Space City Swing NIETOC TFA Invitational
2023 — Houston, TX/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Updated Nov 8th
pls just call me by my name
I did LD and graduated in 2019 - I ran mainly islamo and did generic larp/shell debate and ran haunto my senior year if you want to know what type of debater I was
Conflicts: Alief Hastings, Stephen F. Austin, IH Kempner
bring me water, extemp a shell, or come in playing Akon and ill boost ur speaks :)
Short: Im pretty laid back, u do you -- I will do whatever u want me to do as long as you tell me
K - Shells - Larp << this is what im comfy with
 K's: I love the K debate - try to run something Ive never heard or make it interesting and ill boost your speaks - I have no prefs on what k's you run ie non topical affs, queer pess, safe spaces, etc.. is all fine with me - make sure u win framing and priori your k
 Shells: I feel like I have a higher threshold on shells specifically bc debaters now just read a shell with no impact ie dtt/dtd/dta or no voters which means your running a car on no gas - im not gonna care for it - I think 1ar restarts (for ld) are clever and this is a Strat I don't see debaters do as much anymore- i dont default to anything btw - im fine with friv to a certain level like cmon I don't wanna hear a no shoes shell, paper only flow, or anything like that - however I am fine with like spreading with consent bad, delineated plan text with a solvency advocacy, no fw shell bad, etc..
 Larp: Every judge and their mom, dad, uncle, grandpa, and kids knows how to judge LARP - its just boring - da/impact calc specific if ur gonna run extinction/util level args make sure u do some type of analysis on how extinction will happen and weigh im not doing the work for u - ie the tonneson 15 evid - I know it - I used it when I debated- explain it still - not doing the work for u that's unfair - you lost? that's on u
 Phil: Ill try my best to eval it but I probs won't understand it - I think threshold for Phil is high bc u have to explain it really well bc Idk high level Phil args - unless its haunt/derrida
 tricks: Strike - just don't even lol - I dont ever buy them nor do I care for them - I will find a reason to not buy it even if its a blippy extension - dont care abt presumption Ill find a way to not vote for it - I have a super low threshold and I use it as a last resort - fortunately if that's u , ur lucky bc lately that's been happening a lot
CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical
LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.
I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.
1. Make sure your address the topic.
2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.
3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.
4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.
1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.
1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.
1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.
2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.
1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.
1. Be an active member of the session.
2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.
3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.
4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.
speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is firstname.lastname@example.org
im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.
one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.
please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them
I debated policy for 3 years in High School, but I like to be able to hear what's going on. Spreading is allowed but if I cannot understand what is being said I will make 2 "clear" calls and after that it's speaker points reduction. My biggest thing is making sure you respond to all arguments made, and tie up all arguments made for a clear and straightforward round. Bonus points if you can make me laugh in round while staying on topic. Any arguments made during cross examination will not be considered. I would like to be included in any doc sharing, my email is email@example.com
Hello I debated for 4 years in High school and have been judging for 5 years going on my 6th, I am in my first year an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School
I have individual paradigms for the different events but to go over a few things
First: this is a communication event it does not matter if I can understand speed DO NOT SPREAD
Second: be respectful the easiest way to get me to drop your speaks (and you'll likely loose the round too) is if you are being rude
Third:DO NOT MAKE UP SOURCES I will fact check you and I will get in touch with your coach and the tournament director, you CAN use the internet in rounds now
Fourth: Debaters I DO NOT DISCLOSE Do not ask me to disclose and all comments will be on the ballot
Congress Kids: do not wait until the round has started to take splits do that before the round. and I HATE in house recesses to take splits especially when y'all just started. another thing, when y'all take splits and you need to write a speech in round go with the least popular side of the debate as it increases your chances at getting the speech. CLASH IS ESSENTIAL FOR CONGRESS TO BE A DEBATE EVENT!!!!!!
Debaters: If your opponent clearly is less experienced than you and you exploit that to stroke your ego I will drop your speaks to the lowest number I can and i will down you even if you won the round on the flow and I will contact your coach. Practices like that are unethical and takes away the educational aspect of debate. Also I don't like these progressive things that have been ran at recent tournaments, I have no problem with progressive arguments that are ran well however most of the time they are not done well.
do not ask me to pre flow you should know your case already, I like big picture, impact calculus, make sure you weigh for me, I HATE FRIVOLOUS THEORY, and also don't run anything you don't understand. Be respectful and have fun
Conflicts: Bridgeland HS, Blanson CTE HS, Avalos P-Tech
DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:
Each format has its own unique attributes, and you should always respect those attributes unless you explicitly read theory which compels me to respect your shirking of those attributes. I am willing to vote on unorthodoxy, but I have to have an important reason to vote on that unorthodoxy.
