, I do abide by UIL rules regarding speed that interferes with communication. If I think that you're doing that, I'll say slow or something once.

While I have been actively coaching and researching the past eight years, I have not participated much in "national circuit" debate. I attend UIL state and NAUDL nationals with my students, but aside from those debates, I do not typically judge high-speed or high-tech debate. I still think that I can flow and understand advanced debates, but if I'm honest with myself I know if I were your age I would be skeptical of that claim. I will say that I try my best, really enjoy judging debates, and get it right more often than I'm wrong.

My experience has mostly been with traditional policy-making debate, but I also debated critical arguments. I tend to default to deciding whether the status quo is better than the aff or a competitive alternative presented by the negative. Pretty open to what the aff, competition, and alternative mean.

I think most people are looking for insight in how a judge resolves debates, so here's some information on that:

-Topicality: T isn't big in DUDA because we have a disclosure system that basically makes it unnecessary. I don't see many T debates, but I tend to default to competing interpretations and think that the neg needs to have pretty good interpretation evidence. Not really willing to vote for a topic that while limited, is not predictable for the aff. I recommend reading fewer interpretation cards - just read your best ones, quality not quantitiy. In the 2NR, it's really helpful if you stick to the 1AR structure/line by line, I know that can't always be done but ideal.

-Ks: I like them. I find them interesting. Much more interesting if you slow down a little, and definitely interested in how you apply your philosophy/thesis to the affirmative, resolution, and policy-making. I'd advise having an alternative (see above). Winning root cause does not mean you win. Tell me the role of the judge/ballot. I also really like arguments about how the K turns/interacts with the case. Evidence - it's fine to have really long cards, but I appreciate tags that preview what's going on, much more so than rhetorically powerful statements or analogies.

-Plans: I prefer them, but I have voted for affs with no plans many times. If you go for framework, I'd advise reading evidence on how the education offered through policy simulation on this particular topic is useful, and comparatively apply that to the education debate.

Speaker points - I really value partner communication and kindness towards your opponents (like a lot a lot). I don't like to read along with you, and I tend to get grouchy when you don't attempt to flow (if your order is "overview, link debate, impact debate, new sheet, underview", rethink that). Please keep the round moving in terms of tech, use people's names/pronouns, and just generally be an enjoyable person to hang out with for two hours. Always time yourself and each other. Not into hand shakes (pre-COVID) but now I'm just not into being near anyone, but do appreciate using your legal-sized copy paper :)

Misc - Ethics challenges means we stop the debate, so make sure you can support your claim/if I were to investigate it that you would be correct. Card clipping, cross-reading, evidence fabrication/misrepresentation are all reasons you lose (the round, speaker points, my respect). Clearly mark your evidence by saying "Mark the card at" or something like that and physically mark your speech doc. Provide a marked copy to me and the competitors immediately after your speech.

Email chain: mgregg@dallasisd.org

Questions? Ask before the debate. Have fun!

Policy- Tab judge who defaults on who's impacts outweigh. Will listen to K's but need explanation. Prefer quality over quantity. Does not flow author's names; make sure to extend the warrant. Ok with speed just value clarity. I will not join an email chain because I am not reliant on the information but more of the presentation. If you are unable to A. adapt to a judges preferred style of debate and B. realize that this is still a communication event, then you will not win my ballot.

Congress- Highly value clash. Do not regurgitate information/arguments just for the sake of getting in a speech. If a speech is just a summary of what has been said so far on a piece of legislation, I will award it a 1 or 2. In order for me to rank you, you need to be an active member of the chamber (ask questions), give competitive speeches (clash and don't regurgitate info), and speak in a fashion that does not sound rehearsed.

Speaking- I want you to have a conversation with me, not sound like a news reporter. It is ok to bring humor into a speech instead of it being straight information. I need you to tie back each point you make to your question. Having your AGD work its way through each point and the conclusion are a favorite of mine as well.

I have nearly two decades of judging experience, primarily on the UIL policy circuit. I am a policy maker judge and will look for the most pragmatic and real world situations in round.

It is the role of the negative to provide sufficient clash, and I'll vote on most issues in the round if you are believable and persuasive. Feel free to run any argument and make sure you provide impacts to weigh on the ballot.

I am okay with speed in the round but will signal to you if I am unable to flow. However, I am ultimately not concerned with the number of arguments in the round. I am looking for quality, depth of understanding, and educational clash. Make sure both teams are listening to arguments being ran in the round and respond accordingly.

Above all, be respectful to each other.

I am an old school stock issues judge. Topicality is not a big voter, but I want to see signifcance/harms, inherency and solvency. Please speak at a speed so I can flow! I want to see communication, clash and solid rebuttals.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

I'm mainly a stock issues judge. Impact debate probably has the most sway over my decisions, while T is often lower on the list. I will vote on Alt Frameworks but they have to be well developed and well argued. And I dislike "Conditionality" I'll except reasonably sensible hypothesis testing, but will weigh contradictory arguments heavily against the need if they are lost.

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

THIS HAS A POLICY,LD, AND ANPF PARADIGM- SOME OF THE IDEAS OVERLAP.

I competed in Policy in 2010-2012 competed at UIL/TFA States (Texas), and NSDA. I consulted teams for 6 years and have coached for the last 5.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: brett.howard@canyonisd.net

TLDR:

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear and POP TAG LINES, you can go fast, however if something does not make the flow it doesn't count in the round. I am from a slower circuit and thus have a hard time keeping pace at the highest speeds. Policy Debate is a game of Chess, not a truth seeking format for me. This means I want to see the strategies being played out by both teams, I want to see the clash, and I want you to tell me how/why you win. Do not assume that I will give you a win just because your argument is more "realistic." I try to be as much of a blank slate as I can.

POLICY DEBATE

General:

• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim. Claiming someone dropped something does not inherently mean it matters, do the work here.

• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates.

• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments.

• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.

• While I tend to believe that CX is not binding, if I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, I will flow it against you.

Framework:

• Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.

Topicality:

• I enjoy a well ran T this year. I believe this topic lends itself to the T well as a way to correct lazy habits. This does not mean use them as time sucks.

• T is one place where I have a hard time going tech over truth, not that I have not voted tech on well run T’s but just keep this in mind. The work has to be done here for me to buy it.

• I'm a stickler for the quality of a definition, especially if it's from a source that's contextual to the topic, has some intent to define, is exclusive and not just inclusive, etc.

• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structured speeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.

• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

• Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.

• I don't mind the role of the ballot args, but you need to explain to me why that's the role and how I as the judge am impacted by it. I’m not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out.

• NO K IN THE 2NC - There is literally not enough time to debate framework and grasp the depth of the K that is required for the debate. I literally will not flow this argument. It is a waste of my time and yours. Use your time well, create good clash.

Counterplans:

• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.

• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.

• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

• I think that CP’s provide a good amount of clash whether Condo or Dispo. I will defer to the Neg strat being Condo unless specifically argued otherwise. Again I prefer Tech over Truth as much as possible.

Disadvantages:

• Most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims. DO THE ! CALC

• I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic.

• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disadvantage is probably background noise.

Other

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important.

• Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE

• I am from a more traditional LD circuit and thus I prefer to see that style of debate. If you want to switch to a different style I am open to it just make sure you have a framework to justify it.

Framework

• If I am not told otherwise I will defer to a morality based framework. I am open to a policy framework but know that the burden of clash increases when this framework is used. I will defer to moral framework if the work is not done here.

Value/Criterion

• I love to see a good literature based value debate. The more that you know about what you are saying the better the debate is.

Policy in LD framework

• I love the CP/DA strat if you justify this framework but know that it is your burden to prove why the Aff must provide solvency and not just an ethical position, especially if you are going to reject the moral framework that is inherent to LD.

K's in LD

• I will listen to anything as I try my best to be Tech over Truth, but a K in LD is a high burden to assume. I am less likely to accept a K that has no link to the Aff position. The internal Link chain needs to have a good workup. Prove to me the role of the ballot, never assume I will just flow K neg.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

• I am from a more traditional circuit and thus I prefer to see that style of debate. The intent of PF is to debate to the masses and prove your position. That is my expectation.

• K - I am generally opposed to the K in PF. If you want to run this perspective your link to either the topic or team must be crystal clear. Otherwise stick to topic discussion

• CP - Will instantly vote against CP/P. This is not a debate of policies, but preferability of position, keep it that way.

• Evidence analysis is underutilized here and clash in PF seems to be lacking as of late. The more you directly clash with the position, the more likely I am to believe your position.

• Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

• If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

• I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

• -If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

• -If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

• -Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

I am a policy maker. I will weigh arguments for the round in a scale. I am fine with kritikal argumentation. If you choose to use a framework, please be sure to consistently apply it to the round. I vote on drops. I prefer "no new in the 2" as a way of truly developing neg arguments. I am comfortable with clear speed.

