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.

Definitely ask me before the round for any clarifications/extra info- 

LD/PF -

1. Play to your strengths as a debater. I can usually adapt to your debate style as long as you explain/understand your argument. Tell me the impact of your argument and why you should win.
2. Framework/impact debates are fun. I also love numbers. Give me the stats + analysis. 
3. Fine with speed as long as you signpost, slow down on important stuff, and are clear, otherwise you lost me. Don't make me guess. It's your job to communicate well.

Don't be rude. Have fun and let me know if there's anything I can do to make your debate experience even better.

add me to the email chain - rstephandy@gmail.com

hey i'm (sri) nithya (she/her)

mcneil '23, ut '27

if i'm judging anything but ld, everything down below applies but just ask me for specifics before round

add me on the email chain: nithyachalla05@gmail.com

t/l

i don't really care what you read as long as you explain it well. make sure to signpost otherwise you're going to lose me very easily.

assume i know absolutely nothing about the topic or current politics when debating because i probably won't.

i'll default to substance first unless told otherwise.

i'm fine with speed but if you're unclear i'm not gonna understand what you're saying. don't spew down on a novice or you're getting horrible speaks. if you're debating someone that doesn't spread, just match their speed in the later speeches. if you debate efficiently, you should still be able to win without spewing down.

also refer to me however you feel like i don't care enough to get mad about what you call me in round.

ill give relatively high speaks- to increase your speaks, make me laugh.

for speaks boost throw in a reference to the latest jjk chapters.

pref sheet

1- cp/disad, kritiks

2- phil, theory

3- non t affs, tricks, trad

if you're a trad debater, just debate how you're most comfortable debating.

cp/disad: the type of debate i'm most familiar with. nothing much to say here, just pls impact weigh it will make me happy and don't force me to do that work for you. explain how the cp either solves the aff and the impacts of the da, or just how the cp is just better than the aff and you'll be ahead. link and impact turns are offense on a disad- pls don't concede them.

phil: explain the syllogism of your fw. that's literally it. i'm not exactly the most adept at phil but i can somewhat follow a phil debate. though my phil knowledge is limited, if you can explain it well and explain why it should frame the round and why you're winning under that framework, you win. just err on the side of of overexplaining because otherwise you're gonna lose me. phil i'm most familiar with: butler, levinas, rawls, hobbes, kant, locke.

kritiks: i'm familiar with some of the lit (some id pol, nietzche, baudrillard, psycho, deleuze, glissant, cap, etc.). pls pls pls utilize the rob if you're debating other fws. it'll make me very happy. also explain the world of the alt otherwise idk how i'm supposed to evaluate perms and at to perms. also, utilize the fw of the k--it can win or lose you rounds. k tricks are always appreciated. k 1ars are always one of the harder ones to give so i'll try to give some leeway. also please don't concede extinction ows--i've done this far too many times than i should have and it's definitely not hard to answer.

non t affs: go for it. i barely read these but i've debated enough to understand the strategic value and implications of reading them. try to be creative in your approach in answering these tho bc those rounds are hella interesting.

theory: not my favorite style but do what you want to do. default no rvis, competing interps , dtd, fairness and education are voters. theory imo gets extremely muddled so if you're planning on going for it, just try to explain the abuse story well.

tricks: i'll evaluate them. idk what else i'm supposed to say about this but if you want, go for it i'm not entirely opposed to them. however, pls don't read 50 million paradoxes- you will lose me.

if you have any questions before round, let me know and i can hopefully answer them. also let me know if you want me to do anything to make the round more inclusive for you. don't be a jerk or do anything offensive otherwise you're getting an automatic l25. please dont postround too much i beg.

last updated: 3/10

Ammu Christ (they/them/their)

Midlothian '22

UT Austin '26

please add both garlandspeechdocs@gmail.com and graduated@gmail.com to the chain

active conflicts: Garland (2024) + various independents

**Follow the bolded portions of the paradigm if you need to skim.

---

post-TFA State 2024 updates:

The state of LD has always been in a desolate state, but this past weekend has been extraordinarily disappointing. The frequency of judging beyond this point is up to my wellbeing and being compensated beyond minimum wage.

