Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I qualified for nationals three times in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, just gotta win proven or potential abuse. Proven abuse is definitely an easier way to get the ballot than potential for me.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. If you give me another framing argument up top on what my role of the ballot is I will default to whichever side wins framing though.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

Games player judge - I view debate as a game. I look at the debate as a game board and the flow as an offensive and defensive structure. Strategy is something I value and tend to look for its usage throughout the debate.

I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I would prefer that if you want to visit spreading, to provide a copy of your case. I also evaluate on speaking ability. I listen for fluid speech and professional mannerisms. Vocabulary plays a part here.

I like hearing cited sources when making claims.

Hey, I'm Iris! I'm a first-year at Harvard and I graduated from Seven Lakes in 2023, where I competed in Congress + Extemp + LD. It's been a minute since I did debate, so the safe bet is to treat me as your average flay judge. I'll rank well-developed + strategic analysis high and will generally reward for flipping. Not a big fan of flowery rhetoric or AGDs but keep it interesting. POing doesn't guarantee you a specific rank – depends if the rest of the round does well or not, but if you're good at it, go for it. Don't rehash. I love a good crystal and will reward risk-taking/out of the box analysis. Have fun and good luck!

Iyad Chowdhury | UT Austin '26 | he/they |iyadchow.db8judge@gmail.com

policy debate at UT Austin; previously affiliated with UH debate from 2022-2023

pref sheet shortcuts

1-- K

1-- Plans/cp/da

2-- T

2/3-- Trad

3-- Phil

3-- Theory

4-- Tricks

tech>truth

"the round is about to start / i'm doing prefs, what should i know about you?"

1. yes email chain. my email is at the top. try not to use speechdrop.

2. debate is for debaters. i really don't care about what you run, just do it well. i find that the best debaters make smart line by line responses, strategic choices, and generally seem like they want to be there. the ballot is up for grabs, your speaks are not.

3. at the bare minimum, you should send whatever you are going to read before the speech that you are going to read it. see theory section for more info on disclosure

4. i really like judge instruction. the first few words of the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot for me.

5. i do flow cross ex. i think it is binding and i reward debaters for bringing cross ex moments into rebuttals. this is the best place to get high speaker points. make the most of the 3 minutes.

6. i always aim to disclose my decision orally. if i cannot, i would be happy to send my rfd in the email chain with coaches ccd.

7. call me either iyad or judge. do not call me sir. my name is pronounced eye-odd

8. i really like organization. make a road map, stick to it, and number arguments.

---

plans/cp/da

top level-- this is a safe, go-to argument if you have me in the back of the room.

1. straight turns and case turns are really impressive

2. better for textual+functional; textual on it's own is hard for me to buy. i am better for competition debates than theory debates.

3. i'm generally unconvinced by most counterplan theory shells, but that doesn't mean i won't vote for it.

4. heavily lean condo good

5. cardless cping is strategic and exciting

6. tell me if you want me to judge kick

k

top level-- go beyond the first page of jstor. your most recent wiki mine, nor that k file you bought off your friend, suffices. rigorously annotate articles, talk to the text, read against the grain, and even email authors with questions. the best k rounds are where debaters are immersed in the literature.

1. kritiks are not counterplans

2. default is "vote for the better debater" but i can be convinced otherwise

3. link specificity good; pull lines from the 1ac and make link outweighs/turns case arguments. both reps links and links to the consequences of the plan are fine.

4. illustrate what the alt looks like

5. lbl>overviews; the overview is probably going to repeat the same things on the lbl anyway so might as well not waste time reading an overview.

6. read rehilightings if you want to create offense, but insert if you want to create defense.

7. the aff may or may not get to weigh case; this is a debate to be had.

8. don't read a k just because you think i will be more likely to vote for it. i would much rather you read whatever you feel most confident in, rather than just butchering something you think i will like.

k affs

top level-- top level thoughts on k's from above check out here.

1. k v. policy:

-- aff: be ready for framework and presumption push. try to provide a role of the judge/role of the ballot and why your model of debate is pedagogically valuable

-- neg: don't stay tunnel vision on the framework page. try to generate offense on the case page.

2. k v. cap:

-- aff: chances are, your literature base also talks about capitalism. take that how you will.

-- neg: try to center framework on material action good, political change good, and organizing good

3. k v. k:

-- aff: i think the aff does get the perm but i can be convinced otherwise. the perm double bind is persuasive.

-- neg: i think it is redundant to read both the ballot k and presumption; read one or the other. i don't think "no perms in a method debate" is a strong argument but you can persuade me it is with enough warranting.

--both: explain your theory of power with extra detail on how it should frame solvency

framework/t

top level-- i generally agree that framework is a form of policing in debate, but i will check that bias at the door.

1. the aff should preferably have a relationship to the topic; whether that has to be a "topical action" is subject to debate

2. i think that the aff should be a net beneficial departure from the status quo. the negative can either say the status quo is better than the aff world, or, debate a counter advocacy that presents an opportunity cost to the aff.

3. i tend to think SSD gets underutilized.

4. fairness can be either an internal link or an impact, but i find it more persuasive as the internal link to limits. predictable limits as the internal link to clash is also persuasive.

