I am a debate coach, but please consider me more of a lay judge because I have limited experience.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I tend to value truth over technique if both are equally matched (so long as no fundamental errors are made).

Please do not neglect your framework, as it is a fundamental part of LD debate.

I'm not a tabula rasa judge when it comes to your framework: I will use what I know about philosophy and logic to evaluate if your value and criterion are sound.

That said, I tend to evaluate all contentions, evidence, and/or observations from a place of non-judgement. So be sure to call out drops and/or any misinformation in your opponent's case or it will stand.

If two opponents are well-matched, I will rely on overall clash and/or voters to make my decision. Be sure to tell me what you believe the arguments boil down to and what you believe I should use to make my decision.

I lean toward traditional/classical, but I can be open. Definitely not fond of spreading; if you do speak quickly, be sure you can be easily understood.

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.

CLASH

Make sure you signpost arguments

Overall, I would rather you do you and I will flow it.

Hello,

My name is Justin Dwyer and this is my judge paradigm. A little bit about myself before I get into the specific things i look for when judging each event. I competed in speech and debate all 4 years of high school and also competed for 3 years in college in NPDA and IPDA debate. I at one point or another have competed in every debate type and most speech events. The main outcome that I think debate rounds should have is some educational aspect where each competitor leaves the round better than when they walked in. The other key component to every debate is clash. Clash is important when evaluating debaters and their cases. But now for the line by line of what i look for in each event.

LD:

In LD I was a very traditional debater. The philosophy aspect is huge when it come to deciding the round. That being said, you can win or lose a round with me strictly on the value debate. If you cannot uphold your own value or show me why yours is what should be looked at first it is very had to win. After that it is up to you as a debater to steer me to what you want me to vote for. If the value and framework debate is a wash I will look towards the voting issues brought up by both debaters. That being said, the more flushed out your argumentation is the better. I will not do the work on the flow for you.

CX:

When it comes to CX I am a judge that is very persuaded by the flow. If you do the work on the flow and give me reasons why that is important to the round I will be more inclined to vote for that side. I feel that K's and off case hold a lot of weight if used effectively to combat the AFF. I am willing to listen to any and all argumentations but, if it is more of a out of the box argument then you need to do the work to guide me on how it is relevant and how it adds to the debate. For the Affirmative the best defense is a good offence. If you can prove to me that voting for the AFF would in any way lead to a 1% net positive increase from the status que the round is almost decided for me. At the end of the day just make sure there is clash and all information presented is relevant and realistic to what the topic is asking for.

PF:

When it comes to PF I am a very lay judge. If you can persuade me to vote for you in a realistic way you win my ballot. In PF there is many ways to do that but for me the easiest is the flow.

When it comes to speaker points I feel like I might stray from some judges. I enjoy a nice pleasant voice as a lot of judges do but, the content of your speech also effects your points. Be effective and on topic along with that and you will garner more speaker points from me.

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 have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

It’s easiest to say that I’m heavy on value and framework and light on the k and theory. This is not to say avoid the theory and kritik; it’s just rare that I am convinced by the reasoning there as it is most often used as a means to limit the scope of discourse which is fundamentally anti-debate. Spreading is a similar issue. I’m fine with moderate speed spreading, but if you’re tripping over words more often than not, I’m simply not going to be able to understand you. Additionally, I’ve often seen it as a means to flood the field or refer to niche theories or data with uncommon abbreviations or buzzwords that are often not going to be immediately understood by the average debater. This is abusive. Your cards can often be summed up in fewer words than would necessitate spreading.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

basically, stock issues. I reserve the right to play critic of argument.

counterplans ok.

kritiks are considered. But they should pertain to the debate/resolution

I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.

I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.

LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case

CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.

I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.

I am a consultant, former school principal and long-time teacher. I competed in VLD debate all four years of high school (Law Magnet HS in DFW/North Texas, 2004-2008). I saw LD make the change from three to four minutes of prep. We used an actual timer back then. Kept my batteries in place with tape. We primarily read off cardstock paper and rushed to print before heading out to compete. Laptops started to be used but were a novelty if you read from them. Different, huh? I do not presently affiliate myself with any school, district, or coach that currently competes on the circuit.