1 - I'm not sure why debaters feel the need to be cutting necessary corners to explain and win their arguments sufficiently well. It disservices you from winning by underexplaining your arguments and hoping I can make

2 - Be considerate when you're postrounding your judges. Many of us are paid well below minimum wage and volunteer/prorate lots of hours into the activity with little to no return in favor of keeping the community having adequate judging. I'll do my best to explain how I reached my decision and answer clarifying questions, but if you expect me to automatically change my decision, its too late, try again next time.

3 - I am not your babysitter and will give you a stern look if you or any person in the room acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Especially things such as grabbing another debater's laptop without their permission and turning it towards the judge.

4 - I hold absolutely no sympathy for individuals that don't make a concerted attempt for disclosure (ie explicitly refuse to send their cases over, not disclosing on opencaselist dot com) and then read some 2000s-esq theory shell saying they are unable to engage with the 1AC. Go argue with your coach, not me.

5 - It should go without saying that if I find out that you attempt to make a structural/ontology claim (or analogously use some grammar of blackness) through cutting a sui**de note as your basis, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will contact your coach either by the RFD or directly. Absolutely ridiculous.

---

I would best describe myself as a clairvoyant when it comes to judging. I have no strong feelings when it comes to how I evaluate arguments, and feel that I agree with a wide spectrum of opinions and debate takes, even the usual divide that exists within educational/“non-educational” forms of debate.

I will vote up anything except anything morally repugnant (see: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) or out of round issues. Some arguments require a lot more instruction than others in front of me, choose accordingly.

General takes:

• Evidence determines the direction of argument quality - Bad arguments will either have little to no evidence, but it is possible to spin smart arguments from bad evidence. Arguments without evidence is definitely doable, but then again, y’all are high schoolers.

• To win an argument, you need to sufficiently win that it has a claim, impact, and warrant.

• The 1AC will “set the topic” (whether it adheres to the resolution or not), the 1NC will refute the 1AC in any form. I am inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative world is more preferable than the status quo or a different world proposed by the negative.

• Debate is a communication activity. It may or may not have “spillover” into the real world. I am of the opinion, by default, we probably don’t. I can be convinced either way, though.

• My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting.

• At bare minimum, I need to get submit my ballot in before tournament directors nag on me. Other than that, do whatever other than being violent.

• As a neurodivergent person, it is sometimes a bit hard for me to follow implications/strategies of things as well as deciphering rebuttals. My favorite type of rebuttals will respond to things top-down in the order of the previous speech and/or group and do sub-debates in specific areas on my flow. Your speed when it comes to the rebuttals should be 70% of the speed of the constructive.

• I care a lot about form and content. The 2NR/2AR must isolate and collapse to one argument (most of the time). I am very receptive to arguments that specifically complicate the reading of multiple conflicting positions in the rebuttal. (See: a non-T aff going for condo, collapsing to multiple Phil positions and a util advantage, etc). This doesn’t really apply if conflicting positions are read before the rebuttals.
• I default no judgekick.

• I think I’m pretty good at nearly transcribing most speeches. My typing speed spikes anywhere between 110-140 words per minute. I tend to flow more and try to isolate warrants since my brain tends to forget immediately if I don’t write down full warrants/explanations for things. Not a you problem, just a neurodivergent thing. In terms of speed, not a problem, just need clarity and will clear you if it is not present or give up not typing anything if I can’t legibly type anything.

• Speaks are based on execution, strategy, collapse, and vibes. 28.2-28.6 is the cume for average. 28.7-28.9 means you’re on the cusp for breaking. 29-29.3 means you’ll break and reach early/mid slims. 29.4+ means you will go deep elms and/or win the tournament. Not all speaks are indicative of this, but normally they will try to follow this guideline.