5. make the shell specific to the aff. your generic file from last year is not good.

6. counterinterps to framework are persuasive. debate scholars have written about what alternative models of debate should look like, and leveraging that literature against traditional models is completely possible. impact turns to framework can be convincing if explained in addition to a cogent counterinterp strategy.

7. if you are going against framework impact turns: i am also convinced by arguments that highlight debate's potential to build movements/make us better researchers/make us better advocates. it is especially persuasive when paired with predictable limits = good for in-depth research.

8. i disagree with the community’s belief that discourse has no impact. it definitely does if you rummage the literature on how language controls power distribution.

trad

top level-- preffing me is probably a gamble. i am a 1 for k and plans. it may be strategic to pref me lower than a 2 if you do not want to debate against the k or larp positions. i say that i am a 2 for trad simply because i am more open to judging trad v trad rounds than other judges.

1. read trad/stock if you want to. clean line by line and simple debating is great.

2. try to make the round accessible if you are going up against debaters that are not as experienced and read trad arguments. you can read dense arguments and you will win but your speaks will not be good.

theory

top level-- theory debates are a farce. complain less, debate more. i'll evaluate it but speaks might not be as high as you would like.

1. default is counterinterps, dta, and no rvis. there is no chance that i will vote on an rvi.

2. don't use beef to get a ballot. i implore you to talk to the tournament directors and coaches about interpersonal conflicts.

3. don't ask for 30 speaks.

4. weigh standards. new standards under the sun are great. i don't have any strong feelings on what standards are more compelling.

5. spreading consent and disclosure are absolutely good norms. disclosure theory about new affs, plan texts, or the wiki is debatable.

phil

top level-- i would be happy to judge a phil debate, just be aware that i am not as well versed in the subject as much as other judges.

1. good with Kant, Butler, Hobbes, and Levinas. i have no clue about any other phil that is read in debate.

2. i understand phil in more of an academic than a debate sense.

tricks

top level-- debate's sewage

1. strike if you are reading theory tricks; i am better for substantive/K tricks. even then, i only have a surface-level understanding of substantive tricks.

2. slow down and explain. i don't have a developed shorthand for flowing tricks debates.

3. i will probably not vote on "eval after ___ speech".

4. i know what semantics and indexicals are in linguistics, but not as a debate argument. i might vote on it if it is explained thoroughly to me.

5. try not to read tricks against debaters who are obviously new to debate. the chances that i vote on it are already pretty slim, and even if you do win, it won't result in good speaks.

6. tricks might suck, but i have faith that this community is full of very smart and talented people that can innovate the argument into something else. i would be willing to vote for tricks explained as coherent arguments.

speaks

-- i tend to reward certain things with higher speaks. they are (but not limited to)

1. clarity -- i hate to sound old but i can't vote on what i don't hear. just slow down slightly on taglines and analytics. precise word economy, organization, numbering arguments, and sass will get you high speaks.

2. strategic use of cross ex-- you will get at least a 29 if you do not use a laptop, bring cx moments into your speeches, and generate avenues for offense.

3. strategic collapsing/choices-- debate is a game of tradeoffs, and making good tradeoffs typically means you win.

4. taking risks and being creative-- you probably only have four years in total of high school debate. don't be afraid to do something daring or out of the ordinary. add some seasoning and innovate your argumens. try something new, i encourage you to do it.

-- things that get low speaks

1. being rude to other debaters

2. delaying the round any more than it needs to be. going to the bathroom/tech issues are an exception.

3. stealing prep

evidence ethics

i will stop the round if i notice that a debater is clipping evidence.

you can stake the round on an evidence ethics challenge. the round will stop and i will contact tab. what i do afterward is condition to what tabroom tells me. if i can evaluate the challenge, i will, and the winner will get w30 and the loser gets an l25. if it is not in my jurisdiction to evaluate, i will follow whatever tabroom tells me to do.

---

good luck, and have fun!

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

email: kelseydo2004@gmail.com

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

former PF at slakes; pronouns - she/her

duong.kalina4@gmail.com

if you have any questions please feel free to ask prior or after the round. Not a fan of super excessive post-rounding.

- tech>truth but warrant it

- fine with speed but you have to speak clearly (clarity's important!)

- I enjoy a snarky or funny cross as long as it furthers the debate- you can make jabs at each other's arguments but no isms (racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc) or overt rudeness.

- extend please; Warrant your arguments. Weighing is important. Defense isn't sticky. Draw a clear path to the ballot for me.

- ev ethics are important.

- I lack experience debating and judging prog args but if you can explain it well enough go ahead and run it.

Background: I debated at Memorial High School in Houston for 3 years, graduating in 2018. I mainly competed in extemp in high school, and I qualified for TFA State in FX and the TOC in Extemp and Informative. I also qualified for Nationals in World Schools debate twice and reached the quarterfinals of World Schools in 2018. My main debate events were Public Forum and Congress, which I did on and off for the most part. I graduated from Harvard in 2022 with a degree in History, and I currently work for a LGBTQ rights nonprofit in Boston, MA.

I have judged on the TFA circuit in Texas since I graduated high school in 2018, judging disproportionately many tournaments in 2020-21 and then nearly every weekend in the 2022-23 school year. I consider myself most proficient at judging World Schools Debate and public speaking events, although I have of course judged many a round of LD or PF.