Experience: Competitor, judge, teacher and coach of speech and debate for many years.

What I look for: A speaker who keeps the audience in mind by applying speaking techniques that keep the listener interested. An overall perspective of the speaker is more important than "overly technical" aspects of your speech. Each speech or performance needs the basics: intro, body, conclusion (plot pyramid for interp); but beyond that I am open for the speakers to find their own unique ways to make their topics/literature interesting, relevant and purposeful. Treat the round as a "communication experience" and most important, have fun!

If you are competing virtually, it is important that you have your camera turned on while delivering your speeches. I do understand at times there are "tech issues," and I will not hold those issues against a speaker if you are making an attempt to establish a connection with the judge (audience).

I am a traditional judge. I prefer the logic of the debater to simply spreading cards. Speed is only acceptable if needed to cover all issues on the flow. If you go to fast and I don’t write it you didn’t say it. I will put my pen down if I cannot understand you.

IE's- You should be conversational in extemp and prepared speaking. I should not feel like I am interacting with a robot. You should be conversing with me not pretending there is a wall in front of you. I appreciate humor in an extemp speech. In Interp you should have strong characters that stay strong throughout the piece. I do not appreciate things done just for shock value. Language should be appropriate.

I'm a stock issues judge, unless you give me a reason to switch paradigms. I like to think I'm a blank slate, but then I have to have some basis for making a decision, so I default to the stock issues.

email: vadajanak@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/hers

About me-

My name is Vada Janak :)

I currently coach at LBJ Early College HS in Austin. Go Jags!

I competed for Tuloso-Midway HS (2016-2020)

I did CX, LD, WSD, and Big Questions on the debate side in high school. I also did Congress and Extemp. I've placed state and nationally in WSD and placed at the state level in CX. I qualified to the national tournament each year of high school, and collected bids to the TOC & NIETOC.

TLDR:

First, do what you're good at! I would much rather judge a round that you are comfortable having than judge one where you are trying to match my paradigm word for word.

Given that you:

1) explain the claim, warrant, and impact to your arguments. You will have a better chance of me correctly evaluating your arguments the way you want me to.

2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario, K jargon, or weird philosophies. Help me out, so that I can help you out

3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and/or performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.

4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.

-Please note: there is a clear distinction between persuasion and passion and being rude. I do not take kindly to rudeness, and it will show in your speaks.

5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “When what they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]". If you tell me how to vote, why I should vote that way, and why it matters for the round, it will be an easier ballot for you.

6) It has also been a while since I have judged policy in person so please read slower (faster than convo speed but slow enough that you're not gasping for air every 4 seconds), at least on analytics. If you want to sample a speed for me before the round, just ask and I will let you know if that is too fast.

The real one:

1st: policy

2nd: WSD

3rd: LD

Policy:

I was most comfortable doing a blend of traditional and progressive CX in high school. I ran PTX DA's, T, and Cap K the most out of every argument on the Neg. I ran soft left policy affs on the China, Education, and Arm Sales topics, but I ran a K Aff on immigration.

Affs:

You can run either a plan, K Aff, or a performative aff. I am more familiar and understanding of plan text aff's, but I really appreciate the literature and concepts behind the K aff's I have seen. Given that, I will probably need those types of aff's to be explained more in the later speeches and probably read at a slower speed.

DA's:

DisAds are probably my favorite cup of tea. My go to has always be the politics DA. I am familiar with probably every DA there is. Case specific links are always preferred. Don't just read 4 generic DA's unless that's all you have. However, if it is pretty generic, it will take less work for the aff to tell me no link. Also explain the internal link! The more you tell me about how we really get from the plan text to nuke war the better time we will both have. And please please please do real impact calculus and evaluation. Don't just say "The DA outweighs the case." Tell me why.

T:

I am a firm believer in the idea that a well ran T can be voted on in the 2NR. Given that, if you go for T, it should be the ONLY thing in the 2NR, and it should be easily explained and have voters.

CP's:

Tell me how the CP works, why its mutually exclusive, and specifically how it actually solves the aff and prevents the DA. And if you're going to put 8 different planks, tell me how each of those is important. If the Aff doesn't perm the CP or give me a good reason why it doesn't solve, I'll more than likely vote for it. If it is not specified by either team, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K's:

Like I said above, not my cup of tea, but I would like them to be. I'm familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything out of that area will need to be explained. Please use case/resolution specific links. You can read your "state action links" cards, but the aff has a pretty good footing to tell me why that's a bad link. UNLESS, state action is unique to your K and you explain to me how this isn't the same thing you read every round. Typically, the impact to the K and the Aff are drastically different so please tell me how to evaluate your systematic oppression impact to their nuke war. I hold K's to their alt's. Unless the Neg tells me why, how, and when the alt happens/who can engage with the alt/how the ballot plays a role in facilitating the alt, the Aff pretty much has free reign to tell me that the Alt doesn't solve.

Theory:

If your opponents have given you a real reason to run theory please do! I strongly believe in debaters having discussions with each other about how one of their actions was bad for debate. I also will vote off of Condo bad, especially if you read more than 5 off :)

WSD:

This was by far my favorite event to compete in in high school. I think that it offers the most real world skills and provides the most real education

I started competing in WSD in 2016. The event has drastically changed since then, but I believe how it was 2016-2018 was the best version of it. In 2020, I was 2nd top speaker at TFA state and 12th top speaker at NSDA Nationals to give you some perspective.

I'll evaluate the round in the three ways the ballot allows me to: style, content, and strategy. I will take into consideration the "flow", but just because you "lose the debate" in a technical sense does not mean you automatically lose. Nor if you win the technical parts does it guarantee that you will win the ballot.

Style:

Persuasion, tone, speed, and attitude in the round are things I will consider for your style points. Use your ethos, pathos, logos. This is WSD so do not spread. I also will dock your style points if you're rude or disrespectful to your opponents or to me. Also, don't just read off your paper for the entire first and second speeches. This event has lots of extemporaneous elements to it.

Content:

The first speech is super important to make sure that you can get full content points in the whole round. If the meat of your case isn't good, then you're going to have a rough time in the other speeches. If you're not defining words in the motion, explaining how your model works (if there is one) or giving synthesized examples in the different points, then you're going to have a hard time getting points here. Believe it or not, it is easy to tell when words are coming out of your mouth but nothing is really being said, you know? Just be logical and thoughtful with your words.

Strategy:

This is the most undermined point area in WSD in my opinion. It might be the lowest about of possible points, but most people rarely get them. If you set up your different points in a strategic way, ask POI's that you'll use in your next speech, and organize the debate to tell me not just why your opponents are losing, but also, reasons that you're winning, the points are yours to have. I appreciate organization and I believe that the way you set up your speech is a strategy of itself, so keep that in mind too.

POI's:

Please please please ask/state POI's!!!!!!!!!! Far too often do people not ask enough. A good POI will help get you points in style, content, and strategy. Even more so, ask POI's when your opponents are on a roll because you don't want to let them talk for 8 mins uninterrupted. BUT. Please note, there is a very clear difference in a good "aha! gotcha" POI and a rude uncalled for POI.

Also! you don't have to take every POI you get asked, but if you ignore every single one I will think you do not know what you are talking about or that you are not paying attention.

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com,

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (2.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
• If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
• Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
• All permutations must have a text.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Framework

Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.

If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.

Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.

Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.

I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.

Hi! My experience is with CX, but I have judged LD quite a bit over the past few years.

As far as cx goes, I am comfortable with any style of argumentation. I'd say I am a tab judge as much as you will let me be. I appreciate it when teams are doing the work for me. For instance, spending ample time on the framework debate and focusing on comparative analysis. If you don't do the work of essentially writing the ballot for me then I default to an offensive/defensive paradigm, so don't waste time on frivolous matters.

Note on speed: I will absolutely try to listen to whatever speed you are comfortable with, but I cannot promise I will catch everything. I am not the best at speed comprehension, so if you want to guarantee that I catch things then just slow down for it.

Please be kind and respectful.

I am open to any specific questions you have before the round starts of course!

Being involved in debate for the last 40+ years as a competitor to retired coach, I am one to believe in the reason for the activity. Thus, when it comes to judging, I follow the traditional routes. For CX it is all about stock issues with a hint of DAs, CPs, etc. I am not a fan of Kritiks or game playing so try to avoid it if possible. Solvency carries a lot of weight with me. Give voters at the end.

For LD, I love a great clash between values and criterions. Don't dismiss this aspect because to me this is where the original "framework" resides. CPs in LD will be judged based on the CX perspective and thus must be mutually exclusive and competitive. DAs must be presented to evaluate a CP. Give voters at the end.