I will occasionally come back to the sport as a hired judge. I found it important back then to have judges who understood the sport. Although now I feel as lay as ever. The sport has made a shift towards mirroring policy more which is fine with me. But I won't pretend to know or understand more than I do. I listen to the news every morning so love the shift in topics. Likewise, I will praise my peer judges on a panel when their analysis is enlightening and challenges me, even if it differs from mine. Being in this space gives me so much hope for our future. And you, debater reading this, bring me joy.

As I have seeped myself back in the world of judging, I have found the following to be important to me:

• Clear storytelling. A debater presents and extends evidence with a few technical terms thrown here and there for dramatic effect. A strong compelling debater prioritizes the content in the round, articulates how I should frame the round, and makes logical analysis that provides deep insight into the implications of an aff/neg ballot for the round.
• I leverage your own words as much as possible in my RFD. Do the work for me. If I am having to do a lot of connections, comparisons, and weighing -- then the round didn't have much of a clear winner. As much as possible, direct me how to vote in your closing argument so I know what to weigh based on what's important in the round.
• Weight the arguments. I will often give a 28 if your speech is clear, speed or not, but a lot of your airtime outside of card and tagline reading is a repetition of this same language and full of technical terms. It's just not new. But if you are actually illustrating the clash, impacts, scenarios, and decision calculus for me -- easy 29. Non-negotiable 30, winner or not, when the big picture is insightful for implications past the round at hand by making my way to vote crystal clear.

Too, unless I am in an elimination round, I prefer to not disclose. For whatever reason, my outcome for decision gets challenged when I share in preliminary rounds. I prefer we keep the tournament on time and humility at the forefront. If needed, I will share any pertinent feedback to the debaters in-round. If I need to address anything potentially harmful to the sport, I will ask you (or your opponent) to stay behind so I can do so privately and in a safe space. I have only had to do this once to share with a novice debater re: how their presentation of self could be deemed as rude, disrespectful, and personal instead of constructive and about the content. But this all comes from a kind place. This sport should help transform you to be better, not worse. I, in turn, also welcome your own feedback and thoughts. Let's transform our lives with this sport to make the world a better place.

Technical Preferences
- https://speechdrop.net/ over e-mail
- Speed is fine, unclear speech is not. I will tell you to clear but hate that it breaks your focus
- I prefer for CX to be closed and that competitors are not speaking or interrupting one another in prep
- I would prefer that you time yourselves and when over time, to finish the immediate thought -- not the next paragraph. Cue awkward intervention by me when this happens

I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.

My paradigm is Tabula Rasa. I will accept any argument until the other debater contests it with logic, evidence, or theory. I like to flow with the debate lightly. The criterion and value criterion are major factors in my decision-making. I prefer a medium rate of delivery, but I would not vote against a student solely for exceeding my preferred speed. I find it very important to present all evidence in round 1. The most important part of the debate for me is the arguing, so I like to see good cross-examinations and rebuttals. Most of my decision is made by what arguments do or don't get contested, and how well they are contested.

Layzmozes22@gmail.com 

If you need to reach out, my email is hunterparrish460@gmail.com. The order is going to be high school CX, college parli, high school LD, and high school PF. As I judge more things, the list will get longer. I did CX for four years in high school and parli for three years in college. In CX, my highest achievement was octafinalist at UIL state and in parli, my highest achievement is second in the nation.

High School CX

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make. It is your round and I am simply here to see how good you did.
2. Tech over truth.
3. I like to see teams that can collapse to their winning arguments. You should not be reading everything from the first constructive in the last constructive.
4. Please don't reread cards. I heard you the first time.
5. Framework is not negotiable. I need to know how you want me to vote. I need to know what impacts are the biggest. I need to know what to do, they did not tell me in tab room.
6. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments with what I think about them.

A. Policy affs - 5/5 - The bread and butter of being aff. I don't have too many notes on what I want or expect. At its core, I think you should be identifying a problem and how you fix it. Some framing about why your problem is really bad never hurts. Remember, as the aff, this is your only offense, and therefore, you should be protecting it like the precious baby it is.