My email for any email chains is knfjudges@gmail.com.

WSD: Remember that WSD is not LD or PF, and I will not be "voting on the flow" the way that LD and PF judges do. I will generally try to stick to the 68-72 range for each speaker, although I've found myself going under that range more often than I've gone over. Of course, this means that you might not like my decision at the end of the day. To lessen the odds of that happening, here are some tips to maximize the chances of winning my ballot:

• For content: "The House" is understood to be the whole world unless specified otherwise. Therefore, your content score will not go above 28 unless you bring solid international examples to the table. Generally, the more empirical and the less hypothetical evidence you bring to the table, the better you'll tend to do.
• For style: I would say the easiest way to improve style points on my ballot is with speeches that have personality. Obviously, this will differ from speaker to speaker, but I have rewarded speakers who depart somewhat from the "clean speech without fluency errors" kind of model and bring humor, personal connections to the topic, anecdotes, etc. to the table.
• For strategy: Teams that are consistent down the bench, especially teams that have a consistent team line, will tend to do better in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here; generally, teams should take 2 POIs, usually at the transition between points that were elaborated on during the roadmap.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is the prevailing international style of debate, where the debate changes every round, concerns issues on a global rather than a national scale, and invites teams to clash on the central set of issues presented at conversational pace rather than trying to win with tricks or arcane points.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I generally prefer to flow on paper with different colors of pens representing the two teams, although in a pinch, I will flow on Excel on my computer.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I would say that, generally, a principled argument would carry my ballot - at the end of the day, if the team argues that I should care about the principle regardless of the practical effects, then I will probably buy that argument. That being said, I do not have any trouble discarding a principle argument where this type of framing is not employed. If a team advances a principle argument through the reply, but impacts it out to a practical impact, then I probably would not prefer the principle argument just because it is labeled a principled argument. If both teams advance principle arguments through to the reply, I would tend to evaluate the competing principle arguments first.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Essentially, the question of strategy is whether the debater addressed the main arguments in the round. If they focus too much on dropped or irrelevant arguments, they would have a deduction in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here - if there is a lack of engagement in POIs, this category would be negatively impacted, whereas if a debater does particularly well with POIs, they might have this category bolstered. Finally, the team line also figures in my calculation here - a team with a consistent bench will do well in strategy, whereas a team with three speakers who feel like they're making separate and distinct speeches would not do well in strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

Style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

I tend to rely heavily on warrants and examples; a warranted argument will outweigh an unwarranted argument, and I will generally prefer advocacy with solid international examples rather than merely hypothetical points. Of course, the examples must support the point, rather than just being examples for their own sake.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I tend to adopt a broad view - did the OPP's quibbles with the PROP's model successfully challenge their advocacy of the motion as a whole, or did the Prop's use of the model nonetheless prove the truth of the resolution despite the OPP quibbling with it? Frankly, I see a "quibble" as seeing the forest for the trees - in my mind, OPP teams should play hardball with the model proposed by the PROP.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I would take a comparative worlds approach, but ultimately, look to whether either side either upholds or defeats the motion as a whole. The model vs. countermodel debate is not supposed to end up about the models - all models should be in service of each team's broader burden.

PF Debate: I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well (especially on evidence quality and strength of link). I am not receptive to theory or kritikal arguments in PF (this includes disclosure theory, etc.). The more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you. Defense is not sticky (please carry it through the flow). Finally, please remember that this is public forum debate, not "shorter policy," so please avoid spreading, and touches of rhetoric are always welcome (and will be reflected in your speaker points).

LD Debate: I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge), but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For Ks, make sure that the link is specific to the case and that the alt makes sense. I will warn you that I have heard many bad Ks in my life, and while I have voted for Ks in the past, that doesn't mean I automatically like every K that I hear. In addition, it's really no fun for anyone to hear rounds where the AFF has never heard of the K, and their only response is "the NEG doesn't have a value and a criterion so we should win." So try to remain respectful of your opponents as well.

Repeated from PF but... I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially on evidence quality and strength of link), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Congress: I would say that I prefer content over presentation. When evaluating content, I look to the type of speech being given (constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization) and my expectations for each type of speech... Unfortunately, I have found that there are many constructive speeches given later and later in the chamber, and many so-called rebuttal or crystallization speeches that neither rebut nor crystallize. Please, please, please remember that this is congressional DEBATE and not congressional soapbox. I love clash and I hate repetitious arguments.

Relatedly, I really detest when chambers need to take in-house recesses at the beginning of items because nobody is prepared to debate. I believe that I have somewhat contributed to this problem by stating that I prefer well elucidated speeches over speeches that were extemped in the chamber. To be fair, I don't want to hear these speeches for the sake of giving a speech, but I am now of the belief that I should reward the representatives who are actually prepared to debate in my rankings. So do with that what you will.

Public Speaking: In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. (For the record: I have checked sources that sounded fishy, and I have tanked speakers who have egregiously misrepresented sources. Misremembered the date or the publication for a source? Fine, I've done that before, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt! Told me that Boko Haram has attacked Egypt or that a New York Times editorial praised El Salvador's Bitcoin experiment when, in fact, it panned it? Not OK!)