Public Forum is more of a discussion for me and not necessarily based on card after card after card! Leave this for CX debate. Instead work on explaining and carrying the big picture in the round. No need to do line by line as time doesn't permit it anyway (unless you spread!). Plans and CPs have no role in Public Forum, so do not do it as I have no preference for this as an evaluator! Give voters at the end!

World School is relatively new to me as I have judge only about 20 rounds of it. However, I have judge many parliamentary debate rounds (high school and college) and they tend to relate as the same. I see it as a contest of teamwork to develop reasonable substantive arguments and this is where I will give all my attention to. Don't argue too much on the definitions and burdens as I will be made to select on my own experiences vs. yours (from the world issues). Since NSDA governs WS, I will look to their judges' training mechanism to evaluate every round so make sure you follow the guidelines set by them. Speaker duties are important to make the round what it should look like. Do not make this a CX round and with that, counter mechanisms should be NON-TOPICAL! Speak well and give plenty of eye contact to me as I will be the one to make a final decision as to what is "best" to either uphold/deny the proposition. Good luck!

email chain jimene39218@verizon.net

I am primarily a CX judge, but I am familiar with most forms of debate.

alrjns@gmail.com

Speed- I am good just be clear on tags and I want the evidence sent beforehand

DA- Good (I don’t see why you wouldn’t be)

CP- Again good

T/Theory- I want good evidence of in and out round abuse

K/K aff- I will not pretend like I go home to read literature on my off time, but I am familiar with a lot of common Ks (like cap) I am not a judge that will just vote for you if you run one, just do it well. Ks should not be ran just to pull one over on your opponents

Please ask me question if you do not understand. I do not take kindly to rudeness. Trust that I know what is going on in the round. I do not need you to humiliate you opponent to understand that you are winning.

I will value whatever I am told to value.

However I will default to T above all else, then Impacts.

No 'new in the 2'.

Make sure to signpost.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

CX:

Most of my debate experience is in CX. I debated in high school and judge in college, however, I do not have much exposure to the 2022 topic.

I am a tab judge, prefer tech over truth, and I am okay with spreading but clarity over speed (be clear on tags). Most of my ballot will come down to weighing impacts of each arg, so please keep that in mind.

Use your rebuttals to tell me what to vote on nd why at the end of the round.

I do like traditional style debate, but I am able/willing to hear progressive arguments. I am fine with Ks. I have heard most theory and lit, but please just be thorough and clear in your ev. I may not be familiar with newer Ks, or Ks tailored to the 2022 resolution.

I vote on mostly all args as long as you give me a reason to.

DAs are good. No real specifics on them. I just don't like generic DAs.

CPs are good. Sometimes I feel they are redundant, especially some PICs but I'll vote on them if you want me too.

Ts are iffy. I don't vote on most Ts because they usually are a stretch. Also I don't buy loss of education or ground args that much.

Ks are okay. Be thorough on the ev and make sure your impacts and alts make sense.

Please do impact calc. It'll make weighing the round so much easier.

I would like to be in the email chain/speechdrop if there is one: hannah.kim1026@gmail.com

I'll answer any other questions in the round about paradigms.

Do NOT spread. If you choose to read quickly, you MUST be clear. Debate is about public speaking and developing skills that go beyond the debate round. Please do not yell, be mindful of the space in the room, you need to find the balance between being heard and yelling.

General: Signpost and Voters. I will diligently flow the round but, you must tell me where to put it. I debated in high school and college. Now I have been coaching and judging for over ten years.

CX: I am a policymaker who loves a good Topicality. You must demonstrate clear and concise links to accessing your impacts and provide an analysis of magnitude, timeline, and probability. I will flow, you just need to tell me where you want me to flow the arguments, so make sure you sign post. I will avoid judge intervention at all costs, so if you drop down to a single argument, that is what I am weighing regardless of my flow.

Don't run a K or theory argument unless you are out of other options. I will not buy any sort of disclosure theory.

LD: Value and Criteria. I am an old-school LD judge, I prefer to hear a traditional debate, not one person policy.

Congress: Speak often and early. I will score a P.O. well if they run an efficient round. I would rather hear multiple bills and good debate. If you are giving the 11th Aff on a bill, you probably won't score as well unless you can actually advance the debate.

email: rakoort99@gmail.com.

former debater at UH, now judge/coach there.

You do you. I have few predispositions about how the round ought be. I have no real preference between policy and K arguments, but I am significantly more experienced with the policy side of things. I won't be as familiar as you with your specific lit base.

Judge instruction is important and I take it seriously. It is better for you as debaters and me as the judge when you explain a clear path to the ballot rather than having me do unguided forensic analysis on the flow.

I love case debate. I think it is underutilized. The 2ac is often allowed to get away with far too much. I am not unwilling to zero solvency when affs are missing key pieces. I take evidence quality seriously when it is made an issue in round.

Almost certainly won't vote on condo or new affs bad, won't default to judge kick but can be swayed.

Be kind, have fun.

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

Midway '18 / Texas '22

He/him

put me on the email chain: kuanghanson@gmail.com

An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. If they drop something you said, it doesn't mean it was an argument.

Framework/T-USFG

I haven't judged these debates much. Neg teams should make inroads to the aff's offense with arguments like TVA, cede the political, and case turns. Affs should not only win why the aff is good but why your model of debate is good.

K

I think my role as a judge is to be the adjudicator of a debate round and an employee of the tournament. It's hard to convince me otherwise.

Framework is really important. Have an interpretation about the purpose and power of this space. With enough work, you can convince me to not weigh the consequences of implementing the aff.

Alts should defend something. I am generally uncomfortable voting for an alt if I don't know what that world looks like.

The perm double bind is often an easy way for me to vote aff if mishandled.

T vs plans

Go for it. I'm more likely than most to pull the trigger on technical aff mistakes.

I default competing interpretations. I don't know what reasonability means so define it for me.

I'm not easily persuaded by "in round abuse" standards. Just win that your model of debate is better.

DA/CP/case

yay

Theory

Slow down.

Absent an explicit voting issue, theory is a reason to reject the argument unless it's condo.

If you want a judge kick option, the 2NR must explicitly tell me and pre-empt 2AR theory.

Misc.

I reward speaker points for humor, kindness, confidence, paperless efficiency, clear judge direction, smart cross-ex, strategic vision, organization, clarity, and passion.

I dock speaker points for rudeness, stealing prep, low effort, bad spreading, and not flowing.

Be respectful of your opponents and your opponent's arguments. Clash. Impact your arguments out.

This is your round, I'm not here to impose my opinions, and beliefs onto your round. I strive to be a blank slate for your arguments. Keeping that in mind, your words have meaning. I will hold you accountable for problematic arguments.

DEb8 don’t H8.

Quick run down: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and have fun. No one wants to spend their Saturday feeling bad about themselves.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed just please slow down on tags, authors, and analytics.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. A long overview explaining the K would be helpful, but if you feel that you can do a good explanation in the line by line with a shorter overview, then im good with that too.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

My email is ferry4554@gmail.com for the email chain.

I am very much a traditional Debate judge. That means I prefer a more communicative mode of debate. If your speed limits communication, it will be reflected on the ballot. In LD and PF, I prefer no kritiks, plans, or DAs.

I would consider myself open to pretty much any type of argument, I have a background in philosophy in college so I can definitely hear out most types of kritiks so as long as the proper sequencing arguments are made for me to connect all the dots in the round. I can handle spreading but I will generally request that you can a pause before you goto the next tag. Also please do the same for each point on the analysis. I did debate in high school so I have some background in what all is going on.

I will not tolerate any hate speech.

I am happy to give lengthy feedback if you would like it and/or find it helpful.

I am generally tech over truth so as long as coherent arguments are being made.

Debated for Winston Churchill High School (TX). Debated at Texas. Camps worked at: VBI, Baylor, UTNIF.

Email: jacoblugo101@gmail.com

Please have the email chain ready as soon as both opponents meet before the round.

A few thoughts:

• I consider my role in the debate is to decide who did the better debating.
• I prefer for there to not be any room in the debate to input my own opinions. Prefer debates to be as clean and explicit as possible to make the most objective decision.
• I'll listen to most any type of argument. Not a fan of vacuous theory arguments or paragraphs of spikes/preempts (most pertinent to LD).
• I tend to/prefer to flow on paper. Take that into consideration. If you see me flowing on my computer, be mindful when you are transitioning between arguments.
• I flow what you say. Not looking at the doc during speeches unless I have absolutely no idea what you are saying (at which point I will stop flowing and stare at you until you notice). I read the docs between speeches/during CX/after the round.
• Please slow down during analytics. For some reason people tend to read through these faster and faster every year.
• I'm very expressive. My face is a good indicator of where the debate is going.
• If I'm absolutely unsure of what is going on/no arguments have been made, I'm most likely going to err neg.
• I'm always listening.
• Speaker points: I like to be entertained. I care about pathos. I enjoy creative and strategic argumentation. I generously doc speaks if I feel that you are being unnecessarily rude.