LD specific takes:

• Pref guide:
• I feel best apt to evaluate K, non-T, policy, Util/Kant debates.
• I can adequately evaluate theory. I find that these debates aren’t impossible, but I definitely will be thinking a lot more harder in these debates.
• Exercise caution around tricks and “denser phil” (anything not Util or Kant). I can still evaluate these, but I find in these debates I need arguments overexplained in terms of strategy for me to follow.

• I default comparative worlds over truth testing. I think offense under either form of argument evaluation is doable, but I need that blatantly explained to me.

• I’ve changed my thoughts on tricks. I think that I was formerly being dogmatic by saying they don’t hold “educational value”. I actually don’t care now. Read them if you fancy these arguments, but I require a lot more judge instruction to understand strategy/collapse.

• As formerly for tricks, I’ve also changed my thoughts on theory. A shell must have a violation to be legitimate. See below in a later section about specifics with theory offense.
• A caveat for evidence ethics theory. I do not find this shell convincing at all. In order to win with this shell in front of me, the alleged violation must prove that there was malicious intent with the altercation of evidence. I will also ask if both debaters would like to stop the round and stake the round on evidence ethics. If the person who read the shell says no, my threshold for responses on the shell automatically goes down to the lowest possible amount of responses. The threshold to win the argument at this point becomes insanely steep.

• If I haven’t made it clear already, please spend more time explaining function and implications of these arguments if you want to win my ballot. I find that I am following these arguments more better than I was like a year ago, but you should do more work to overexplain to me to win. I don’t know to make that more obvious.

• I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater on theory shells.

• I am willing to zero out a theory shell’s offense if there is no real violation. It is up to the person reading the shell to prove that there is either a textual or functional violation in the first place. No amount of competing interpretation justifications will matter if there is no violation to the shell. I don’t care if the violation is textual or functional, I just need one to grant offense to the shell in the first place.

• I find that paradigm issue debates are sailing ships in the night — you should really group them whenever they’re spread across multiple pages. If the warrants to your paradigm issues are the same I’ve heard over the past year and a half, I will flow them as “dtd, c/I, no rvi” (and vice versa when responding)
• I enjoy unique warrants to paradigm issues, but find non-T offs trying to come up with their own warrants sort of fall flat if they reject a conception of debate.

• IVIs need an impact when introduced. Will not vote on these without one.

• I default theory > K >= content FW > content — this is a rough diagram and open to different justifications for weighing.

• You can find any other relevant thoughts on the K and policy here in the archive for December 2023. My thoughts really haven’t changed as much for the K nor policy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KidiW8WJQi0-PWf2lx33GPi9kiRySLl1TbV_fGZ1PY/edit?usp=sharing

You can request a copy of your flow at any point after the RFD is given.

Good luck! :>

Hi, I’m Jay. I competed in LD all four years of high school, won TFA state (way too long ago to be relevant but my kid made me write it in the paradigm), then did policy at UT for two years.

TLDR: You do you, be respectful to your opponent. Don’t run tricks, don’t run an identity-based K that you don’t personally identify with, but ultimately I am good for anything else.

LARP/Policy: Great for this, but I want to see a better internal link than is usually presented during these debates. Small, obscure changes in policy = nuke war is probably not something I’ll be super happy voting on.

T/Theory : Down for most theory, just not friv theory. Probably yes RVIs, DTD has a higher bar than DTA, no deep thoughts on condo.

K: I love K debates, the more specific the link into the aff is, the better. ROB should actually do something for debate, or at least strive to. I said this above, but please do not run ID-based args that you don’t identify with, it’s probably not an auto L but I don’t like these debates.

K aff: Fine with these, but I like affs with really good links into the topic. I also enjoy good T debates (IMO if you are running a K aff, you had better have some good responses to T).