For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Interp: Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot, but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions (positive)? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions (negative)? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

Delivery and form are important factors for me: in competition, just like in life, when I am the audience, I do not want to have to strain to understand what is being said. I want to be intellectually challenged, with interesting, innovative and well connected arguments, not by having to follow the debate in a foreign language that I am not very good in.

Attack and defense should be respectful and focused on the content of the points made. We are not at court, and a debate is not won a technicalities, but on the strength of arguments and the evidence for the related support.

I like to see debaters make connections to historic and scientific evidence, really put their argument into context.

How well a debater is able to engage with the argument of an opponent and rebut it with evidence based new support that has not been brought up in the prepared speech is an important factor for me.

Personal Background

As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.

Speech

I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them

Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.

That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.

For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).

Debate

• I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest

• for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege

• Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)

• If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech

• Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required

• Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.

• That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it

• Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K

• Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear

• Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF

• At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not

I do congress and therefore I am lay

If I am offered a subway cookay, I may just become flay

And if I am given salty MickyDeez fries, my judging may sway

And if I receive a spicy combo with a large lemonade and no ice from chick-fil-a, I may just vote on the K

Thats a joke in case that isn’t clear.

I am a lay judge but that really just means I need competitors to not spread and relax with the debate jargon. I understand the technicalities of LD and PF so I’m not oblivious to how arguments should be considered, however only substance please I don’t know how to evaluate theory and Ks and all that. Additionally, I am of the belief that dropped arguments are TRUE. Make it easy for me to judge, keep it simple, and weigh well.

ABOVE ALL - PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY

Background

I debated for Langham Creek Highschool in Houston in policy for 3 years, crossing over to LD my senior year. I primarily went for the K throughout my career, but was very flex and dabbled in every form of debate. I worked as an assistant coach in PF for SpiderSmart Sugarland and now work as an assistant CX and LD coach for Langham Creek Highschool.

Here is my wiki senior if you want to see what arguments I read.

Conflicts: Langham Creek Highschool - Heights Highschool

Separately Conflicted: Cypress Woods AZ

Short Overview

langhamdebatedocs@gmail.com - email chain, please title - - - Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg).

"Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks." - Aden Barton

Spreading is fine.

Read anything you want.

2/23/24 - Central Texas National Qualifiers

I will not care if you read progressive arguments against lay debaters, it is not your fault. I will care however if you take too long, I BEG that you keep speeches as SHORT as possible (i,e going for one line tricks, for 10 seconds and sitting down.) and do not overcover anything, this will be best for everyone in the room.

12/13/23 - STRAKE UPDATE

Too many of y'all are going for unsubstantive hidden tricks in front of me because I evaluate them, and I've downed them every single time. PLEASE, do not split the 2NR/2AR because I guarantee you that you're NOT doing enough work on them and you will NOT be happy with my decision when I decide to not pull the trigger on it because there's been a very SHALLOW extension.

General Thoughts

My views on debate are heavily influenced by my coaches and those who've helped me including, Eric Beane, Isaac Chao, and Sebastian Cho.

Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I feel as if lots of judges think it’s your responsibility as a debater to please us as judges, no, it is my responsibility to please you as debaters with a respectable and well thought out decision. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will always be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or make a determination on your personality on the basis of your reaction to my decision. I was always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest forms of respect.” – Vikas Burugu.

I will certainly reward good evidence if you have it. However, your evidence is only as good as you can explain it to me. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.” – Rafael Pierry.

Read what you want and read it well. I do not personally believe the ballot is a referendum of you as a person, especially in highschool. 99% of debaters go through the stage where they read bad, stupid, and not well-thought-out arguments because they find them interesting. I don't think any of those people genuinely believe those positions, but rather are ignorant to how arguments can be harmful. The best thing I think we all derive from debate is reflexivity, if you think people's arguments are bad and violent, say so, beat them on it, the worse their argument is, the easier it is to beat, people will stop reading stuff after they get hit with a L25. Debate is great because people can read what they want and shift the norms, be innovative, be unique, do what you want, I encourage it.

Tech over truth but tech is influenced by truth. Those who read arguments that are naturally grounded in truthfulness naturally appeals to my human biases and would render your argument more persuasive, but technical debaters can ALWAYS beat truthful claims. Truth over tech is an excuse to insert human biases into debate that overrides and demeans good argumentation.

After watching the 2022 NDT Finals, I think the judge has an obligation to minimize as much intervention as possible, obviously our human nature necessitates certain preconceived notion’s influence upon our decisions but the sole method of my adjudication will be my analysis of the way both teams analyze, argue, and implicate their own arguments, I will not do this for you, simply analyze the way in which you do it yourself.

I think debate is a game not in the sense that there are rules we should follow and a structure around what we do, but in the sense that we play to win. That same game can absolutely be a site of beautiful and authentic good, through activism, revolution, argumentation, and more, but even so, no matter how you choose to play the game, winning in front of me means convincing me through a form of persuasion to give you the ballot.

