Princeton UIL Fall Classic
2022 — Princeton, TX/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Put me on the Email Chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Probably do not pref me highly if you are a primarily K team, it's not that I will not judge the round just that you are much better off getting the decision you want in a LARP debate, because that is what I primarily did in high school. But please do what you are most comfortable with.
Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.
Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.
Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am probably also more okay than most judges with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are particularly convincing.
Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.
Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.
Theory: Fine go for it if you want. In highschool I think (not that this is a good thing) I only went for theory one time, but I do understand the debate. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's probably good in most cases. Also you should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.
Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you are remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams who's links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine.
I am a UIL Judge. I want to hear STOCK issues, parts of the DA. Fine with CPs, and if you run a K, know what you are doing.
I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.
I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.
LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case
CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.
I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.
Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020
You either win, you learn, or both.
2021-Present: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School
2018-2021: High School debate consultant
2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin
2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate
2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School
I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.
For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.
make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.
cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.
Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.
Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).
I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.
“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.
I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.
I default to competing interps. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.
I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.
Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.
When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).
Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.
Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.
Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.
I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.
NLHS Policy 2013-2017
UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)
A&M Law 2021-
Email for chain: email@example.com
Email for contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.
Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):
When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.
If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.
Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.
That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.
People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.
Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.
Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.
Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.
I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.
I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.
Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.
Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.
I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)
The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.
I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.
Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.
I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).
“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.
Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."
This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.
- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.
- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.
During my high school career I competed in CX Debate, PFD, Extemporaneous Speaking, Student Congress, Poetry Interpretation, Original Oratory, One Act Play, and a handful of writing events, with both State and National appearances and rankings. During high school and the year after, I assisted with workshops and judging (also judged in LD Debate). Additionally, I was top speaker in college at Model Organization of American States--Political and Juridical Committee 2008. After nearly 15 years of being out of the game, I've recently re-entered the circuit as a judge again. As such, there is a component of brushing off cobwebs.
As a judge, I am fairly open to most all arguments and positions, as long as it can be properly explained/linked. I don't particularly like spreading, purely because I wasn't exposed to it too much while in school, however, I can follow it as long as it isn't too excessive. If you spread, please slow down on tags/linking arguments. If you see me set my pen to the side of my paper, and watch you speak instead of writing, it means I can't follow and you may want to slow down.
I'm a big fan of roadmaps prior to beginning of speeches and will never count a clear roadmap as part of your speech time. On that note, I'm a big proponent of using all your time, in all areas. Make use of your full speech times, CX periods, and prep time--all should serve to make the round as full and educational as possible.
Please be courteous within rounds. I don't have a high tolerance for rude comments or personal attacks that aren't relevant to the subject matter, and will reflect in speaker points. You can be firm, even performative, but not rude.
I'm not hugely familiar with CPs, and Ks, but have no problem with them being run--just be sure you have a well structured argument and can sufficiently link them within the round/rebut them clearly.
I understand now that laptops are able to be used in rounds and that access to evidence is nearly unlimited, however I value the ability to make and link clear arguments. It is apparent when evidence is read, but not understood by the speaker. If you're making use of your laptop and the evidence within, be sure you can freely link the evidence to the appropriate argument.
More than anything, I want to enjoy the round and hopefully come out of it having learned something. I enjoy the game of debate and like a wide variety of approaches. Have fun and be courteous and don't forget, you're speaking to the judge--guide me through the round and try not to leave arguments to me to make a judgement call on.
General Debate: I follow clear line-by-line arguments, I should not have to work hard to follow your arguments or understand what you are trying to prove. Clear extensions with solid analysis will win the round, being rude won’t. If your plan to win is to interrupt your opponents and be rude you are going to have a tough time. I'm good with speech, just slow down in tags, dates, and authors. That being said if you don’t slow down I won’t flow. Just because it’s on your doc doesn’t mean you read it. If you want me to flow it then slow it down. If you set up an email chain my email is Alyson.email@example.com. I have experience competing and judging in LD, CX, and PF so I know how the game is played. Let me know if you have any questions.
Case: Clear arguments that are well laid out are the way to go. I prefer the quality over quantity. Your goal should be to win because you have a better case not smother your opponent in arguments.
T: This is important. I don’t care how much of a positive impact comes from your case, if it doesn’t link in it will not win. Proving this sooner rather than later is key.
DAs and CPs: Do it, I’m game.
Ks and KAff: Prove that it’s is true and relevant and you got it.
Theory: I don’t buy theories that waste my time. If you are going to run a theory make it worth my time and energy.