I am a former CX debater and a tab judge. CX is the format I'm most familiar with, but I have debated and judged virtually every format. When I say I am a tab judge, I don't mean to communicate that I won't evaluate claims based on my own knowledge and experience. If your case relies on my acceptance of your argument that the sky is red, you aren't going to win. I am a tab judge in the sense that you should not assume any one paradigm from me.
My philosophy is that each round has its own rules and must be evaluated depending on what emerges in-round. You should always tell me what is the focus of the round and why. Tell me what framework is most important, tell me what my role is, tell me what the role of my ballot is, tell me which voting issues are the most critical. Otherwise, I will make those decisions based on my own experiences and values.
It is not my job to automatically recognize an argument you are making or extend an argument on your behalf. I'm well-versed in a lot of the theory that might come up. But I prefer being exposed to new, niche, creative approaches and ideas. The caveat to that preference is I'm not well-versed in ideas I haven't yet been exposed to. Please loop me in.
Both traditional and progressive arguments are fine as long as you do them well. Don't ask me whether I prefer one argument over another, or whether I prefer one set of values over another. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's your argument to make. Context and evidence is everything, and it is very likely that I will prefer a sensible and empirically-backed argument over a sensible analytic. What I will say is that some arguments are extremely difficult (effectively impossible) to prove to me. For example, capitalism is a good or sustainable economic system, immigration causes overpopulation, the world is overpopulated, racism isn't alive and well, etc. I've seen ideas like those circulating in the debate space for a while. I don't know if debaters actually believe ideas like those, or if those are desperate grabs at a win, but don't run them on me. I would rather you collapse on ideas you are winning and prove to me why those are paramount voting issues than throw bigoted spaghetti at the wall and hope that breadth impresses me. It won't.
HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT:
You frame the round and my flow determines the W. In order to win my ballot, you must 1.) provide a framing mechanism or specify which framing mechanism should be preferred and why 2.) win offense to that framing mechanism and prove that your advocacy has the strongest link to that framework and 3.) provide an impact calculus.
I always use gateway issues (T, theory, framing) to help frame my decision. If those issues don't come up, or their clash lacks depth, I consider how well each team has met their burden and allow that to frame my decision. Notice that I say this is how I frame my decision. This alone will not win you my ballot. I vote holistically. You might win one important issue and lose every other issue on the flow, resulting in an overall loss.
Be considerate about how you construct your case, how you write analytics, and how you organize your speeches. I am a bit of a gamesplayer in that I track how the flow of your speech mirrors your opponent's flow. Spending the bulk of a constructive speech reading your evidence into the round without reading offense on your opponents' case or reading defensive arguments is poor strategy. Collapses should be intentional, not an accident resulting from mass concession.
Your advocacy suite should be strategically organized and directly communicated so as to make the decision abundantly clear for me. I want clear extensions, roadmapping, and signposting. If you are going to roadmap, give me a detailed roadmap of the distinct arguments you plan to cover in your speech. Do not tell me the order will be 'aff and then neg', or something to that effect. Those are literally the only two sides we will be discussing in any debate round. It's a given that you will cover one or the other at some point in the round.
Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a slate (contextualizing the piece, stating the theme, listing the title[s] and author[s] of the source material[s], and reiterating the central theme of the piece), complete the exposition, rise into the climax, and then fall into the resolution.
Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and your binder to block different elements of your piece or characterize different characters. Utilize eye contact considerately as well.
Vocal performance is another consideration. Utilize vocal inflection, pacing, clarity, enunciation, accents (where appropriate), and volume to discern between different characters and different scenes. The intentional application of these elements can be used to juxtapose different elements, emphasize important ideas, and discern between different characters.
Physically move from point to point in accordance with the speaker's triangle. Use gestures to illustrate or emphasize points
The plot of your piece should be clear and easy to map. Whether you are utilizing one source or multiple sources, your piece should be paced and organized with lots of consideration. You should fully embody each character depicted, and there should be a clear distinction between each characters, each scene, each action, and each section in your piece.
Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a roadmap, two to three supporting arguments, a restatement of the roadmap, and a conclusion. Stick closely to this organization and signpost generously throughout your speech. Use verbal transitions and the speaker's triangle to help map your speech.
Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally throughout your piece. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and other elements to make your piece moving, memorable, and engaging. Utilize eye contact as well. Look at your judges and your audience-don't look through us.
Vocal performance is another consideration. Except on rare occasions when you may exercise a characterization, you should maintain even pacing, appropriate projection, varied inflection, vocal clarity, and a confident, conversational style. Avoid coming off as meek, stilted, confused, monotonous, etc.
For original oratory, make sure you clearly define your personal connection to the content in your introduction and conclusion.
For informative oratory, make sure your visual aids are simple, straightforward, easy to read, easy to decipher, and actually enhance your speech. Any attempts at humor are always a plus.
For any speech event, ensure that you are citing a healthy amount of sources in your speech. I like a balance between qualitative and quantitative evidence in the speeches I judge.
Content and presentation are equally important to me. I prefer three point speeches, but I will always prefer a holistically superior two-point speech to a superficial and sloppy three-point speech. The content should have depth and be logically organized.
***Email – firstname.lastname@example.org***
I am a University of Houston policy debater. While in high school I did CX debate for 2 1/2 years and LD debate for 1 year, and I am now also working with the Langham Creek High School Debate Program.
I would not say that I have any unusual opinions on any style of debate, so don’t be too worried about unusual judging tactics on my end. However, if you disagree with my decisions in regards to my decision or want me to elaborate on the round, my email is listed above to ask questions. I also would like to be included in the email chain – it makes it easier for me to follow the debate, which might just save you a few speaker points at worst or the round at best if I can’t understand you well.
Personal Likes and Dislikes:
LOVE overviews. Summing up everything into a nice, easy-to-digest segment makes my job easier and shows me that you are more than capable of interpreting the argument past the text itself. I am a very big believer in Albert Einstein’s quote: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”, especially when K arguments can oftentimes be presented as a haphazard array of philosophy jargon when not used properly.
I enjoy creative/unusual arguments. My high school years were full of experimentation of unusual arguments and things that are outside the norm. So long as you are not being discriminatory or hurtful (i.e., sexism good, racism good, etc.), I am okay with hearing something new as opposed to the same old boring Disadvantages and Counterplans.
I have no tolerance for any personal slander towards anyone else within the round based on race, gender, identity, orientation, religious or ethnic backgrounds, etc., and if I see it occur during the round, I will be certain to have it recorded on my judge sheet as to why you were voted down, why the round ended early, and why your speaker points were nonexistent.
A few more things to note:
- I will not be keeping time, that is the responsibility of the debaters in the room.
- I will not hesitate to say “slow down” or “clear” during your speech if necessary.
- Flex Prep and Open CX are both okay by me, but make sure everyone in the room is understanding of that.
- I am a diabetic that wears an insulin pump which might beep or otherwise make noise during a round. If it does, I will tell you to keep going if you stop and will tend to it as quickly as possible to minimize the interruption during the round. I let you know this because I don’t want you worrying about it or thinking it is a timer on my desk.
- Do not be alarmed if I do not have a lengthy RFD for your round; a short RFD does not mean your round was bad or not worth talking about. Truth is, I imagine if you are reading paradigms of your judges, you are probably not a terrible debater, but I will not do a whole lot of in-depth RFDs for time-saving purposes for both you and the tournament itself – I know everyone is on a tight schedule at these events and think that it is much more valuable for you as a debater to be probably rested, fed, and prepared for your next round and for the tournament to move along without interruption then it would be for me to tell you why I made my decision for the round, especially when I am more than willing to provide said reasoning over email if you are interested in what I have to say.
Accessibility - Don’t feel too stressed about the round. If there is any way that I can accommodate for disabilities or stress, let me know, and I will try my best. I don’t want the debate room to be an environment that is physically or mentally painful to exist in, so let me know what I can do if at all possible.
High Speaks - As long as you can maintain a good speed relative to your skill level and are consistently both easy to understand and comprehensive in your arguments, you will gain fairly good speaker points. +3 speaks and an optional crisp high-five if you can find Shostakovich's "DSCH" motif in his 8th Symphony and prove it to me - it is supposedly there, but I can't find it for the life of me.
Have fun, and let the debates begin!
LD and CX:
TRUTH OVER TECH.
Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.
Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.
I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.
I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).
With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.