Specifics

1. I will vote on ad-homs / call outs.
2. ivis need dtd warrants when introduced.
3. big overview K debaters are not as good as line by line ones, i prefer you do the latter.
4. i will keep note of cx.
5. things that are particularly harder for me to flow, this does not mean i am not open to these args or that i'm dogmatized against them but that you might want to slow down, "Phil AC/NCs that are 50 pointed with TJFs, Reasons to Prefer, and Pre-empts with enormous philosophical jargony tags that are hardly even delineated." that is all for now.
6. I will try to be as tab as possible thus, "I do not default in any way. if you have not sufficiently justified an argument, I just won't vote on it. this includes things like layering -- theory does not come before substance if you have not told me why it does." - Liam Nyberg, to clarify, this means I WILL vote on extinction outweighing your condo shell on magnitude if you do not layer.

A. More on this, I do not find myself voting on offense that isn't filtered through frameworks because I do not understand how to evaluate that offense in reference to the rest of the debate, this includes things like going for IVIs without weighing it's impacts and offensive tricks like GCB that are not filtered through truth testing (specifically different than presumption permissibility triggers that zero offense on other pages).

B. In debates involving lots of layering, I've found it increasingly hard to weigh between internal links to framework justifications like jurisdictive constraints, I've concluded that this is due to a lack of clash and judge instruction. Before giving your NR/AR, ask yourself, why does my weighing justification to [x impact] sequence their weighing justification to [y impact]? I find too many debaters relying on phrases like a K 2NR telling me to "overcorrect neg for ideological bias" without explaining why that should sequence a 2AR telling me to "hack aff due to time skew".

C. I also seem to be always voting on a risk of offense unless there's an explicit presumption trigger, in debates with low warranting threshold particularly tricks ones, I will not simply just strike off arguments if I don't understand them when both sides are doing a lack of explanation and thus concluding in a presumption ballot, I instead will find a risk of offense on either side given the little explanation I have.

SPEAKS: In general, I find myself most moved and assign the most speaks to people who signpost, are clear, do good evidence analysis, and display a sense of cohesion within their rhetoric and argumentation. I find myself most persuaded by people who are assertive, aggressive, and firm with their rhetoric but do not come off as rude, refer to McDonough JN, Wake Forest RT, Aden Barton and Zion Dixon. People who best exemplify these traits will get the most amount of speaks in front of me.

Specific things that will get you more speaks.

- Sitting down early if you have won, +! Conversely, sitting down early when you have lost, -!

- Referencing other debaters/teams as examples in some of your warrants. Contextualizing stuff to debate history is so cool.

- Being clear. The slower the clearer almost 90% of the time. The louder the clearer almost 90% of the time as well. University RH is a benchmark for how your spreading style should be to optimize speaks in front of me.

- Good argument strategy and tactics i.e going for the right choice in the 2NR, time allocation, and speech construction. You can win different routes but taking the easiest path to victory will garner more speaks.

- CX Dominance, not being lost or seeming evasive in cross, as well as putting your opponent into binds.

- Sending pre-written analytics will help your speaks and probably my flow.

I will not award you for the 30 speaks spike.

Lowpoint dubs only ever go to people who I found rhetorically less persuasive but won a dropped arg.

I'll start at 28 and go up and down from there.

I'll disclose speaks, I think it's a good norm.

I'll yell slow if you're too fast so don't be worried about outspreading me.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – minhle1933@gmail.com

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD at NSDA Nationals.
In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked in the room.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Content:

I will evaluate the debate primarily on the basis of content. This means that I will be looking for debaters who have a deep understanding of the resolution, can present their arguments clearly and concisely, and can respond effectively to their opponents' arguments. I will also be looking for debaters who can use evidence effectively to support their claims.

Speaking:

While speaking is not as important to me as content, I will still evaluate debaters on their speaking skills. I will be looking for debaters who speak clearly and at a reasonable pace, and who are able to articulate their arguments in a way that is easy to understand. I will also be looking for debaters who are respectful of their opponents and the judges.

No theory, kritiks, etc.:

I will not be evaluating debaters on their ability to argue theory or kritiks. I believe that debates should be focused on the resolution at hand, and I do not want to encourage debaters to use technical arguments to avoid engaging with the substance of the topic.

No evidence manipulation, paraphrase:

I expect debaters to use evidence fairly and accurately. I will not tolerate evidence manipulation or paraphrase. If I find that a debater is manipulating or paraphrasing evidence, I will view this as a serious violation of the rules of debate.

I was a LD debater in high school and I currently debate in college. I primarily did progressive debate so Im well versed in different debate styles and arguments. This also means I wouldn't recommend running anything you don't understand well. I mainly look for big picture debate which means weighing and voters are appreciated. Speed is fine. I don't like frivolous theory but will buy it if argued correctly. If possible please have your case already flowed before you enter the room. I don't really like card readers, like obviously when needed but not every speech. There's value in analytical arguments. Don't be rude to one another, have fun!

2023-2024 Season

Howdy! I've been actively judging every year since I graduated in 2018, so this will be year 6 of judging for me.