Phil: Especially good for Kant, Rawls, all the French guys and anything pomo. Phil debates are great. No strong caveats, just make sure the links are as good as they would be if it was LARP.

Tricks: Go ahead and strike. I don’t think tricks are good for debate at all, and most of the time they are exclusionary. Just please do not run these.

conklin.debate@gmail.com for email chain purposes, yes I want to be on the email chain.

Good luck, I look forward to judging!

∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨

UIL: I know UIL is supposed to be more "traditional," but you're welcome to be as techy as you want as long as you're sharing cases!

Shortcuts

1 - Policy/K

2 - Trad

3 - Phil

4 - Theory/T

Strike - Tricks

Tech > Truth

Fairness = Education

Spreading = Bad, Speed = Good

I prefer Speech Drop or NSDA File Share, but my email is larsoncrank@gmail.com

----------

Background

Klein Collins '22

Texas '26 (History & Government)

I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event, LD was always my favorite and the event that I participated in most frequently. I'm self-taught and because of this I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I was a 3x qual for TFA State and NSDA Academic All-American for anyone who cares about my "qualifications."

Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as other power house schools. If you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings involved in debate, please reach out! I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.

----------

Logistics

In regards to the shortcuts listed above, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of debate. I think as a judge I'm obligated to not allow my own biases related to debating techniques impact the RFD. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want and I will adapt as I see accordingly.

I flow by ear, but I still want access to your case. Not only does this prevent confusion if there's discrepancy during the round, but I think it's ultimately a good practice to share your case with everyone in the room.

Please give a roadmap before your speech AND signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss any figures you put out. The clearer you are with the tags, the better!

When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is entirely destructive for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I'm a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points. I've started flowing again on paper more frequently as opposed to using my computer, so this may be another reason to slow down at least for tags and line-by-line.

I expect to see clash over framing! You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be evaluating under. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason! If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare evidence with which in turn makes producing a good RFD difficult. Not to mention, I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame offensive position.

I'm going to default tech before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD and evaluate only what is said during round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it wins in a tech debate!

I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think in this situation. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).

I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into it. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.

I don't keep time. Time yourselves!

I don't flow CX. However, when it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.

----------

Trad

As mentioned above, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career. Although it is a simple strategy, I think it can be just as effective as any of the more "progressive" styles. Case debate is something I’m fully capable of evaluating. This is a random thought, but as I've become more experienced with the other forms of debate, I've developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."

Tell me when something is non-unique! I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position!

I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, an amazing strategy to shoot for is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.

Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how scary they may seem!

----------

Policy

If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."

I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever conclusive impact you are trying to get me to see! Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. ADVs are cool too, but I figured that was implied from my stance on DAs.

CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept (and strongly encourage) Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.

----------

K

I'm familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.

Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative

K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.

While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought. Although, if you’re going to run a K but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all some time and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.

Familiar: Cap, Set Colonial, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess

---------

T

I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little (if anything) to do with the resolution at hand.

Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.

----------

Phil

Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms you probably don’t understand it that well.

I'm familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner! Somewhat related, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.

Empirics > Analytics (in most cases)

Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism

----------

Theory

I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.

I can firmly say that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.

STOP SAYING DTD!

I will NOT vote off Disclosure Theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto-down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. As someone who debated for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the loop and/or involved with collective wikis.

----------

Tricks

I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.

----------

PF

All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter as much like FW).

My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact(s) of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than your opponent's.

Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros and the least amount of cons is most likely going to get the W.

Facts and clear links between steps. No jumps without information to support the jump. Reduced spreading if possible please.

Email: ivang6974@gmail.com

LD Debate

For the most part I am lay, but I there are some priorities for me:

Establishing framework is very important and who can most utilize their value as tool against their opponent. I want debaters to argue why the value should weigh more and/or why it can even solve for their opponents case. I have judged LD before, and I get disappointed when framework arguments fade from the center of the debate because they should be focus of LD.