Director of Debate: Dulles High School (2022 - Present)
Formerly: Westside High School (2017 - 2022), Magnolia High School (2016 - 2017)
Every round I judge: esdebate93 [at] the google mail service
If I am judging you in Policy: dulles.policy.db8 [at] the google mail service
If I am judging you in LD: dulles.ld.db8 [at] the google mail service
I am a full time public school teacher who oversees a large team and judges a lot. As a result, I can be a bit of a grumpy gus, but I promise that I care. I'm glad that you're choosing to be here and hope that you continue to make that choice. If you require accommodation or are uncomfortable with something that is happening and I'm not picking up on it, please let me know either verbally or by email. If you have any questions, just ask.
Non-Negotiables - The lightest consequence for a violation of these is me tanking your speaks. The harshest is stopping the round, reporting you to the tabroom, and contacting your coach. Anything between these two is on the table.
Safety, inclusivity, and accessibility are preconditions for us having an activity worth doing. Don’t be a bully, make threats, advocate/threaten self-harm, or engage in harassment. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist. Respect people’s pronoun preferences, provide accommodation upon request, and be kind to novices. Wheaton's law is always in effect.
Content/trigger warnings should be given if you have reasonable suspicion that the material you are discussing could be triggering. The onus is on you to ask the room to read the position and give observers time to leave. Read something else if any of the people who have to be there (competitors or judges) objects.
Debate tournaments are long, difficult, and overstimulating for everyone involved, often due to factors beyond your control. That said, debaters regularly behave in ways contribute to delays and stress. Do your best not to do that. To elaborate: Get to round on time, have the email chain ready to go, clean up after yourself, and don't be obnoxiously loud and in the way of others.
- Do not clip cards (cutting/reading them in such a way that omits/distorts the author's original meaning, such as omitting sentences where the author contradicts your tag; complete cards are comprised of whole paragraphs; bracketing out offensive language does not constitute clipping) or steal prep (preparing materials or strategizing with your partner outside of prep, speech, or CX time). If you decide to stake the round on ev ethics you will win if you are right and lose if you are wrong.
Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech times and will submit a decision with one winner and one loser. I will not be making decisions about behaviors that occurred outside of the round or prior disclosure period.
I try to be a good judge for research driven, content heavy strategies and find the best debates to be focused on central controversies rather than edge cases. I will privilege technical execution in most instances; however, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want the ballot to consider is super important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation.
Evidence quality matters a lot, but you need to be the one doing the comparison in your speeches. If the spin is good and you don't challenge it, I'm not going to be checking for you. Liberal use of rehilights are encouraged since they help to adjudicate between competing interpretations of what a piece of evidence says.
I am attentive to cross x but will not flow it. It is your job to incorporate cross x moments into your speeches if you want me to flow it.
Speaker points start at 28.5 and move up or down from there based on a subjective, holistic evaluation of your performance. Will not disclose speaks.
This is a research and communication activity, so you should be doing research and trying to communicate effectively. Too many debaters do neither, and I'm not a fan. Being well read, having a personality beyond doc botting debate bro, and trying to be persuasive will go a long way.
The documents you send during the debate are a reflection of how seriously you take your pre-tournament/round preparation. They should look good. Your cards should include author quals within the citation and you should highlight in comprehensible sentences.
I enjoy fast debates, but clarity, efficiency, and smart argument choices are way more important to me than speed. Please leave pen time when spreading, even if I am flowing on my laptop. If I can't understand or flow it, it won't factor into my decision.
Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling, numbering, or otherwise compartmentalizing your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad and I will not waste time or mental energy trying to parse them for you.
Have a strategy and execute it well. I love creative and innovative approaches, so don't be afraid to experiment; however, if your strategy is to bamboozle your opponent, you run the risk of bamboozling me too.
Gish-Galloping is bad. I will privilege quality and specificity of argument over quantity.
Clash is good. I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that try to avoid engagement.
Line by line is preferable to long overviews. 30-45 seconds is the max overview l think has any sort of utility, provided that the focus is judge instruction or impact comparison. There has never been an instance where a separate sheet for an overview has been necessary or helpful.
Please, I am begging you, learn to flow. If you have to waste cx flow checking, speaks will drop.
Beyond these preferences, don’t overadapt. Debate is for debaters, so do your thing, do it well, and have fun.
You should have a clearly articulated relationship to the current topic, identify a significant harm or set of harms that is inherent to the status quo, and propose a method that solves or starts to solve the problem(s) you’ve identified. I am open to various approaches to satisfying these burdens but if I vote for you I should be able to explain my ballot in those terms.
Regardless of style, consistent and compelling narratives are key if you want to win while affirming.