Congress:

As Don Draper once said, "Make it simple, yet significant." The more understandable and well thought out your argument is, the higher points you will land, and therefore most likely higher in the room. Please do not drag on a speech, and be confident when you speak!

CX:

I am in the round to be a judge rather than a participant in the Debate, therefore I am going to listen to any argument with full attention. I would say I lean towards policy in my paradigm, but will listen to anything you want to try. Have fun, be respectful in the room, and show me a good round!

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

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.

I debated at Lake Travis High School (2016-2020) and competed in LD, PF, and Policy, but I mainly did LD. Please add me to the email chain, my email is vivian.mcdonald789@gmail.com

Short

You can run whatever you want in front of me, I don't care. However, if the the debate space becomes toxic or harmful in some way against either party then I will auto down the aggressor, tank speaks, or both. Debate should NOT be a cite for toxic, dehumanizing, or any other problematic forum. That being said, don't be mean and you'll be fine. Im chill with any form of K, LARP, or Lay stuff. If you read dense phil, most likely I will not know what it is so be slower or do extra explaining. You can always ask in round if I know a specific type of lit, imma be honest. Please give me a clear story to the ballot (weighing, layering, framework, etc.).

Speed

Im chill with any speed as long as you are clear. I spread decently fast in high school so I'm used to spreading. If you aren't clear I will say clear as many times as needed. Please slow down on important texts, such as; interps, rob, alts, plans advocacy, etc. Additionally please be loud, I'm a little hard of hearing on my left side. It doesn't affect my ability with speed, just make sure if you are on my left (your right) that you are extra loud. Additionally I flow by ear not by the doc, if something is in the doc but not said in the round I wont evaluate it. This is debate it has to be said out loud to factor into the decision.

Ks

Im chill with any type of k you read, but just for efficiency I will be using neg k names and stuff. If you have a K aff or read 1AR k I'm chill with that, its just easier for me to type for the neg k names.

This was what I primarily ran in high school, and thus I am most familiar and comfortable with this debate. With that being said, I will NOT hack for a K, and I have a good basis of a lot of k lit so make sure you know the lit before you read a K in front of me. I am much more familiar with identity Ks than I am with high theory, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N, even if you know that I know the lit prior to the round. You need to explain what the alt does and please answer the perms by saying more than just a link is a da to the perm.

If you kick the K, please give a warrant aside from its condo we can kick. I need an explanation of a link, this could either be why the topic is bad, the opponents performance in the round is bad, or the action of the aff is bad, etc., really I don't care what the link is just please have a link and explain it. A link of omission is a link, please still explain it, I know a lot of people that just say they don't mention it and move on, tell me why not mentioning it matters.

You need to answer perms in some way, a conceded perm is damning.

On the ROB debate, please explain the offense and how it links back. Additionally don't just randomly drop the ROB and dont explain why, espically if this is the main framing mech. Either say what new framing you are going under or extend, even if you are winning the whole k debate without a clear extension of the ROB there is no framing mech and thus no reason (unless other articulated) as to why the k matters in the context of the ballot.

Alt solvency needs to be explained clearly by the end of the 2n. Whether it is a method, mindset shift, or a physical action it needs to be explained clearly. I need to know what the world of the k looks like and thus how the offense garnered by the alt actually works in round.

Answer any root cause claims or prereq args on a K. Just because it is a K doesn't mean that the argument itself is immune to any other root cause or prereq args. I have seen one to many really good k debaters lose rounds for dropping a gov is prereq arg or the aff is a prereq to implement the k so make sure these are answered.

I love performance K's. Make the space yours and do whatever you want.

T/Theory

Defaults: Reasonability, Drop the Debater, No RVIs, Education

I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on but if there is no work or weighing this is what I will default to first, if you don't like any of these then please make an argument. Please do contextualized work on the analysis of the standards and voters. If you don't tell me why the abuse story is relevant or properly respond to your opponents, I wont do the work for you. For me as a judge if the analysis isn't done well or even if it is skipped it is easy for T/Theory to be a wash for me. In rounds I've recently judged, a lot of debaters extend the shell but din't answer the args of the opponent made on the shell proper. Make sure the shell is more than just base extensions, if there is no warrented answer outside of the extension I'll err on the opponents side or it could be a wash depending on how the round breaks down.

My threshold for disclosure theory is really high, I don't by it in general be forewarned. The work has to be done really well, I'll still evaluate it but it is super easy for me to by a reasonability claim on this. Same thing goes for friv theory shells.

DAs

They be chillin. I think good substance debate is always dope, but with that being said please provide a clear link story. If the strat is winning off just the DA, you need to give me a ballot story and tell me what the impact is, please don't just extend the card and move on.

CPs

Im chill with PICs, but please warrant out how they are different than the aff.

You need to answer perms, a conceded perm is damning. By the end of the 2N I need a clear an extension of the CP Text, the net benefits, and solvency advocate. Please tell me why the CP is competitive with the aff, and why it does the advocacy better. If not explicitly stated in cx I presume all cps are condo so if kicked, just say it at the top of the flow.

Phil

I have an average grasp on phil, meaning I have a decent understanding of Kant, Hobbes, and Butler. If you plan on doing very heavy phil or something that is not very common, please do extra explaining. If you aren't sure if what you want to read would fall under this, please ask me, or default to extra explaining. If you spread through long jargon heavy tag lines at top speed, I will likely not catch all the nuances and/or be confused on what the card does. Don't read phil just to be tricky, if you cant explain your framework to a fifth grader its too tricky. If your framework defends morally reprehensible things and you defend those things I will vote you down, and your speaks will suffer.

Tricks

I will evaluate them but my threshold for the ballot is higher. IF the sole way you plan on winning the round is by spikes and tricks, PLEASE heavily warrant them out. Spend more than just 5 seconds extending it and say why dropping the spike causes the W. Additionally, if the spike has to do with any prefiat/k/phil implications weigh them against said arg and make the path to the ballot really clear. If its just a quick extension and moved on I probably wont vote on it, time needs to be spent on spikes.

Framing

Im chill with any type. I did a lot of role of the ballot and value criterion debate. Honestly I'm chill with whatever you do bro, have fun make the round fun for you. The only stipulation is that i need you to warrant back your offense to the framework, whatever it may be. Please answer opposing framework, or say that you concede to theirs. If not stated otherwise I default to ROB over Value/Standard and ROJ over ROB.

Layering

Yeah I know most people don't have a section for this, but basically this is just me asking you to please layer, especially if it is a T/Theory vs K debate. My presets if no layering is done is K, T, Theory, Framing, Substance. I also default to Prefiat over Postfiat offense.

Speaks

I do speaks based on the whole of the round. Things that factor in are strategic decisions and how far I think the way you debated in the round will get you in the tournament. If you are rude, aggressive, say something morally repugnant, demeaning to your opponent, etc., I will tank your speaks. Additionally I will say clear or loud however many times as needed and it will not effect speaks; however, I flow by ear and not doc. This means if you are unclear and I cant understand what you are saying I wont flow it so it wont be in the decision even if a doc is sent.

Other things

Please give trigger/content warnings if you read something that is potentially triggering.

I will auto down if you are blatantly mean, egregiously rude, and/or say/do anything explicitly exclusionary.

If not stated anywhere else I default to presumption on the aff.

If anything here didn't make since please ask me questions before round, but please ask specific questions, not just what is your paradigm.

That being said, you do you, Im chill with whatever. Have fun learn some things, and good luck with debate/life in general.

PF

I am cool with tag teaming cross, flex prep, and skipping grand cross as long as both opponents are chill with it. You can read T/Theory or K's in PF but I will hold them to the same standard as I would for LD in both reading and responding. That being said if you read a progressive arg in PF to be tricky and do not know how to run said arg yourself, your speaks will suffer. Additionally, since PF doesn't have fiat, the K link has to be explained in a way that doesn't rely on fiat since it does not exist in PF. If the link isn't explained clearly with this in mind I will by almost any no link arg, keep this in mind when writing/running k's in this event. My threshold for T/Theory in PF is also super high. If your opponent is obviously new to the event and disclosure theory, it is easy for me to by any/all reasonability claims.