PF/LD General:

- NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL. If you ask me to be on the email chain, this indicates you have not read my paradigms.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to pre-flow or take forever to get set up, I WILL doc your speaks to 27 max. Pre-flows, bathroom, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will usually use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to make sure you're not lying about how much time you have left. When someone asks for cards, please be quick about this because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

-I will NOT disclose decisions unless I say I will. After round is done, do not just sit there and just stare at me. I will let you know if everything is going to be on the ballot or if I will be giving some general comments.

-Please be respectful in round and have fun!

PF: Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.

Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.

LD: Old school traditional, I like framework debates. NO SPREADING AT ALL, moderate speed is good. I don't understand progressive debates like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.

Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.

PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.

Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.

Hi!

Add me to the chain :) Oliviasweeten6580@gmail.com

QUICK PREFS

5

spreading (makes judging hard. I'm here for a good time not a long time), friv or heavy theory, tricks (will evaluate under views only - makes lbl hard to follow and usually requires spreading to do which idc for)

1-2

trad/lay,larp,Deleuze and Guattari/POMO, decent amount of common K lit,PICS/CP, phil, REAL ABUSE THEORY not some random mumbo jumbo, psychoanalysis K

3-4

id pol or dense K lit like racial cap (just don't have a lot of experience with these and I can get lost)

random for qkprfs

My default layering is Theory ≥ ROB > Substance > Presumption

maybe 2ar Hail Mary maybe not

tech≥truth

Order is General Expectations, VLD, Novice LD, PF, and then Speech at the bottom!

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS

Please do not go past your times for over 10 seconds because I will dock your speaker points. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, use the wrong pronouns after being corrected more than once, or make any sort of comments towards the person you are debating to make them uncomfortable or upset you will be held accountable. Your coach and/or tab will be notified. Please don't make me do this. Debate is supposed to be fun and friendly. I don’t tolerate you interrupting their speech to talk over them.

I will run a stop watch to ensure no prep time is stolen or lost and that things run on time.

Yelling doesn't make you sound better and being extremely aggressive doesn't either. Confidence is important in debate but talking so quickly in round that nobody can understand you, speaking so quietly that nobody can hear you, or yelling to where you're incomprehensible, also, won't get you anywhere.

VLD

Tabula Rasa all the way although there are arguments I won't buy if you're being problematic to any group of people which includes everyone. I'm not going to sit there and listen to you tell me why the alt is good when it's literally exterminating able-bodied people or people who believe in a God - lets be serious people.

ID pol ✓ (just be sure to explain afropess/afro opp I never really saw those things in debate so I don't really understand them as well as other things and impact it out)

POMO ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ 100% yes (I will be your best friend if you read this unless you read it poorly ???? I will say, however, I'm not sure familiar with Bataille. I mostly read/saw DnG and Baudrillard (I did those actions respectively))

T framework meh

Theory... just please put it in the doc. I can't vote off of what I can't get down/remember

/\ - For any theory type of debate I didn't really do a whole lot of that when I debated so I can assess it but if there are going to be theory debates that are like super layered and confusing I'm not really the judge for that. So, not good for super intensive theory debates that get messy very fast but I can assess regular theory violation shells. I will not, however, buy waterbottle, laptop sticker (unless it is actually bad), or shoe theory.

I like speechdrop, email chain, or tabroom's version of speech drop too. Everything works just let me and your opponent know what you're using and let us join if we ask. Say it with me. ADDING YOUR DOC TO THE EMAIL/SPEECH DROP DOESN'T COUNT AS PREP TIME - THAT IS MEAN. The 15 seconds it took you to attach your doc to the email isn't going to make the tournament run late OMG people.

Extending is a big deal to me. Don't extend your ROB okay... then why does it matter? Don't extend your amazing 1nr/1ar impact calculus showing me why extinction is bad okay... why did you bother doing it in the first place? If you think something is important on the flow TELL ME. I will not judge hack. If you want something to be a key voting issue lay it out for me. There are too many eager judges and lazy debaters who want to rely on what they did well in one speech to magically go into the flow of the next one without having to point it out.

Framework is also a key voting issue for me (depends on type of debate). If you ignore your ROB or FW and just tell me why something is bad without showing me why your FW says its bad or why your opponent doesn't meet your FW then how do I have a way of knowing that 3 million starving children is bad? If you want a tabula rasa judge that means you need to pretend they are a little kid with no knowledge. Give me my morals to operate with.

I will honestly listen to any kind of debate. I'm fine with Ks, POMO, ID pol, theory, lay, policy, etc. I don't vote more one way or the other I just evaluate the round as it is and decide who did better strategically and who overall should have won. My emotions and personal views do not get in the way. I am pretty centrist and don't really believe in politics in general.

NLD

As a (previous, now graduated)varsity debater I'm not expecting varsity level debate like K's, phil debate, T debate (either topical or theory), counter plans or the like, or anything advanced really, so just do what you know how at this point!

Something I've unfortunately seen in even varsity debate is cases that are essays. A case is NO place for your own words except for taglines and even then those are supposed to be describing the card, NOT your opinion on the card. A speech is the only place for your opinion and even then it should be based in moral reasoning with your framework.

Before round, I also recommend reflowing your case so you can write their responses right next to your cards so you know what to address. It makes flowing much easier for your judge and that increases the likelihood that the judge will know to vote for you if they can see what arguments you did and/or did not address.