Impact debate is important and will ultimately decide the round. I need to know why I should not vote for the opponent and why I need to vote for your case. If there is an impact to not voting your case, let me know. Or vice versa tell me there is an impact to voting for your opponent. Impact debate can be won by using impact calculus and using the framework to tell me what why yours is more important.

I will listen and vote for K debate, just make sure the argument presented has a clear link and not just an overall generic link to resolution.

Any questions, you can ask me.

Policy Debate

I am typically oriented around policy maker as a judge. The best negative offense for me, are a couple of DAs and a good CP. I expect the DAs to have non-generic strong links. I will mostly evaluate a DA base around the link debate. My only standards for the CPs is that they are creative and can solve for the entirety of the Affirmative case, with a net benefit.

T args: I will only vote for T if it is pretty obvious that the affirmative is not topical, otherwise if they are presenting a common case then T is a time waster for me.

Theory: I do not flow on theory, I think it does not take the debate anywhere.

K debate: I am familiar with Ks, especially Cap, and I would be willing to vote on Ks, as long as they are well represented and are not generically linked to the affirmative case.

Case: Aff just make sure your entire case is defended and upheld.

Impact: A big chunk of my decision will be based on impact debate. So each side please provide an Impact Cal, and I am willing to listen to big and small stick impacts. However, I will have a higher standard for probability for big stick impacts.

If you have any other questions then please just ask me before a round starts.

Hi, I'm Karthik - TAMU '28 - McNeil '24 - 4 years of LD on TFA and national circuit

speechdrop is chill, email is chill too: karthik.jay531@gmail.com

General

i flow by ear. don't spread anything you want me to understand/flow. if i miss something, i might feel bad for you but i won't vote on it

only time I'll check the doc is for ev ethics, but I'd rather you read it as a shell

only rules are speech times, rest is up for debate

tech>truth for the ballot (only exception is safety/ -isms), speaks are up to me (read: no speaks spikes)

defaults: theory > rob/framework > offense , presumption and permissibility negate

Novice

weighing is everything

pls don't read theory or K's, everything else is chill

don't worry too much about wins and losses, focus on getting better so you can move up to varsity

Pref sheet

Phil - 1/2 depending on the phil

This is what I find the most interesting in debate, I read some Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, etc. but don't assume ik your philosopher

skep, determinism, and logic tricks like paradoxes are also fine, but make sure to explain why they justify voting for you

K - 3

did a little of this (cap, setcol, security), but don't assume I know your K

not afraid to vote on presumption v a K aff if I don't know what it does

if you can't explain your thesis to a 5 year old within cross ex, then don't read the K in front of me

dislike doc botted 2nrs full of buzzwords

Theory - 1

Did a lot of this as a debater, I'll vote on friv shells if you're winning the flow

I dislike theory spikes without good warranting, but if they have warrants I'll vote on it i guess

judge instruction is key when collapsing to theory, esp when you have to up layer over ROB

defaults: ci>reasonability, drop the debater, no RVI

LARP - 3/4 depending on complexity

I did very little of this, but it seems straightforward enough

assume I don't know anything about current events

I like overviews in 2nr/2ar explaining what the collapse/win condition will be esp in complex debates (multiple condo cp's, impact turns, etc)

other info

speaks

speaks are somewhat arbitrary but influenced by being nice and good judge instruction

shout outs

influenced by: Henderson, Anshul Gulati, Yara Mustafa, Ben Duong, Vishnu Nataraja

shout outs: Rohan Sthanu, Manu Yenikapati, Aditya Patwardhan, Nithya Challa

"live laugh love lose"

DEb8 don’t H8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

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

Short

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

Speed

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

Ks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T/Theory

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

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

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

DAs

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

CPs

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

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

Phil

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

Tricks

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

Framing

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

Layering

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

Speaks

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

Other things

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

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

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

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

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

PF

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

Speech

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

Hi, I'm Aditya, McNeil '24

[0] Logistics:

• I prefer email chain over SpeechDrop. Please send docs to adityap[dot]thecool[at]gmail[dot]com. Ideal email chain title is something like "{Tournament Name} {Event} {Round Number} Aff {insert debater} vs Neg {insert debater}".
• Please be punctual. That means sending the 1AC before the official round start time and minimizing time between speeches (don't steal prep or take 30 seconds to ask if judge and opponent are ready)
• Prep can be CX but you can't blatantly use CX as prep. I count sending docs as using prep.