Speech

I usually don't judge these, however, if I am your judge in a speech event the things I care about most is the analysis. If it is FX, DX, or OO the analysis is the most important part of the speech and where a majority of your rank comes from. If the analysis is unclear on the implication or solution your rank will suffer. Additionally for extemp specifically make sure the sub points tie back to the answer clearly and that the analysis done supports the answer you chose.

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

Education
Niceville High School - Class of 2001
University of West Florida - Class of 2005

Coaching Experience
Head Coach at Channelview High School 2009-Present

Competitive Experience
3 years of middle school (Prose, Poetry, Duo)
4 years of high school (Policy Debate, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Duet, Group Interp Florida State Champion 1999, Original Oratory Florida Blue Key Grand Champion 1998), Declamation)
4 year of college (Prose 6th Place NFA Nationals, Poetry, Duo 2nd Place NFA Nationals, After Dinner Speaking Nationals Semi-finalist, Oratory Speaking)

I coach all NSDA events - all debates and individual events.
My team competes on all circuits including TFA, NSDA, UIL, and NCFL.

10X UIL CX State qualifier
9X TFA State Qualifier
1 NSDA Nationals Appearance

Paradigms - Debate
I am mostly fine with everything a team can throw at me. Speed is fine if I can understand you, but it doesn't make you "look like a better debater." If anything, I prefer speed AFTER the 1AC and show me you know how to argue a lot of points and can give a solid line by line. If I have to depend on your SpeechDrop docs to flow then you will not get top speaks and could, ultimately, lose the round. I don't like T and I won't vote on it. I love a good K but it needs to be connected really well to the aff. I'm a numbers person and impact calc is one of my main voters. Don't be cocky during CX. During the last 2 rebuttals I need both teams to clearly display to me that they know why "they won." Do not make me figure it out - you tell me. I prefer a world view analysis but a line-by-line is fine if you know you can win based off arguments.

Paradigms - Speech
I look for mechanics. I typically don't pay much attention to the actual story line of your selection so be prepared to have poise, quality hand gestures, eye contact, focal points, facial expressions, vocal inflection, and body position to the audience. Please enunciate well. If you are in a book required category I will pay special attention to your book technique, page turns, and usage of it as a prop and/or extension of your piece. Show me you know how to compete from the time you walk in to the time you leave. If you are on your phone during a round I will NOT place you first no matter how well you do.

Debate:

I prefer evidence over pragmatic analysis, yet pragmatism over philosophy.

I am willing to listen to and judge a theory argument even though I may hate having to do it.

Theory over kritiks, but traditional debate over both.

Valid, relevant, credible evidence is a must. If your evidence is from questionable sources, or biased, or generally in contrast to what I know about the topic I am going to put more weight on analytics as a sort of check on reasonability.

Clarity and content over spreading. I’m too old and have been to too many concerts and don’t want to try and decipher what you are saying.

Less emphasis on topicality, higher burden of proof.

Don’t rely on voters to win your round, I will flow your round.

Sort of a combo of: stock issues, tab, games, speaking, hypothesis.

Conviction.

Speech:

Make it interesting and enjoyable to listen to, quality evidence over quantity, don’t throw out a bunch of garbage evidence just to fill your speech. Virtual delivery is tough, I am proud of all of you in this manner.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc. in a virtual world? Do your best in this crazy time.

If character work adds to the quality, it's great. If it does not, it’s a distraction. Use it when necessary, the more differentiation (when you have multiple characters) the better. Don’t rely on character work if your characters all sound/act the same, it gets confusing.

Author's intent and appropriateness of a piece: Tough/mature topics are difficult to do,if you do it well, it goes far. It takes conviction for sure. It needs to be believable, some students just arent ready to speak on these types of topics. I will not drop you because of appropriateness so long as you can, with conviction, speak on the topic or with the language.

Cx - I am a Policy maker judge. I care more about impacts rather than solvency but you still have to get to those impacts somehow. I don’t like K’s but I will vote on it if it is run well. I don’t care about conditionality do it if you want. Stocks are important though you need to be solving something and be able to. I do care about T but make sure to run it well and you can explain why they are not or why you are topical. I consider magnitude is very important. If your going to use framework make me believe it. In my eyes death is worse than suffering because suffering can be fixed, however if suffering leads to death, this will out way all.

LD - I operate under utilitarianism, but I am perfectly fine with you running anything. All that really matters is how well you can convey your point of view and your ideas. If you can provide me with a good reason for your ideas then I will have no issue voting for you. you must still protect your value criterion, and the other parts of your case. If you don't defend everything, and you still hold your value criterion, you can still win. If you can make a good argument for yourself at the very end.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

I’ll evaluate the round in whatever framework you place me in, and I’m fine with judging whatever form of argumentation you feel like presenting. However, I strongly prefer that you make that framework explicit — tell me what to vote on and why.

I want a balance between evidence/cards and analysis, especially later in the round.

Stylistically, I’m fine with speed as long as taglines and analysis are clear. If there is a clarity issue (not just speed but diction, volume, etc.), I won’t call clear or put down my pen; I'll continue attempting to flow and what doesn’t make it onto the flow won’t be evaluated — it’s your responsibility to make sure that I can understand you. **NOTE: in an online format, I’m much more lenient about speech clarity — if I can’t understand you due to mic issues, etc. I’ll let you know in the chat. I'll follow the TFA guidelines for tech time (10 minutes of tech time) for most rounds. Beyond this time, we will start running prep.**

I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, delineation between arguments, etc.

Add me to the email chain — my email is colbymenefee@utexas.edu. Also feel free to email me if you have any questions about your ballot, the round, etc. Do not email me paradigm questions before the round — I’m glad to discuss my paradigm further and answer specific questions in-round, where your opponent can also hear my answers.

Im an experienced debater. I competed at nationals and tfa state three straight years in pf debate. In cx I competed at UIL state three out of four years, making it to semifinals and winning third in two of those years. I’m open to any argument as long as you have a clear link, get creative!! I don’t want to watch a card dump round. No spreading will be flowed, I’m okay with speed on case reading however.

For email chain, Kolban.mills@gmail.com

general debate tips

1. line by line is so important and how i'll be following the whole round. more so in the rebuttal and final focus Clash is veryyyyyy important, the less clash the less I'm going to listen to you. Use your time effectively, don't consistently repeat yourself.

2. impact calc is so important, show me what I have to weigh in the debate and why i should vote you (magnitude, timeframe, etc) and especially in pf be concise on why your impact outweighs theirs.

3. time yourselves

4. be nice to one another, I will destroy your speaker points.

5. if you are gonna read a framework please use it during the rest of the debate also. If you are not gonna use it dont read it, but if you do read one its usually where I start when looking to make a decision in the round, because I believe the framework is supposed to frame the round, which means all of your args should probably be filtered/tied to your framework.

6. I'll listen to any argument, just prove it to me

7. For CX, if you run a topicality run it well. If its broken, abusive, or confusing I wont flow

8. Most importantly have fun, debate is supposed to be fun

PF- line by line is so important and how i'll be following the whole round. More so in the rebuttal and final focus Clash is very important, the less clash the less I'm going to listen to you. Use your time effectively, don't consistently repeat yourself. I don't want to listen to a card dump, don't do it. Have analysis of your evidence, not just reading as many evidence cards as you can. Because its PF, evidence and analysis will be equally needed.

For CX I am a policy maker judge. For both LD and CX I expect clear clash, speed should not impede clarity. LD is a philosophy debate (no plans needed or desired )I don't argue the round for you. It is the debaters responsibility to use a road map and signpost. Using the word and is not a signpost.

Nothing special. I judge Congress/PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.

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.

I am a student at the University of Houston. I debated for 4 years at Oak Ridge High School. 2 years in PF and 2 years in Congress. I also did Extemp for 2 years.

My high school debate experience is mostly UIL LD, UIL Policy, and NSDA (then NFL) PFD. Our team wasn't a powerhouse debate team by any means, but I feel we did as well as we did due to a focus on speaking style and presentation, clarity of a few select basic arguments key to each debate style, and the understanding that every round was an opportunity to learn and grow (no matter what the decision was). I competed in NPDA in college and have spent the last ten years as a bilingual elementary ELAR/social studies teacher.

Currently, I tend to be a more traditional, “old-school” judge in all areas of debate. I never grew up with all of the excessive jargon and terminology so I would really appreciate it if you focused more on the substance of each argument and the bigger picture rather than expect to win on overly complex technicalities or applications of debate theory.

POLICY: I am not the biggest fan of speed for the sake of being fast. If you absolutely must spread, I must be given perfectly clear and enunciated (normal rate) taglines if you want me to flow your arguments. I am more of a policymaker/stock issues judge. I will listen to topicality, disadvantages, and counterplans on negative. I am not really the biggest fan of kritiks, unless you are confident that you can thoroughly explain them to a lay person. If you have any specific questions let me know.