A basic case should be in this order most of the time:

1. Resolved: TOPIC

2. FRAMEWORK (if you do not have a framework or value and value criterion your case will be weighed under your opponents and you will make it very hard for you to win because I will not point out that you need a framework until after the debate. If you are on the neg this is normal to concede to the affs framework so don't worry about it being difficult to win.)

3. Contention 1

4. Tagline, citation, and then card. This process should be repeated for however many cards in the case.

4. If you have any other contentions then they still need to follow this format but only one contention is absolutely necessary in your case on the aff.

I want to see a debate, not two people giving argumentative speeches… This means come back to your framework, respond to arguments strategically, and respond based on the importance layer.

PF

I've judged one or two PF rounds and only participated in my first year of debate once so I basically know nothing about PF. Please either give me the times so I can know how long to time you for.

SPEECH

I have never done speech but I know what to look for.

1. Try to keep the 'um' and 'uh's to a minimum and none if possible
2. Try to not move your hands around a lot - keep it to a minimum
3. Move slowly between points without turning your back to the judge
4. Looking for clear and normal conversation paced speaking
5. Try to be funny- if your humor comes at the expense of others I probably won't find it funny.
6. Looking for a good AG that is related to the question without actually stating the question in the AG.
7. It won't let me delete this one :)

Hi, I'm Zarik (he/him). You can call me Zarik, ZT, Tao, judge, or any combination of these names. I would like to be on the email chain - zarik.tao@gmail.com

Background: Bridgeland '23, Texas '27.

5th at 2022 6A UIL State, qualified to TFA State x3, Doubles at TFA State 2022.

I was a heavy on LARP and Phil as a debater, so take that information if you will.

Pref Shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory - 1

Phil - 2 (Depends on type)

K - 2 (Depends on type)

Tricks - 5 (or strike me tbh)

I will pretty much vote on every arg if it is cohesively developed and I am able to explain back to you the claim, warrant, and impact in my RFD. (except if the arg is obviously morally reprehensible e.g. sexism, racism, etc.)

LBL > Long Overviews

Tech > Truth (but I think both are important)

Flex prep is cool; prep stops when you finish compiling the doc.

My judging philosophy is to be as non-interventionist as possible; people spend a lot of time prepping for this activity and you deserve the right to read whatever arguments that you want. That being said, I am a very expressive person, so if your argument does not make sense, I will probably make a face at you.

In Depth:

LARP - Pretty self-explanatory; you can run pretty much anything (plans, cp's, 7 minutes of case turns, disads, etc.). If you are aff PLEASE extend solvency or I will negate on presumption. Also, PLEASE collapse in the 1AR/2NR. I do not want to hear 5 different extinction scenarios that are all really underdeveloped in your rebuttal speeches. 0% risk is a thing.

Defaults:

1-3 Condo is probably good for neg flex; anything else is probably sketchy.

Functional and Textual Competition in the CP is probably good, but I will vote on PICS and Consult CP's etc. unless the aff wins abuse in the shell.

There needs to be an justification for judge kick (can be like 5 sec) if you want me to kick the offs for you; otherwise just spend the time kicking them yourself.

Comparative Worlds over Truth Testing (really easy to be convinced otherwise)

Theory - Fine with any theory; the more frivolous the arg then the lower threshold that I have for responses, but I will still vote on it UNLESS it pertains to the appearance/properties of the other person (e.g. water bottle and shoe theory is absolute b.s.). PLEASE extend paradigm issues.

Defaults (Please don't make me use them):

DTA > DTD (Unless it's T)

Competing Interps > Reasonability

No RVIs on shells

Content > Form

Text > Spirit

Topicality - I actually really enjoy topicality debates, including Nebel and Leslie, if they are done well (which is find is pretty rare, even for myself). Just contextualize why you win semantics>pragmatics or vice versa/both and the warrants for T "a" or bare plurals and if you do it well, you will probably get good speaks.

Phil - Fine with mostly everything if explained well; I pretty much only read Kant on aff LOL. If it's kind of a benign philosophy, it's probably good to have in the case to me whether is deon v consequentialist and how impacts are weighed under the framing. Syllogism > Independent Justifications. If you are reading util, PLEASE stop reading the Moen evidence it says a bunch of nothing and just switch to the Blum evidence.

Kritiks - I have a good understanding of Set Col, Afro-Pess (I will not vote on non-black Afro-Pess), Baudrillard, Pyscho (Lacan), and Foucalt/Agamben. I have a base level understanding of Empire, Queer-Pess, Asian Melancholy, Adorno, and Deleuze. If you are reading other authors/topics, you either 1) probably shouldn't read it because I might not understand it, or 2) explain it really well to me.

K Tricks (root cause, alt solves case) are cool, Floating PIKs are probably abusive but the other side should either run theory or ask for it in CX.

Tricks - Please delineate them and not hide them in a paragraph; that's not cool for me nor your opponent. If you're winning on tricks you're probably getting low speaks unless it's actually developed really well in your first speech and I've never seen that trick before.

Turns to tricks under truth testing is actually really cool if you pull it off you'll get good speaks.