Neg Case Debating
More case 2NRs, please. Your case pushes should include more than just impact turns/defense and cross applications from other pages. You should read cards/analytics that contest theoretical assumptions, claims of solvency, and causal claims. If the negative answers to the case are only cross applications from other sheets (I'm looking at you K debaters), I will be annoyed.
Both sides should have a clear model of debate (interpretation/counter interpretation) that they think is desirable. Creative approaches are welcome, but whatever you choose to do, you need to be prepared to defend your performance. Your model should account for the role of both the affirmative and the negative. Thinking about this through case lists that would be allowed for both sides under your model is a good practice.
I find the Limits + SSD + TVA = better clash/education/skills model of FW the most persuasive. Negative teams who make their explanation of this reasoning contextual to the outcomes the aff desires (better radicals, less gender/racial bias, etc.) will have an easier time than teams that go for fairness oriented models in most instances; however, I'm happy to vote for those as well. Again, do your thing and do it well.
Aff teams should be aware that I generally think that discussions about the object of the resolution are probably important. I do not think that USFG policy on that object is necessarily the best starting point. As such, you will have an easier time winning if you contextualize debates about the resolution within your theory of power and identify the better starting point prescribed by that theory. If I don't know how your model of debate solves/mitigates the impact turn to theirs, I'm probably not going to vote for it.
I am most excited to be in the back of debates featuring kritiks that are specific to the topic/aff you are challenging. I would prefer fewer offs so you have time to explain the K, as these arguments are often counterintuitive. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about. If you're not winning your thesis, it is unlikely I will think that you are winning anything else on the K page absent really good arguments to the contrary.
Thesis arguments contextualize the link and link arguments support the thesis. They’re mutually reinforcing. When developing links, you should name them, theorize, link your theorization to the aff with a quote from the aff, and impact that out. Lazy link debating loses debates. If a link functions independently of your thesis, you should make that explicit. Don’t rely on me to implicitly follow your reasoning.
Examples are important at every level of these debates. Don’t just name check people, movements, and events. Explain their relationship to the argument. The earlier they show up the better.
Methods/Alternatives should do something that solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link debate. You should tell me what that something is and how it solves. I do not think this must necessarily be material change, a new paradigm or mode of relation is fine; however, it should make sense with regard to solvency claims.
The pre/post fiat distinction people try to draw is silly. Talk about your scholarship/research practices, their impacts, and weigh them against your opponents'.
I default to competing interpretations because affirmative teams should have to justify their choices. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not your aff. Your interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.
Disadvantages and Counterplans
Policy throwdowns are the kinds of debates where I am most likely to call for cards, as these quickly turn into card wars, and I am far from a topic expert. Please be ready to send a card doc including all evidence referenced in the 2NR/2AR. Know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.
Disads, ideally, are intrinsic to the action of the plan. Please have a cogent link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness generally controls the direction of the link.
Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides.
Condo is good. You'll have to do a lot of work to get me to believe otherwise. Aff gets "unlimited" prep, permutations, and intrinsicness tests to balance against neg flex.
Counterplans v planless K affs don't make sense given my understanding of how counterplan competition works. For example: The aff says that we (the people in the round) should change the way we think about a thing and the neg says that the USFG should institute a policy regarding said thing. Where is the opportunity cost? Absent a really good answer to this question, aff will get the perm every time.
LD Specific Stuff
Everything above applies to LD. You should attempt to actually resolve arguments for me. Slow down on analytics, please.
Substantive phil debates are fun and I'd like to judge more of them. Syllogisms should be clear with an explicit relationship to how I weigh impacts.
I can't believe that I am giving this note to people outside a Debate 1 class, but plan texts must have actors.
Debates are evaluated at the conclusion of the 2AR or when I conclude that a winning NR/2AR is no longer possible.
Everything is open to contestation. I will not be evaluating AFC. If you want to include theoretical justifications for your framework, those are not good arguments, but they are acceptable since they don't insist that there exists an obligation to concede things. I think the distinction matters.
I will not evaluate theory of the frivolous variety. You will lose if you make theory arguments pertaining to your opponent’s appearance or mode of dress.
I’m agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs.
IVIs are K links that function independently of the thesis being true because they also have procedural implications (ie use of exclusionary language). Anything else is just a lazy theory shell.
If you must read tricks, I am okay for substantive tricks with a developed ballot story; however, I would prefer not to judge these debates.
Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)
Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS
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: (email@example.com) More in depth explanations provided below.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.