LD: I am not really “progressive” when it comes to LD (prefer to hear value, criteria, contentions debate). I have voted on policy arguments such as plans, disadvantages, and counterplans (both debaters have to be on the same page) in the past though. I am not a fan of overly critical and debate-theory arguments in LD. If you have any specific questions, let me know.

PFD: I still believe that PFD should be judged as a debate “of the people” and like to see rounds focused on simple arguments based on simple interpretation of the resolution. I don’t like any LD or policy elements in CX and prefer debate jargon not really make an appearance (as people from the general public wouldn’t know these terms). Speaking skills and presentation play a big role in PFD for me. Rebuttal speeches are absolutely key for me in PFD and I am a huge fan of BOLD second speakers who go for only one or two thoroughly articulated voters in the final focus.

All of this being said, I obviously encourage all debaters to do whatever feels most comfortable for them and what they have been taught. I just ask that you be aware of my preferences and take the time to craft rebuttals and voters that clearly articulate why you deserve the round and clarify a purpose of the strategy you have chosen to use throughout.

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

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

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.

background:

el campo high school - policy, congress, extemp, and worlds (state medalist, outrounds @ nats)

southeastern ok state - LD, parli, PF, IPDA, extemp (state champion, state runner up, 2x national top speaker & 2x national quarterfinalist)

texas state - LD, parli, ipda (3x state champion, 2x state runner up, 4x state top speaker, national top speaker)

misc:

email chains are cool but so is speechdrop

hannahmn99@gmail.com

pls unhighlight your evidence -> i'm colorblind and if i can't read it, i'm not flowing it

tell me like a really funny joke to show me that you read my paradigm (which doesn't happen enough) -> i'll add points to your speaker points

if online, i'll also add no more than 0.5 to your speaks if you see and acknowledge my cats :)

i do not care what you call me but PLEASE stop calling me judge -i think this creates a really weird dynamic and it makes debaters uncomfortable

pls don't have an attitude with me, it's really annoying and you'll get the minimum speaks for it (you also might get the L). if i know your coach, i'll probably let them know what happened, as well.

i love this activity and i want you to, as well. if there's anything i can do before the round to make the teams more comfy, pls let me know, even if that means we need to have a private convo beforehand. i will do it for you

policy:

i'll listen to most policy args but here's some specific info

1) don't be a racist, sexist, etc. -> idc i'll vote you down as a punishment

2) i love Ks and K affs, but don't run them if you don't really understand the lit or the argument behind them

3) i'm down for the multiple links on the K (even analytic links) but pls collapse in the rebuttals and give me a solid story

4) make sure you have all parts for all of your args -> if you're missing solvency in the 1ac, i'll vote neg on presumption and vice versa (tech over truth)

5) cp's are cool as long as they're mutually exclusive and also non-t

6) impact calcs should happen starting with the rebuttals

7) i HATE having to vote on args that are just dropped. make sure you tell me why this dropped or conceded arg is important in context to the round

8) to win t on the neg, you have to prove abuse and not just expect me to judge on potential abuse (this is def up for debate and if you win the theory for it, i'll give it to you)

8.5) hot take i literally do not care if your aff is non-topical as long as you can defend that this is a good idea and has some net benefit

9) I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue

10) literally do not lie in any aspect of the round.

11) overall -> i try and adapt to the debater so pls make it as easy for me as possible

ld:

1) not too big of a fan of this switch to policy in ld, but i'll listen to it. if this is you, read my policy paradigm

2) if you decide on traditional ld, aff must have a v/c

3) no clash = the other side gets a W on presumption

4) i'll vote you down every single time if you lose f/w (don't be shocked)

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. THIS IS A REMINDER TO INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. IF I SEE YOU FUMBLING WITH YOUR COMPUTER 10 SECONDS AFTER YOU STOP PREP, I'M STARTING PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting old and grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best final speeches start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes HORRIBLE clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* a good thing)

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

I did LD for four years in high school and a small amount of policy. I’m happy to evaluate any arguments. I’m not well versed in K literature so make sure to explain it well. I don’t like theory debate, but I’ll listen to it if I think it was actually warranted. Speed's fine, but I haven’t judged in a bit, so make sure that you’re clear. I’ll give one clear warning. If you see me not taking notes I’m not evaluating your argument because I can’t understand you. I appreciate some amount of framework, it doesn't have to be traditional but tell me how I should evaluate the arguments. Be courteous.

I am currently a Law teacher and debate coach at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet in Dallas, Texas. I am a former attorney - I even have experience in the fossil fuel industry! I did not compete in debate in high school or college, but I did compete in Mock Trial and Moot Court in college.

I have judged about 10 rounds on the water topic, and am familiar with most of the big cases like fracking, lead, and agricultural runoff. I have attended coach training and have worked with our head coach to learn debate. I lead our novice and JV program.

In debates, I prefer that you speak at a conversational speed, perhaps a little quicker. I value evidence quality over quantity, so please do not just keep reading evidence without contextualizing it to the arguments in the debate.

I am most familiar with policy-style debate, but I am open to learning new things. I would like to be on the speech doc chain - dopitz@dallasisd.org. If you have any questions before the debate, I am happy to answer them. I value partnership communication and general kindness towards others very highly, please make it a pleasant experience for all :)

Congratulations on qualifying for Nats! It is through hard work and dedication that you have made it.

My criteria for judging is as follows. I use a framework. whether this is the traditional value criterion or just a statement of what is more important, I need some lens to view the round. I am more familiar with the traditional side, but do not feel that a debater has to necessarily uphold that tradition as long as I have a way presented to look at the round. Basically, you both define the realm of the debate. I will put myself in that space and determine within this guideline who wins.

What happens then? I don't have a leaning toward structural violence, util impacting or rights based approaches to the topic. While my debate time was spent in policy, I won't default to that unless there is nothing else for me to do. I enjoy rights v util rounds. This topic may have a few of those. If you are running something you consider not mainstream, I am ok as long as you prove the tie in to the topic. An example would be a specific country vs a US based democracy approach. I do not like voting on topicality but again, if neg is winning it I will vote there. I am not a fan of lots of debate theory, as a preference, let's debate the topic. That said, if you are a theory debater, debate well. I am not a fan of defining what you do and don't do, I just don't really from a selfish perspective want to see a round of tricks and rvi's.

I am antiquated so I write on paper. I can write down what you are saying if you stay organized. Please stay organized. Explain why your position is better than your opponents and things will work out.

If there is an email chain please add me russellphelps@gmail.com. If not, I will not ask for evidence unless it is part of the argument that I consider essential to the ballot. Please have fun and be respectful. If feedback is allowed without revealing the decision, I will share my thoughts. If not, find me after and I will talk to you about what happened in your debate. This is an educational activity. I hope when you walk out of the round something has been learned and you will continue to be a part of this activity in some form. Good luck.

I have 40+ years of experience in the forensics world - as a competitor, coach, and judge. I don't miss much.

I will listen intently to your arguments and flow them all. I will judge the round solely on what is said in this and only this round. It is your job, as the debater, to present your arguments and tell me what to vote on. I am a Tabula Rosa judge.

Use debate jargon all you want, but assume I know nothing about the resolution.

In short:

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

--

he/him

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

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

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

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

In general:

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

How I decide rounds/preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical arguments:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

I debated a stock issues style in high school, so that is what I am most comfortable with, but I am willing to hear any type of argument. As long as an argument is run well I will consider it, and a team must have actual answers for everything.

I am okay with speed as long as you speak clearly and you can actually understand the information you're reading. If you cannot analyze your own cards then you need to do some more work.

I do not care for analytical arguments, every topic you discuss should be backed by some good information and should be very specific to each topic at hand.

DA’s: weigh impact, time frame, probability, and magnitude to win a DA. They should be pretty straightforward, if your impact chain is weak I probably won’t vote on it.

CP’s: Need to be competitive and non-topical if you expect it to be a voter. I’m good with any type of CP but if it’s extremely abusive then I don't prefer it and it won't reflect well on your ballot.

Topicality: Will vote on T, but if multiple off case are run it probably not a voter, so if you go for a T really drive that point. Aff will lose if they lose T.

Theory: Love theories! A team can prove a violation much better through a theory than a T, as long as it is structured well and explained clearly.

K’s: I don’t love K’s because most of them are not very good, If you run a K it needs to be well thought out and you should spend a good part of your time on these. It needs to have a link, impact, and alternative for me to consider it. If the K doesn’t access any type of solvency and Aff points it out it’s not going to win.

I am a third year out and I did CX and LD at Austin SFA from 2015-2019.