B. K affs - 5/5 - Sometimes the topic is problematic and you don't want to be associated with the state. That's OK, you can be untopical. My only prerequisite question is why are you untopical? If you have a good answer for that, then your k aff is welcome and will be evaluated fairly. This doesn't mean I won't vote on T, so make sure you are ready to defend that answer to that previous question.

C. Disads - 3/5 - I have nothing against the disad, but it can't win alone. You either need to prove the aff can't solve, outweigh the aff, or solve the aff through a CP. The disad alone is like a ship in the night, and guess what, it is passing other ships. With that, I don't think any negative policy strat is complete without it, it is truly a filler for the ages.

D. CP - 4/5 - I don't have anything against the CP, but I never really read it. I went straight from defending the squo in high school to being a radical k reader in college. With that, I am willing to vote on the CP and have no hesitation doing so if it is competitive, solves the aff, and avoids net benefit offense. With that, net benefits can be a form of competition. In regard to all CP theory, check out what I have to say about theory.

E. Theory - 5/5 - I love theory debates because they alleviate crucial burnout by giving debaters and judges the ability to hear something other than the topic again. With that, however, a theory argument is like any other argument in the sense that it has parts that can't be ignored or neglected. Too many debaters think it's ok to simply say "this is abusive" and think they deserve the round. I need you to create an interpretation, show a violation, give standards to defend your interpretation and give voters for me to care. Without this, you're just wasting time you could use to read more disads.

F. Topicality - 4/5 - It's just a theory. I'm voting it lower, not because I'm less likely to vote on it, or even that it is bad. I simply see too many teams decide that they don't have to do the work of voters, and that being untopical is simply enough. It is not. If the affirmative is hypothetically solving all poverty, I don't care if they cheated in a debate round. I need you to make me care, by saying why education and fairness are actually super cool.

G. Kritik - 4/5 - I like the kritik. I think more people should read the kritik. With that, you have to know how to run a kritik and what your kritik is about. If you don't know the four parts AND you don't know at least the basic level of your kritik literature, don't do it. Otherwise, I'm really cool with the kritik.

College Parli

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make, but warrant analysis is where these arguments should really be weighed.

2. Tech over truth.

3. Framework and collapsing to a win condition is not an option. I need to know how to vote and I need to know what a vote for either side actually means, not options for what it means.

4. I think I'm ok with speed. 7 or 8 out of 10.

5. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments and what I think about them.

A. Policy affs 5/5 - I think policy affs are good. I don't have a lot of notes on them. Usually, framing in the PMC, be it impact framing or round framing, helps me know what the aff is supposed to be doing for me.

B. K affs 4/5 - Slight preference for policy, but I'll vote on them no doubt. I read them more than policy affs myself. I just think that in a world with a new topic each round, you have to have a good reason to read your k aff. If you don't have strong topic links or links to standard debate, then that TVA is going to be fire against you.

C. Disads 2/5 - I don't hate disads, but they are useless on their own. Case defense, impact framing, or a counterplan is required to make them work. I need to know the aff doesn't solve, your impacts are larger, or that you can solve the aff, otherwise I just have to pick the impacts I like.

D. Counterplans 5/5 - Really cool way to create advocacies with direct competition to the policy aff. Needs a net benefit.

E. Kritik 5/5 - Negative kritik is a great way to question the aff.

F. Theory 5/5 - Meta debate is fun and I feel comfortable analyzing it. Frivolous theories aren't great, but the staples (condo, be topical, multi-actor fiat, spec, etc.) make great debate when done right. Make sure you have standards and voters, they are not the same.

G. Topicality 3/5 - I don't dislike it, but in an event where only half the community reads the topic, someone who is getting there deserves some leeway.

6. Based on what I've been told in round, I will paradigmatically vote against any white debater who reads afropessimism. - Thanks Arjun!