[1] I'll judge any category of argument (syllogism with a claim, warrant and impact.) Assume I have no prior knowledge about the lit you read (I don't want to do extra work for you by filling in gaps in your explanations)

[2] I flow by ear and on paper. I will not backflow or evaluate "insert rehighlighting" and "insert chart" statements.

[3] Don't read racism good, sexism good, etc. You'll get the lowest speaks possible.

[4] Specifics

[a] Policy (LARP)

• Love weighing
• Case debate is great, especially to expose bad affs.
• Link turns need uniqueness to become offense.
• Unless argued otherwise, I presume that permutations are a test of competition.
• By default, presumption goes to the side of least change from the status quo and permissibility negates.
• Default yes intrinsic perms and no judgekick or severance perms, but argumentation can change that

[b] Kritiks

• Prefer line-by-line to overviews, and short taglines to essays (although I understand why one would want to deviate from typical models of debate)
• Ideally permutations do not sever out of the assumptions that are being critiqued
• Please use real-world examples in your explanations and contextualize your extensions to the debate so I know you're not being a docbot. I won't vote on anything I don't understand
• Arguments like no perms in a method debate, the "state" link, etc. aren't my favorite, but I'll evaluate them
• Non-T affs should justify their model of debate.
• Willing to vote on impact turns (e.g. cap good and heg good)

[c] Philosophy

• Prefer syllogistic frameworks to a list of independent reasons to prefer
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Extinction outweighs probably assumes consequentialism, so it shouldn't be hard to beat back
• If no framework is presented by either side, I won't evaluate the round using util. I will evaluate the round based on strength of link weighing.

[d] Theory and Topicality

• Defaults: Fairness > Education, Competing Interpretations, Drop the Debater on shells indicting entire positions, No RVI's, T > Theory > K
• Theory debates can get messy so please use judge instruction
• T interps and counter-interps should be carded
• I will not evaluate a "speaks spike"

[e] "Tricks"

• I'm not opposed to these but you'd probably be better off reading something else in front of me
• Please explain why us living in a hologram means I should vote for you

[5] Evidence Ethics - I will evaluate challenges (staking the round) in a way that is consistent with tournament rules. By default, the winner of the challenge will get speaker points based on their performance up until the challenge (it's not an auto-30.) The loser of the challenge will get an L25.

[6] Influenced by/shout-outs: Henderson, Blake Andrews, Anshul Gulati, Yara Mustafa, Karthik Jayakumar, Rohan Sthanu, Manu Yenikapati

[7] Good luck!

Last updated - 9/22/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

Good for judging traditional debates LD, Congress, Poetry

Hi,

I am a first year student at UT Austin. My pronouns are he/him. I did Ld debate for four years in highschool so that's what I'm most familiar with. In terms of other events like pf and extemp, I am pretty much going into it with an open mind. Feel free to ask me any questions in person in case I forgot anything in my paradigm.

LD - So I did varsity LD for four years but never really got into the high level debate. That being said, I am much more comfortable with phil and larp arguments. You can run tricks and theory but I can't promise anything. I'm fine with spreading as long as you slow down for your taglines and card names. If you have an email chain, I would like to be on it.

Overall, clarity and articulation go a long way for me. As long as you're confident and respectful you should be good!

I also give out perfect speech points if you make a reference to breaking bad, one piece, and the McRib. Good luck!

I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.

I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)

Specifics

CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Flush out your ideas.)

LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.

Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.

Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.

Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.