I would like to be on the email chain - anevayel@gmail.com

General:

I have 0 preference for argumentative style (traditional, “progressive” etc). Yes I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go.

Tech/Truth: I default to tech on arguments I either have personal opinions about or don’t understand but please don’t mistake tech as just having more ink on the flow. I swing more towards truth in matters where whatever is being said is like common knowledge or a fact about current events etc.

I will not disclose your speaker points and I won’t give you a 30.

Speaker points are 60% strategy and quality of argumentation and 40% how clearly you spoke and your in round etiquette. I will give you the lowest points I can if you are nasty. Don’t be.

LD/CX:

Kritiks: Fantastic. Please make sure you understand it and you explain it clearly. I’m probably familiar with whoever you are reading so I wouldn’t downvote you because I don’t know/understand the author but the burden is still on you to explain and win their argument as if I don’t know who they are.

T: Please be mindful I have not judged many rounds on this LD or policy topic so I have 0 preconceived notions of what is T and what is not. You must give me a clear violation->impact story.

Theory: If you’re in LD or PF-I don’t evaluate theory. Ask me for clarifiers if you must. CX- do your thing but please don’t just spread through a bunch of blocks someone else likely wrote

Disads and Counterplans are great! Make your link stories specific! Please, don’t forget to debate about the aff!

PF:

Please be nice to each other. Don’t quote the TFA rules at me. Run whatever arguments you want but you absolutely must tell me a coherent story that is backed by your evidence.

Public Forum Debate - Purist when it comes to style and argumentation. No spreading please. Arguments should be simplistic and accessible for any person to understand. In the end the biggest impacts will win the debate.

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Mix of stock issues judge and tabla rasa- prefer a clear, traditional debate but don’t mind if teams run a kritike or counterplan with sufficient evidence and clear argumentation to back it up

Speech style- I prefer speech clarity over speed reading. A succinct argument that doesn't spread is preferred.

Argument- No preference for argument as long as it is backed by evidence and fits within status quo of possibility.

Sources- Credit will be given for most contemporary and credible sources presented in argument. Repetition of sources and linking to argument is preferred method of citation.

Looking for a good, clean, and respectable debate. Courtesy and good sportsmanship matter towards overall scoring.

I have been part of CX debate for 19 years. I debated for 2 years in high school and did 4 years of Parliamentary Debate in College. I have been a debate coach and judge in UIL and TFA for 13 years. I have seen debates in different regions of the US and have been exposed many forms and varieties of CX and have no preferences as to style or type.

My paradigm is open to any type of debate (tabula rasa), from stock issues to off-case arguments, theory and Kritiks. I like organization and easy to follow flows. All arguments should have both analytical and evidence based foundations as well as a measurable impact. The evidence should be balanced as far as quantity and date, quantity of evidence alone will not decide the ballot, but instead how the debaters use the information to prove their arguments or turn opposition points against them. There is not single issue to look for in a round, instead debaters point the issues that define the debate and argue for their importance or dismissal in rebuttals.

I enjoy quick paced rounds and don't mind spreading as long as the speakers are clear with pronunciation and enunciation. At the core, debate is not just for the experienced debaters instead a way to bring nuance and education to the masses through the exercise of argumentation, oratory and persuasive techniques. The average person should be able to walk into a debate with little information about the topic but leave the round much more informed and exposed to an organized and well elaborated evaluation about the resolution.

Howard Ritz

I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 26 twenty six years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.

My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Pronouns He/Him/His

Boling High School 06/ West Texas A&M 10

LD debate

I am more traditional and believe in a strong Value and Criterion debate. I am not a fan of CP in LD but will use it as a voting issue if the AFF doesn't answer it strongly. Speed is not an issue but if I can't understand you then there is an issue. I love philosophy debate and appreciate a strong philosophy based case.

CX Debate

I have been judging CX debate since 2008. I am a policy maker judge. I believe that the affirmative has the burned of proof and the Neg has burden of clash. I do not like time suck arguments. If you are running topicality please make sure that it is warranted. I have no issues with speed but if your diction suffers because of speed i will not flow your speech and your arguments will not matter. I am ok with K, CP and DA. Make your impacts realistic.

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

IE

I am comfortable judging any speech event, but am best when I judge extemp and oratory. I favor content and substance over style but believe that both are important in speech rounds.

Congress - I judge speech content/presentation over procedural skills. I will strongly consider a PO for advancement unless they are acting in an unfair way or significantly struggling with recency. Remember that where you are in the speech cycle impacts what your speech should be doing.

CX Debate

I try to be open minded in arguments but with this topic I have been more drawn to traditional policy case arguments and disads. With that said if you prefer to run kritikal arguments be prepared to show solvency arguments for the affirmative advantages. Too many people cannot explain what the K world looks like and I do not like it when K debaters go down the rabbit hole without a clear idea of what the world looks like.

Do not run T as a time suck only.

Framing arguments are crucial.

Some speed is ok but I have old coach ears and the virtual debate thing makes it easier to lose you if you move too quickly. If I cannot hear or understand it. I will not flow it.

LD

I try to be open minded but I hate progressive debate for the sake of progressive debate.

Some speed is ok but understand that historically LD was created as an alternative to CX Debate. In the final set of speeches you need to slow down and explain the argument that you are going for and why you should win the round. If you are spreading in the last two rebuttals it will not impact win/loss but it will impact your speaker points.

I look at arguments over presentation and believe that criterion are especially important.

Do not run generic link disads or K arguments. The evidence needs to have specific links and specific impacts to the resolution and the value/criterias used in the round.

I do not buy CPs in LD rounds since there is no presumption in LD.

Since there is no presumption in LD, negative must run a case and value/criteria not just respond.

POLICY: I care about the stock issues. If done well, and related directly to the Aff. case, then I will accept Neg. Kritiks and counter-plans (CPs are expected in most arguments). If you spread incomprehensibly, you will lose points. Do not use theory based or alternate world cases. I will not allow open CX. Also, answering, "my partner will answer that" is not an acceptable response--know your case. Your analysis should be supported by “tangible” evidence. Substance is more important than quantity, and fallacies in your argument will cost points. No new in the 2!

LD: I am a traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention a plan, solvency, start spreading, etc... you will lose the round. No new in the 2.

EVERYONE: Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

Jose Fernando Serna

He/Him

Yes, put me on the email chain - joseferserna@gmail.com

Debated at Alexander High School in Laredo, Texas for 4 years. Attended UTNIF skills lab in 2019

I'm from a pretty lay circuit but I am pretty much open to anything you wanna run. My strat in high school for neg was solvency + Offense on the DA's so I find that pretty persuasive. For AFF's I would run anti-util framing and senior year I ran a Kritikal Aff, so if you wanna run one go for it. Besides that if none of the teams run framing in the round then i default to util. So if you are going to run soft left args or kritikal args PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run framing with it.

Topicality: I think T is okay, it's not the most persuasive but it's a pretty good strat and definitely can win you a lot of rounds. My favorite T args are usually not numerical, I especially loved the Education=Curriculum T on the Education topic.

Counterplans: My least favorite arg is probably a topical CP, I just think it's not a good argument or a strategy. Plus, I believe you give a lot of theory ground to the Aff when you run a topical CP. I have no bias on 50 state fiat, so debate it out!!! Conditionality is fine by me but you best be ready to face theory in the 2ac (which i could vote on)

Theory: Theory is pretty cool. I think a lot of us know when the other team is being unfair so use it when necessary. I can see myself voting on theory alone but it has to be a pretty severe case and the other team was purposely being toxic. Even if I don't vote on it, still run it. You can use it as leverage in the round and it overall just makes you look like a proactive team. Just don't run it if you really don't feel like if you've been hurt AND you know you could had have time for other arguments that could have more substance in the round.

Kritiks: I think that kritikal args are basically inevitable in with the CJR topic and I imagine that the Abolitionism is gonna be a big thing this year. Clearly define your alt and be prepared to defend it though. I enjoy identity politics and am good with performance . I don't have a lot of experience running Postmodernism but have gone against and read up to some extent. Be sure to give me voters and spell it out for me in the rebuttals if you are gonna run POMO.

You don't have to be super formal with me as long as you are respectful to me and your opponents. Just have fun debating, and most importantly try to learn so you can do better in the future :)

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

In terms of debate, I like to see arguments that flow throughout the entire round. I look for organization in both speeches and rebuttals. I'm fairly relaxed in terms of what arguments are brought to the table. Have fun with it, and convince me.

In limited preps, I love organization, the use of proper citations, and a solid job of explaining your point to me, rather than just "talking" at me.

In platform events, I look for organization mostly. Is your speech easy to follow? Do you provide justification? Do you bring an interesting spin to the topic? Are your implications believable?