My paradigm stands somewhere between tabula rasa and games player depending on the format. I've been judging on the circuit for 10 years, now. And have judged every event at least once, but judge LD / CX most often - usually 3-6 rounds / month of each, depending on the tournament schedules.

What that means: You know best how you debate, and while you should try to cater to your audience, as long as you stay in the format of the round you're in, I will judge based on individual merit, level of mastery of the topic at hand, and how well formulated / defended your arguments are in the round itself. I'm not going to be surprised by just about any argument, and would like to see a new debate played out instead of hearing the same camp files with the same rebuttals, every round. But, I also understand: New isn't always better, stick to your strategy you walked in with and give me your best round of the day.

For both CX & LD I am comfortable with spreading, as long as you slow down for the source / warrant / tagline - just signpost efficiently and clearly, as well as telling me where you want your arguments / rebuttals cross applied.

In LD, I expect analytical arguments, and want to see a philosophical debate, not a CX round with a Value / Criterion framework. This, in my opinion, isn't the place for DAs and counter-plans, generally speaking, sometimes the topic caters to this strategy, and if it's a strong strategy, I'm not going to fault you for it. In that same vein, your arguments do not necessarily need to be evidence based, as long as you can convince me that what you are saying is morally superior, as that is the spirit of this debate format. That said, I'm not going to count out evidence-based arguments, as your strategy might depend on it.

In CX, give me any argument you think is best, I'll flow it, as long as you signpost where you're going & where you want arguments cross-applied. Don't expect me to do your work for you. DAs, Ks, Counter Plans, analytical, empirical evidence, they all have their place in this format, run it well and I will be receptive; run it poorly, you'll lose speaker points, but the round will ultimately go to the best team, not individual arguments.

I have been coaching all debate events for the past 9 years.

LD:

I'm a stock issues judge. I prefer traditional formatting and style of debate. I love to see a lot of framework debate in LD. I do understand at TFA tournaments a more progressive style is the norm. I will judge progressive rounds fairly and will not vote against someone because they are more progressive. I just prefer traditional.

I will not vote on Ks. I do not like to see them in round.

I'm not a fan of spreading. I have found that in a virtual format it is next to impossible to understand you when you are spreading. I don't mind if you are speaking fast and clearly.

Respect and professionalism are important to me. There is no reason to be disrespectful to your opponent. Professional language is important for you to be credible in a round. I don't like to hear ums, uhs, likes in rounds. This is a speaking event as well as a debate event and I want to hear excellent speaking.

Congress:

I've been coaching congress for 9 years. I have coached UIL, TFA, and NSDA state/national qualifiers.

Clash is what I look for the most.

I hate re hash. I do not rank people who do not bring new information into the round. I think 45min is a great time cap for debate on each piece of legislation. That helps prevent rehash and allows for better debate.

I appreciate representatives moving to previous question when the debate turns into only re hash. I very rarely rank representatives who break the aff neg cycle.

Quality of speeches is more important than the quantity. I do want representatives to be really active in the chamber. I want to see great content and great presentation. Content and presentation are equally important to me. Keep content organized and clear. Speed should be slow and clear. I do not like yelling in a congress speech.

Remember to have fun and enjoy the round! As a judge I'm always rooting for you to do your best and enjoy the debate. :)

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I'm a stock issues judge (I know, don't hate me). I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (anna.m.rhea@gmail.com). I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must.

I'm tab. I'm a former CX debater. I'm okay with any style of debate, and any kind of argument you want to run. And yes that means you can spread as fast as you want, I'll keep up just fine.

But here are the things that are important to me:
-Signposting.

-Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning for every argument. (Give me warrants.)

-Impact Calculus.

-Voters.

-Be kind.

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!

Email: joshbutdebate@gmail.com

College: UT Tyler 21-Present

High School: Lindale 17-21

General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.

Comments:

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.

Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.

I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.

If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.

Disads

-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.

-Zero risk is possible

Counterplans

-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs

-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.

-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit

-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.

Kritiks

-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.

-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.

-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.

-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.

-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.

Framework

-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.

-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.

-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.

Topicality

-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.

-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.

-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.

Theory

-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone

-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts

-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.

-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.