Hey debaters, my name's Connor Taylor, he/him. I'm a freshman at the University of Arkansas and a former debate for Cypress Woods High School. I'm good with all kinds of debate (I've done LD, Policy, and Pf) but here's my listing for LD bc that's what I'm doing now. I qualified for UIL Regions, TFA State, and broke at UT to trips in 2021. Jacob Koshak was my coach, if you want to have a good understanding of my background go read that. I wanna be on the speech drop or email chain: cjtricky04@gmail.com if ur using gmail or cjtricky@icloud.com for others. For online, lets just use the online speech drop. Its way easier. I probably will disclose speaks if you ask.

TLDR - go for pomo ks or larp, I don't know id pol outside of ableism, tricks and spikes will most likely not get you a ballot, use theory as a check not as a strat. Ill give high speaks I was a recent debater I understand how brutal it is rn

1 - Pomo Ks

As long as debaters thoroughly explain the link as well as the k itself, it is my favorite form of debate. It'd be my first voter. If you don't know the K don't read one please its a no bueno. I read a lot of DnG, Baudi, and Bataille. If you go for the K, tell me why you win on the ROB page. if the rob is textual to the k, that's sick, but why does the k meet the rob and why does the rob deserve the ballot? Don't run a k if it has a bad link that's no fun

1 - LARP

LARP is fun. I did a lot of larp, most topics are good for larp. Plz don't force it read ur best strat but larping is what I would say I was probably the best at. I think good larp needs heavy on the weighing page, and inherency is something I need to take from my policy days. Plz plz don't read an aff that has already passed. Make sure

2 - Id Pol Ks

I like ableism a lot more bc I can relate to it, but I am bad with other id pol lit. Doesn't mean I wont vote on it but most Id Pol args are pess and I do not enjoy a pess round. plz plz don't run an id pol you don't actually identify with... its super gross to claim you suffer from something you don't actually suffer from.

2 - Phil

I enjoy a good phil debate. I think debates w phil are hella fun instead of boring ol util v util all the darn time. Make sure to leverage fw and why it matters. If ur running phil and u lose the fw debate, its basically over, so make sure u don't just wipe out on fw.

3 - T/Theory

T is a good argument, don't force it. I like T as an answer to actual abuse, like if they run a non-disclosed K aff or something. However, don't come in w some garbage t interp that literally breaks the ground. If you do go for T, please do a good job. I feel that T can get washed out and super duper boring to the point that the round loses its whole meaning. Theory is a good check, but I don't like it as a strat. I'm not the judge for you if you mostly do theory, the K v theory debate is fun though.

5 - Trix/Spikes

Tricks are for kids and spikes are dumb. I would vote on them, but its a low threshold for answering them. I feel like they skew the round unfair for the debate, like the "cover" speech literally cannot concede an argument or the round is done basically.

Defaults

edu>fairness - debate is a game sure, but I debated to learn about new topics n crap. Like yeah fairness matters, but education serves as a method for us to understand what is fair. If we were not educated, we wouldn't know if something was skewed. Education is the only thing we can keep from debate in the long run.

competing interps > reasonability - Unless the shell is friv, competing interps makes for better debates. If the judge can reasonably decide whether the theory is good or bad bc the debater spends time telling them to, the debater can just give a counter interp that makes the round more fun.

tech>truth - its a game but if you play the game bad you have to lose. Theory does come on the highest layer unless told otherwise (i lost on that so i know). I will say that i prolly have theory and k closer than most for layer so just tell me where to evaluate it.

Other junk

Do underviews and overviews. It won't hurt to do either and is good, makes it an easy way to the ballot. I like rebuttals that are top down and not all over the place, tell me where to flow it/when to im on paper as of writing this idk if that if that stayed

If you have any questions ask. Make jokes if you can. Don't put those dog photos for speaks I'm gonna try and give high speaks bc ik how competitive making out rounds is. As for speech, you ought to be fine unless you aren't fine. If you aren't fine you'll prolly know. Just don't be racist/sexist/homophobic. I'm open to questions before and after rounds, plz just don't post round my decision. Ill defend it, and if im somehow wrong sorry :/. Ig u got judge screwed

I am a speech and debate coach. I consider speech events to be an excellent way for student's to have real-world practice in conveying their thoughts and beliefs. I enjoy listening to speech events that show a speaker's range as it pertains to vocal tonality, personality and knowledge. I look for clear preparation and organization through details brought fourth in the introduction, body and conclusion. Sources should be clearly stated and expanded on. I want to hear content on social, political and educational topics that revolve around current events. Adding in personal touches when appropriate are also appreciated. I consider debate a communications event. Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. I prefer a traditional style of debate and am big on speaker clarity. I’m okay with a speaking pace a bit faster than ‘normal’ conversation but avoid monotone speaking and inhibited breathing! Do not spread. Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter! Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments. Be sure to extend your arguments, especially after they’ve been attacked. Take advantage of Cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. Topics reflect concerns in our society, so take it seriously and do not waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers’ intent. My vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present. Please don’t be jerky or rude – it will cost you speaker points!

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

Hi I debate for Memorial

Run anything, no tricks or friv shells

tech>truth always

quick prefs:

1)K-cap,security, basic ID pol, Deleuze, baudrillard

2)policy

3)real theory

4)friv theory and tricks

im good with speed

speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down accordingly