I say my paradigm before round its pretty basic. I'll accept most arguments if they're presented well and link. The only exclusion is that I will NEVER vote on non disclosure, its not a real argument and is counter to debate and seeks to prep out cases and place the burden of pre round prep on your opponent

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

tristanball@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Tristan! When I was in high school, I did cx, ld, extemp, congress, and prose with varying degrees of success. I have experience in basically any event and a pretty good idea of what I'm looking for in all of them.

I would definitely like to emphasize that debate is an event that people do for fun so please be respectful and friendly during the round. Hostility towards another debater is never impressive, so if I feel that there is unnecessary aggression, I will change speaker points accordingly.

Generally, I am open to any argument but please make sure it has all parts of the argument when it is first presented.

Policy:

I consider myself a policy maker because at the end of the day I feel like the goal of the debate is to answer the resolution adequately. Don't be afraid to run unique arguments in front of me.

I am open to any argument but I have a few things I feel like y'all should know. I really like good analytics in a debate and don't believe that an argument needs to have a card attached to be an important argument. However, it still has to be a convincing argument to be effective in the round. The best debates usually have a healthy combination of evidence and analysis without being overly reliant on either.

Also, please try to use all of your speech time. Many rounds can be lost because you end your speech before you adequately address everything your opponent said.

Speed: I debated for a long time, so I can understand most speeds and I understand the strategic benefit of going fast. Please make sure you are still articulating the words. Additionally, please make sure that I can understand what you are saying and emphasize anything important for my flow. I will try my best to keep up with everything but if I miss something on my flow because I couldn't understand what you were saying it only harms you. If I have a difficult time understanding, I will just say "clear".

New in the 2: Please do not read new arguments in the 2NC! It diminishes clash tremendously and leaves the 1ar with an impossible burden. I have seen times when it is acceptable i.e. if the aff changes what their plan is mid-round. Also, I will still vote on an argument presented in the 2NC, but it won't take much for the aff to convince me that the neg's strategy is abusive.

Kicking out of arguments: Please kick out of arguments. I had judges in high school tell me I couldn't kick out of stuff. I don't mind at all. I prefer if the neg condenses down to a few winning arguments by the 2NR so they have a clear voting issue. To me, kicking out of arguments shows that someone understands the flow and time allocation very well.

Theory: I love good theory debates, but please only read theory if it is relevant to the round. In-round abuse is the biggest voting issue for me for theory but I will vote on potential abuse or other well-drawn-out impacts. I don't feel confortable voting for things that didn't happen in round, so just be careful what you want to make your voting issues. (for example, running disclosure as your 2nr decision might not win you the round)

T: I love T but believe it has a high threshold to win. If I vote on T it is because the neg won that the aff shouldn't exist inside of the resolution and that it would be unfair for the aff to continue running their case. T is usually a good argument to have on the flow for a bunch of reasons so don't be scared to run it even if I have a high threshold for voting on it.

DAs:I love DAs! They were my favorite argument to run while I was debating policy! Just make sure you can win all the parts of the DA and then weigh its impacts vs. the aff. Also, I prefer case-specific or unique DAs above generics but I understand why people run generics. If you ever write your own DA please run it!

Ks: Ks are cool and I will listen to any of them but please make sure you are running them properly. Also please make sure you are explaining the literature and the impact it has on the round. K literature has a tendency to be from high academic circles so make sure that you are using it as a tool for education and not a tool to confuse your opponents. Love seeing them in round though as a mechanism to keep the literature healthy. Definitely don't feel uneasy about running a K in front of me as long as you know the K well.

K Affs: I'm totally cool with people running K affs just make sure you win whatever framework you need to keep the aff on the flow. Also, keep in mind that I value clash a lot, so if the K aff you are running doesn't have much topic-specific clash, then it does make it easier for the neg to win that you shouldn't be able to run it. None of this is to scare you from running your aff just make sure you are doing it responsibly.

CPs: Counter plans are cool and a good thing to have on the flow. If the counter plan is specific to the aff, then I will be more likely to vote on it but I will still vote on generics.

Framing: I'm totally cool with framing please run it.

