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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email for chains: chrisbrannen(at)gmail. com (Put the @ where the (at) is)

Teacher in Goose Creek CISD

I’ve been an educator for 15 years and coached Debate for 8 years.

On Policy:

* On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round.

* On Kritiks: I don't like kritiks much, but I recognize they are a thing and that even the actual government uses the reasoning present as a justification for some policy decisions. Personally, I find K logic to be circular and uncompelling. If you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it but I probably won't enjoy it much. :(

* On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you

*On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.

* On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.

* On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

* On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being mean after the round. I'll even go tell on them to their coach if they were really bad. :)

* On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.

* On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

* On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.

* If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On LD:

# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

# On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell.

# On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.

# On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP.

# On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

# On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

# On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)

# On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

# If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On PF:

% I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

% On Speed: I'm good on speed, but PF is about communication. Don't be too obnoxiously fast. If you're going faster than Ben Shapiro, you're going too fast. Also, I’m kind of deaf so yell.

% I like frameworks. If you don't give me a framework in the constructive, I will default to reasonability.

% On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

% On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

% You have to do the order of the speeches and crossfire the traditional way. Don't negotiate to change the times or skip the grand crossfire.

% Use the final focus to tell me why you won. Crystallize the round for me.

On Congress:

! On Structure: Speeches that have solid structure make me glad. Intro/Thesis/Transition/Body/Transition/Conclusion.

! On Clash: DEBATE!!! It is Congressional DEBATE! DEBATE! Clash with your opposition!

! On Decorum: But be nice about it.

! On Argumentation: I don't like or expect the same speech 4 or 5 times in a round. The flow ought to grow. Call out the names of other reps and agree and/or clash with them! I start giving lower scores for speeches where I just hear the same thing. Bring something new! (CLASH, baby, CLASH!!!)

I am a policymaker judge who votes on the stock issues for UIL tournaments. Debate is about communication, so I don't like speed that interferes with understanding. I vote on the flow, and if I can't understand what you're saying, it can't go on the flow. I'm open to any arguments, but I am not a big fan of counterplans, although I have voted for them. I'm basically looking for a good debate where the aff. proves there's a significant problem, and that they have a plan to solve the problem. The neg., of course, needs to prove we don't have a problem, the plan won't solve it, or it will cause bad consequences.

For CX I am a policy maker judge. For both LD and CX I expect clear clash, speed should not impede clarity. LD is a philosophy debate (no plans needed or desired )I don't argue the round for you. It is the debaters responsibility to use a road map and signpost. Using the word and is not a signpost.

Main Paradigm: Tab

Speed is fine, spreading is not. This is a speech & debate tournament so if I can’t understand you then you’re doing something wrong.

Students are more than welcome to time themselves.

Phones on airplane mode are fine.

Debate Paradigm

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. You can spread if you please but don't if you cannot properly.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

My Paradigms are pretty straightforward. I tend to approach CX from a Policy Making perspective (with some Stock Issues coming into play,) but I do not bring in my own knowledge into the round. I believe it is up to the Affirmative to prove their case (unless the Negative is also running a Counter Plan.) If one side misses an opportunity to attack the assertions of their opponents it is not up to me to connect the dots or finish the logical sequence of events (no matter how much I may personally agree with the unfinished thought.)

Communication is a skill. Clarity of information presented must play a part. Speeches that approach the speed of sound are fine, so long as there is clarity in the speech as well. Speaker charisma and body language is part of communication skills. (It should be noted though that no amount of charisma will salvage a badly argued round.)

I tend to gravitate more towards quality of sources rather than quantity of sources. Some information however is common knowledge, and using it should not require a source (IE, inflation raises the prices of most goods and commodities in a market.)

Lastly, I tend to dislike when a team tries to weaponize UIL rules as a basis for attack. Pointing out a rule violation is one thing, but purposefully using the rules as a team's foundation for a debate round shows the debating team is not versed enough on the subject matter at hand.