In interp events, I look for believability. I also look at the argument that is being presented.

I am a pretty traditional stock issues judge. If you are going off case, your arguments should be well thought out with clear and specific links to the Aff case. Arguments on topicality should be specific and reasonable. I rely on the participants in a round to let me know what they are doing and how they will do it. If you are extending cards or arguments, you need to tell me. If you are splitting the block, you should tell me. Ensure arguments are clearly linked internally and externally with analysis. I rely on participants to provide the claim, the evidence, and the logical reason it matters. Each side should clearly state their position and explain the reasons they should win the round. Spreading is not preferred. Substantive debate is more important than the number of cards read. I am looking for quality oratory, respectful discourse, and clarity in your arguments. CX should be a time for quality give and take. Roadmaps, signposting, and structure are appreciated. Name what you are mapping,”Harms” instead of “next on case” or “Spending DA” instead of “next off-case”.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

Whether you are in person or speaking virtually, public speaking skills stand out. Work for "eye contact" as opposed to reading speeches in debate events. Keep in mind that I need to be able to see and hear you clearly. Stand up and speak up. Speak with conviction and confidence. Perform with confidence. NO ONE knows your material better than you! (Even if you do not know your topic/material/case as well as you or miss a word, how would I know?! You need to sell me your side/piece/speech. Make me want to keep listening to you after the time has run out!)

As a congress judge, I will remind you that it is called Congressional DEBATE and not Congressional Speechmaking. Take time to refute the Representatives/Senators before you. Answer and ask questions with purpose and confidence. Be clear about evidence--in other words: HAVE SOME! Anyone that is brave enough to PO needs to know the procedure and must be able to be fair and unbiased.

For CX and LD, speed is not always your friend-- especially if we are virtual. Slowing down and articulation are the keys to a good debate. Also, Clash is not just a band from the '80s. I expect to be given solid reasons to vote for you. Perhaps use the last 30 sec of your last speech to crystalize the round for me. Tell me what is important. I may not be a fan of your K or CP, but if you present it well and defend it against attacks, I will vote on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respect towards your opponents is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. You should be able to address/attack your opponent's arguments in a graceful and impactful way.

Arguments should be delivered at a reasonable pace with an emphasis on communication delivery. A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments at a fast pace.

I believe that congress should balance respect, stance, research, and clash.

I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.

I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)

Specifics

CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Flush out your ideas.)

LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.

Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.

Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.

Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.

I am mostly a policymaker judge, but I will weigh the stock issues for their impacts in my decision making.

I value a Negative approach that is logical, and simply throwing Negative arguments at the Aff, regardless of whether or not those arguments contradict each other is not good debate.

Signpost always, make the connections, give me solid analysis. I am not an interventionist, so you have to persuade me to vote for you, and tell me why.

Quality of evidence is important; just because you have a card doesn't mean it is a good one, and I do read the cards.

I'm fine with a K, so long as it is not designed to shut down debate or shift the focus of the round away from the resolution, and so long as there is a clear, logical link to the Aff. Performance Ks will get an automatic loss.

Splitting the negative block is fine.

Aggressive debate is fine; rudeness is not. I do not tolerate cursing in the round, and your speaker points will suffer heavily. Be judicious about using quotes with curse words or vulgar language.

This is a communicative, persuasive event, so I am not a fan of spreading. If I can't understand you, I will likely not vote for you. If you absolutely must spread, I must be on the email chain - margaret.toney@ecisd.net - or included on speech drop.

I am a communications judge. No Kritiks please. I’m cool with some theory, not all of them (not a fan of disclosure theory).

I focus on enunciation; speak clear taglines, regardless of flashing the judge your case, it is still a speaking event.

Note: there’s a difference between fast speaking and spreading. Just make sure to enunciate your tags, signpost, etc., and you’ll be fine. if I hear heavy breathing because you’re reading too fast, it’s a problem.

Having said that, I like analytics. You can use evidence/cards and cross apply them, just ensure you provide a clear explanation as to why you’re able to cross apply them. You can’t just say “cross apply my C1 to his DA” and move on; tell me why it applies. Make sure to emphasize how it cross applies.

I like to follow the flow. I expect a good, yet understandable rebuttal. Please include me (the judge) in the email chain, if any. (antonio.valdez@psjaisd.us)

please do not be rude. If you become aggressive within the round, expect to see low speaks. It’s one thing to attack an argument, it’s another thing to attack your opponent.

Last, I do not disclose. Tournaments typically run late and I don't wanna add to the problem.

toby.whiz@gmail.com

Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially transformative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.

1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.

2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.

3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.

4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.

Side notes:

Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.

Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.

Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.

Speech events. I am looking for quality sources and logic in OO and Inf. I have been teaching speech for 18 years and will evaluate fundamentals as well.

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.

I used to have a longer paradigm, I deleted it because it'd been a while since I made any substantive changes to it and I think my relationship to debate has changed. People are on here looking for prefs and pre round advice for how to persuasively frame their arguments. I'm not sure what the ideal paradigm for answering those questions is and doubt that this one comes close in many readings.

i just want to see a debate. I want full argumentation relying on complex and nuanced understandings of interesting and innovatice evidence sets. I want to see debaters taking research and connecting the dots to develop a complex understanding of the world. I love that strategy is a part of debate and like to see people make bold choices with clear and clever strategic goals, and for those things to be communicated in an effective manner.

I think that arguments should be complete (having a claim, warrant, and impact) on the flow when they are made. I appreciate well organized debaters who engage in a method that creates a clear structure for the flow. I think that there has been a lack of emphasis on argument explication. I guess what I'm trying to say is it seems like debaters are either being held or are holding themselves to a lower threshold when it comes to fleshing out the implications of any particular argument and it's relationship to all the other sub debates and ultimately the ballot. Maybe one thing that causes that is debaters wanting to go for too much in their final speeches. Being confident in being able to narrow the debate down to what you believe to be the key issues is I think what I mean by making bold choices. I think it's good when these things happen earlier (as early as the 1ac/1nc) rather than later(I'll put "condo" here so people can control f that and surmise my opinion about big 1nc's in LD by reading the preceding sentence).

As long as adequate time is spent to implicating ur argument and telling me what to do on it then you shouldn't be afraid to say anything in front of me. (Except bad and incomplete arguments).

Speed? I can do it!! I think this is something that should be negotiated between debaters but I'm a pretty alright flow! Pen time between pages and vocal intonations and speed changes for emphasis are good things.

Evidence should be like, words highlighted that when read together approximate at least an attempt at a sentence. If I read the highlighting and come away thinking "what is bro yapping about" I'm gonna lower your speaks.

Conversely will award decent speaks for interesting and good quality research.

Spin is important but so is your ev, but remember when making args I'm probably not looking at it till after the round.

I think I might have a higher threshold for explanation than a lot of judges. I'm at the risk of being repetitive here, making bold, specific, and strategic choices/ sticking to your guns to take them to their logical conclusions is great for you in front of me.

My email (which you should put on the chain) is: debatethek@gmail.com

I do policy and NFA ld for the University of North texas. If you're interested in debating in college, and in particular at UNT hit me up, we have scholarships!

Online debate stuff:

I like email chains over other kinds of sharing methods- it lets us get in contact with ppl in case of technical difficulties.

I think Jackie Poapst said this first, but I absolutely hate “is any one not ready” because if someone is having a tech problem then they may not be able to indicate they are not ready. It is the equivalent of “if you aren’t here raise your hand.”

There have been several times when debaters have asked “is everybody ready” and then proceeded to give their speech without a response from me- I missed several seconds of those debaters’ speeches. Please wait for me to respond I’ll usually say that “i’m good” verbally. If I see that the debater about to give a speech can see their camera- i may just give a thumbs up. If I have not done either of those things- I AM NOT READY.

Updated January 2024

About me:

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

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

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

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

TL;DR version:

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

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

Evidence Standards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prep Time Standards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Anthonywyatt260@gmail.com

Lindale High School 2014-2018

Baylor University 2018-Present

I don't think there is a correct style of debate, do what you're good at and explain why what you're doing is important for me to vote for. My ballot generally reflects who did the better debating (unless told otherwise) but you determine what good debate is.

I primarily read critical arguments and prefer to listen to them but do what you do best. I'd rather listen to a good politics da then a poorly understood liberalism k. I'm no policy hack and I haven't read a lot of critical literature so please explain your arguments and try to write my ballot. Debaters with clear topic and case knowledge are perceptually impressive and will probably earn better speaks in front of me. Tell me why what you're talking about matters in the context of the topic or debate and if you can't do that well, you probably deserve to lose.

The past tense of flow is flew

Do your thing, have fun, be safe.

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

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

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

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