Ok, I basically just gave y'all step-by-step instructions on how to get my ballot but if you still have questions please just let me know. TLDR: you can run whatever just make sure you are being smart when you run it.

LD:

Even though I mainly debated policy I have competed, wrote cases, and coached LD. I also understand traditional and progressive LD so do whichever you please. However, if you notice that your opponent is debating in a different style, that doesn't give you an excuse to not clash. Progressive debaters need to clash with traditional debaters and vice versa.

LD is usually considered to be the philosophy debate so if you are running philosophy please explain what it is and if it proves the resolution true. For example, I shouldn't have to google what your criterion is because it is your responsibility to communicate why it's important.

The biggest problem I usually encounter in LD debate is a lack of clash. Directly clashing with what your opponent is saying gives me a much bigger reason to vote for you than if you just try to tell me your case is more important. A general rule of thumb is that if it feels like you are being too repetitive, then you probably aren't engaging in your opponent's arguments enough.

Speed is cool just make sure I can understand.

Congress:

I know looking at paradigms is less common for congress, but it can't hurt to let y'all know what I look for in a round. Essentially, I look for a healthy combination of entertaining and professional. Entertaining can look like a lot of different things- from good humor to presenting statistics in a way that keeps me engaged. I really like it when a speech is well organized and gives proper time to each point that is being made. I value clash a lot in congress because that is what makes it interesting past the third speech on a topic. It is very impressive to me if you can prove that you have been paying attention the whole round and have done the research to prove others wrong. Please make sure your clash is professional and doesn't seem aggressive or like a personal attack.

LD: I prefer traditional debate for LD, because the entire point of this debate is to be values oriented and philosophical. That being said, I prefer and enjoy hearing nuanced and different types of argument. Stock debate gets boring, and those who are able to string together new ideas and successful tie them to the value and criterion are the most successful. I prefer you stay away from spreading. Speaking quality matters in LD. Speaking rate can be fast, but not the extent that the event has evolved to.

CX: Tabula Rasa. I am an open book. Tell me how to vote. I enjoyed varied arguments and will let your plans and their subsequent defense stand on there own merit. Spreading is acceptable, but shouldn't get out of control to where we are (quite literally) talking at one another.

Speech: I appreciate different approaches, but enjoy those who are able organize themselves and follow the typical conventions of quality speaking.

Congress/PF: Argument is 60% and Speaking is 40%. Your ability to draw in the audience is important in this event and speaking ability should play especially important.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

TL;DR:

You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded.

If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!!

Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, and was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits for China Spring High School, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories.

Speech drop is ideal, but email chain is fine. I'd like to be included in whatever form of file sharing y'all engage in. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded (unless y'all are physically uploading to a flash drive and walking it to the other team, then prep stops when you start to walk the drive to the opponents)-- too many teams have taken advantage of their ability to "save the doc" to steal prep time.

I'm usually not looking at the doc during round, but occasionally I will based on how the round plays out. Don't count on me looking back over the doc to fill holes in my flow though, if you're not clear enough for it to end up on my paper then I'm not evaluating it. I look over evidence for questions of ethics, quality, or for resolving major points of interest in the round when I absolutely have to-- not to fill in blanks from what I couldn't catch.

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

POLICY/NFA LD:

I enjoy watching K v K, K v Policy, and Policy v Policy rounds equally.

T/Theory: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. If T isn't your game, you probably don't want to run it in front of me because I always have a hard time voting for Ts that are blippy and not impacted out. I enjoy T debates that have a lot of clash on the reasons to prefer, and that attempt to compare the division of ground/education of each interpretation. Reasonability does not mean "You shouldn't care abt me bcuz im REASONABLY topical-"-- I have no idea what this means or how to decide whether you are or aren't "reasonably topical". Reasonability is about the aff's interpretation and its place in the literature/its division of ground.

Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice. I don't really have a preset threshold on how many conditional advocacies are okay, but I generally find myself enjoying watching rounds with less than 4 conditional advocacies more than rounds with 4+ in CX rounds. This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to vote on condo bad in rounds with less than 4 negative advocacies, this is just a statement of personal preference. For the LDers looking over this (NFA, or HS), I find myself enjoying rounds with less than 3 advocacies more than rounds with 3+.

I'm probably not voting on disclosure theory at a HS tournament unless we're at a TOC bid tourney (UIL norms, and new TFA rules), if you're a college debater you should be disclosing and I am very open to voting on disclosure theory.

I typically start theoretical questions from a "reject the argument" mindset-- I need a well warranted argument as to why I should reject the team to overcome this (with the exception of condo/dispo bad).

DA: Disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense.

CP: Counter plans are great. I like most CPs, and I really have any dispositions toward any CP (I've voted on PICs, Consult, Delay, International CPs, and many many more) however I am also more than down to hear a great theory as to why their CP isn't legit. I typically start the round from a drop the argument mindset and need warranted reasons as to why I should drop the team in these debates though. The only CPs I'm really suspect of are artificially competitive CPs (if you're confused what I mean, look here: https://www.debatemusings.org/home/stupid-cps-are-stupid ) but, I have in fact voted on them before.

I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (however, you can make arguments for why this should change).

K: I love K debates, and I wish more teams would go for the K in front of me. This is the argument I collapsed on the most when I was competing. I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. I probably haven't read the lit you're talking about in the K, so just assume that I haven't and make a concerted effort to explain it to me. Probably not the best judge for most Baudy (and friends), psychoanalysis, or any other high theory K-- I have voted on them, and am willing to vote on them again, but often teams who read these args just fill their overviews and tags with paragraphs of the most esoteric wording I've ever seen, and I often get lost in both flowing and understanding the round when teams do this.

K Affs: Go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you. I enjoy good Kritikal affirmatives, and love both KvK and K v T/theory debates. Framework is definitely a viable collapse in front of me, but often teams who collapse on framework just won't resolve the offense on the flow when they go for it so I usually vote aff in these debates. If you are going for framework, make sure you're doing the work and establishing a clear link chain to the impacts on the T sheet.

A lot of judges say to be "in the direction of the topic"-- I think this is vague and arbitrary. You will probably have an easier time on the framework sheet with me if you are able to explain how your advocacy affirms the topic in some way or form, and you should still be arguing that we should change from the status quo (even if you're running pess), however I am also a fan of "debate about debate" Ks and I don't feel that the aff should be bound to being "in the direction of the topic" if they can win args about why the topic (or debate) is bad/exclusionary. That being said, if you can't win that debate then you'll probably lose the round. If you're not reading evidence that is at least somewhat in the lit for this year's topic, I'm also probably more likely to buy into impact chains on fwk/t-usfg (i.e. If you're debating on the college nukes topic and none of your ev is about nuclear weapons, predictability and limits become a lot easier to win on the neg. Same goes for the current HS CX income inequality topic/LD topic of the month)

Case Debate: I love good case debate, it's really a lost art now. If you're a good case debater, you should rely on that with me in the back of the room-- it will help you and your speaks out a ton.

Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's L 20s across the board). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics.

-.5 speaks every time you say "Game over"-- idk how this became the standard grandstand of debaters, but it's the worst and you're better than having to rely on this to make it sound like you're winning.

This is true of all levels of debate, but it's something the NFA LDers looking over this need to pay closer attention to. Please chill out. There is absolutely no need to be as rude as I've seen the past couple of years in this event. Snide remarks in CX, unnecessary comebacks to questions, and general lack of respect for opponents is probably my LEAST favorite thing to watch in debate. I'd rather watch someone read a 7-8 minute NC of only friv theory or 26 off a-z spec and be nice than someone execute the best strategy I've ever seen while being an ass. In CX, ask the question get an answer and move on-- there is no need to say something snarky after you get a bad answer (I promise I heard it too).

(The average speaks I've given in the spring '24 semester are approximately 28.26)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

You probably won't see my face a ton in debates. I am typically a "nose in the flow" type of judge and don't really look away from the papers on my desk to make sure that I don't miss anything. If I am making facial expressions, or if you see my hands in the air/on my head it is because you have said something incredibly confusing, egregious, or I have absolutely no clue where to write down what you are saying (or some combination of the three).

Prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker points docked

How I evaluate things: Procedurals/theory first, Pre-fiat arguments second, Post-fiat arguments third

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round.

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

When I was competing I primarily collapsed on system/reps ks and T in NRs, and ran soft left/topical K affs with a bit of trad policy affs sprinkled in. I never ran a planless affirmative but have coached/judged/debated quite a few.

My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, Michael Donaldson, Tony Wyatt, and John Anderson-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge.

"The past tense of flow is flew" -- Tony

High School LD:

I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have been in many a value round and know more than enough to judge this activity. That being said, I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.

I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot.

If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.

I thoroughly enjoy good phil debate (especially on topics that don't use the word "ought"), although I am not a philosophy head myself. I will make a pretty key distinction here though-- I am not a fan of these cases that are 5 minutes of abstract framing that, half of which aren't carded, spewed out as quickly as possible and then two cards that are like "oh yeah, and one minor link to the rez", I do not enjoy this style of argumentation. 1) these cases are incredibly hard to flow (too much flowery language, confusing concepts, lack of cards, and spreading through taglines/analytics), and 2) they rarely make a full argument which means the other side doesn't have an incredibly high threshold to meet in terms of answering these cases. That being said, if you're doing the work to explain your case, how the contentions back up the framework, and explaining what my ballot does and what it says when I vote for you you will probably do just fine with this style.

Tricks is bad debate, and I have a hard time justifying a vote on most tricks even if they're straight dropped. I wouldn't recommend running this style of debate with me in the back of the room-- even if you win on tricks with me, your speaks are probably getting tanked (expect a 27, tops).

World Schools:

I competed in collegiate NPDA style Parliamentary debate, so I have relative familiarity with the event and how it works, although I am very unfamiliar with the norms in this style of debate. I operate off of an offense/defense paradigm, so I appreciate a lot of interaction between arguments. Please focus on your warrants, and the logic behind your arguments-- just because this is a non-evidentiary form of debate (or at the very least, the evidence standards are not as rigorous as other events) doesn't mean we shouldn't have complete arguments with a claim, data, and warrant. There are a lot of WSD rounds where students will get to the third or fourth speeches and will be saying "We said 'x', they dropped that" and then that's all they say on the argument-- don't do this, it will not get you very far with me. When extending arguments tell me why it's important that they dropped it, and/or how the argument impacts the round as a whole. I usually find myself deciding these rounds based off of the framework, so good comparison between the competing burdens and resolutional analysis will probably help you. If you have any specific questions before round just be sure to ask!

I don't judge CX very frequently but I have coached the event for a few years now. I consider myself to be a policymaker judge - I will try to vote for the team that creates the best world based on the impacts they are able to solve or prevent. I am not a fan of spreading, but I understand a faster pace is required in some of the rebuttals so please make sure you look at me to know if I am able to write down what you say while I'm listening or you shouldn't expect me to vote on that argument. I am a big fan of judge instruction throughout the debate, especially in the rebuttals so tell me what arguments are important, why you are winning them, and what that means for my decision. The 2NR/2AR should begin with why I am voting for your team, and the rest of the speech should be what I am going to be writing in my RFD. For the neg, I would prefer if you focused in on one or two positions to weigh against the aff instead of going for everything said in the round.

Policy arguments are what I am familiar with, so I prefer not to hear kritikal debates if possible, and if you choose to run them in front of me, you should not expect me to be familiar with the technical aspects of that debate. Disads and case debate are more persuasive to me than a counterplan with solvency that isn't ever explained, and I do not often vote on theory, so go for that at your own risk.

Lastly, have fun and be nice! No one wants to judge a round where teams act like they don't want to be there or when debaters are being abrasive, especially in CX.

I will value whatever I am told to value.

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

No 'new in the 2'.

Make sure to signpost.

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2021-June 2023: 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

Sparknotes:

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.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

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.

Framework:

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.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. 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.

Theory:

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.

Disads:

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:

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.

Kritiks:

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.

Perms:

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.

Affs:

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.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

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

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

Presentation

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

T

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

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

Disads/CPs

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

Misc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF Debate:

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

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

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Howard Ritz

I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 26 twenty six years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.

My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.

POLICY: I care about the stock issues. If done well, and related directly to the Aff. case, then I will accept Neg. Kritiks and counter-plans (CPs are expected in most arguments). If you spread incomprehensibly, you will lose points. Do not use theory based or alternate world cases. I will not allow open CX. Also, answering, "my partner will answer that" is not an acceptable response--know your case. Your analysis should be supported by “tangible” evidence. Substance is more important than quantity, and fallacies in your argument will cost points. No new in the 2!

LD: I am a traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention a plan, solvency, start spreading, etc... you will lose the round. No new in the 2.

EVERYONE: Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.

Jimmy Smith has over 45 years of coaching and is a 5 Diamond Key along with a very proud member of the NSDA Hall of Fame. Over the 45 years he has been honored to 9 students on the Final Stage with one National Champion. After retiring in 2017 Jimmy re-entered the classroom because to quote him, "this isn't work, it's fun"

If you have specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask! My email is mestone051@gmail.com

Congress: I understand this is a more tedious event at times. I just ask that you do not present the same information that others have already given unless you have something to add or refute. Please remember it is a speech event, and your scoring will reflect this. Eye contact (ie not reading your entire speech off a computer or paper) is big for me, along with interacting with the room. I'm not asking you to put on the performance of a lifetime, but please utilize the space provided (appropriately). I will respectfully weigh in quality over quantity if your speeches have no direct impact on the session.

CX: This was the main event I competed in during high school. With that being said, please utilize the following as best as possible for criteria to follow:

Style- I prefer for the debaters to provide a framework for the round. If this is not done, I will default to stock issues.

Speed- I don't mind it and can understand just about any speed. However, please speak clearly and emphasize anything you deem important for the flow. If I cannot understand you, it only harms you.

New in the 2- Please don't. I'd rather you focus on what you have already presented. It won't hurt you tremendously for judging purposes, but if the aff can prove abuse then I am likely to side with them.

T/DA/CP- These are great, just run them correctly and make your arguments clear.

K- Don't love them, but will consider them. Must have a clear link and impact for me to consider voting on it. If it's not clear to me, it probably isn't to your opponents.

Hello! My name is Thomas Thompson but you can call me Tommy if you would like.

E-mail: thompsondebate22@gmail.com

As a judge I don't just want to tell you what's wrong, I also want to tell you how to improve as a debater. I've put my email in my paradigm because I feel passionate about debate and want it to grow for generations to come. Don't be afraid to send me a message and ask questions! I want to help you as much as I can. 

I have competed in LD, CX, BQ, Extempt, and Congress.

I've also qualified for the National Tournament in International Exempt, and Congress, the UIL State tournament for Policy (2x) and Congress, as well as TFA State in Policy.

Two things I do not tolerate across the board are racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or any other discriminatory language or action in the round. I also do not suggest giving up during a round/forfeiting. I've judged so many rounds where teams believe they've already lost and just give up hope, even though they could have come back and won the round with just a little extra work. 

THIS ASIDE! I will not, and should not have to tell you what to do in the round. I will listen to anything, however, this does not mean I won't consider a truly bad argument as bad. It is up to the opposing team to tell me that the argument is bad, and not just assume I already understand that. Tell me explicitly. 

LD/PF Paradigm:

I love LD debate for its philosophical aspect. I'll vote for whoever is the best debater in the round. I'm not doing the work of deciding a winner for you. That's your job as a competitor.

I enjoy impact calculus and voters during a round.

Kritiks- I'm fine with k debate. I don't have a full lexicon of all the languages but I am very familiar with many. Still, ask me before the round.

Spreading is fine but if it's just gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.

CX Paradigm

Do whatever you want. I'll vote on anything if you keep up with it through the round and prove the point best.

K- I enjoy K debate, I myself enjoy running kritiks.

I enjoy and actually would prefer to hear impact calculus and voters in policy. Not required but highly recommended.

Spreading is absolutely fine but again if it's gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.