Hello everyone and my name is Mohib m. My pronouns are He/Him and don't forget to add me on the email chain. I'm a first year Policy Debater and throughout my experience, I value solvency the most. Take your time to flesh out your arguments and best of luck to everyone debating.

Email: mohibuawan@gmail.com

my email is babbonnete@gmail.com

Hey! I am Brett. Overall, I consider myself to be a pretty rational techie that enjoys all forms of debate. I started competing in 2015 as a freshman at Stratford High School (TFA & UIL: poetry, prose, dx/fx, PF, CX, LD), then competed for the UH Policy Debate team for about 3 years (2019-2022). I love speech and debate. I am a pretty friendly judge that is happy to answer questions before and after the round.

Non- negotiables:

• Please time yourselves (unless it is a speech round and I am the only person in the room or if you request me to time you)
• You usually have 1hr to 30mins before your round starts. Using the restroom is part of that time. Please don't show up already 10mins late to the round and ask to go. I will let you but I will be a little annoyed about it (bad practice and disrespectful)
• My pronouns are he/they. Use them please.
• Brett or Judge is fine (no ma'am, miss, mr, or sir please)
• I would rather not have spectators if they are just your friends who will be watching tik toks on their phone the whole time. This is an educational activity, if you go watch a round at least pay attention so as not to distract the debaters.
• Please be polite. To your partner, your coach, your opponent, and me. Talking down to your novice opponent when you are an established team is not acceptable. Yelling at your partner because they dropped a card in speech is not acceptable. Demeaning my experience or time is not acceptable.
• I flow on my laptop. Please make sure I have your doc before you start
• Act like you want to be here!!!
• Instances of discrimination/bullying/harassment/ or post-round gossip about your judge or opponent (when they are within ear shot of your conversation) will not be tolerated and will be reported to your coach
• I am your judge, not your buddy. Please be respectful.

======================================================================================

Debate:

LD- I'm fine with speed. While I enjoy complex and weirdo args, I will always prefer a well structured case debate rather than a messy funky one. Please only run crazy stuff if you have the organizational skills to keep up with the flow and respond adequately during 100% of the debate.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH. If you waste time by responding to an arg that was skipped over I will likely deduct speaks.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit. Please make this an engaging round. I am fine with flex, standing or sitting, whatever you want to do. But just please make sure you are consolidating your speeches and only reading cards with purpose. I need clear internal links.

I am a simple man. Just be clear, efficient, organized, and thoughtful and you can really run whatever you want.

======================================================================================

Speech:

• Please offer to help time for your fellow speechers.
• Please clearly tell me or write down the name of your piece(s) with the author name.
• If you take time please announce the time.
• When your fellow peers are performing, watch the piece, pay attention, and clap at the end (this is common etiquette). If I see you on your phone while your fellow competitors are performing, I will definitely take notice (you are already in the room.. why not learn something?).
• I would rather not have you leave right after your speech (unless you are cross entered or your event doesn't apply to this)
• I need some ebb and flow; an inability to have some emotional range is the easiest way to automatically rank low on my ballot. If you have a high stakes/ intense piece, then it will naturally take you longer to build up.
• If you are doing an impression/accent; please make sure it is 1. appropriate 2. clear
• PAUSES ARE YOUR FRIEND; SLOW DOWN; LET ME FEEL THE FEELINGS!!
• If your piece undertakes a sensitive subject, I want to feel some intent. Purposelessly reactionary content without a point can get hollow and uninteresting.
• Thank your judge at the end of the round!! They are tired and are here to help you grow and learn!

======================================================================================

Thanks and good debating!!

General Paradigms:

-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)

-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be

-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience

-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.

-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.

Event Specific Paradigms:

-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense

• PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

email chain:

backslash309@gmail.com

add breakdocs@googlegroups.com as well

top level:

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

In regards to Policy vs K debate, if I were biased either direction, it's probably in favor of policy, but I don't think this matters in a technical debate where your arguments have warrants. Do with that what you will.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

(9/11/24) Because of this, claims start from zero and are built up through warrants. I do not want to judge tricks debates. I will abide by the above paragraph with far more scrutiny than I have in the past. Theory and phil debates are still fine, but I'll be much more hesitant to vote on blippy shells, analytic skep triggers, and other less warranted args than I have in the past.

random thoughts:

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

In the absence of paradigm issues, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

I default to judgekick.

As a judge, I value respectful and courteous conduct during debates or performances. Effective communication should prioritize clarity, engagement, and professionalism, avoiding tactics like spreading (speaking excessively fast) that can detract from understanding and meaningful dialogue.

I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. I will attend only to the arguments presented in the debate when making my decision. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room.

Send me speech docs: xduan66@yahoo.com

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

email for email chains: connorhuffman52404@gmail.com

Personal Background

As of Jan. 2025, I have competed/judged speech for 7 years and judged debate for around 5.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.

Speech

I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them

Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.

That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.

For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).

Debate 1v1/2v2(Congress and Worlds are further down)

• I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest
  
  

• for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege
  
  

• Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)
  
  

• If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech
  
  

• Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required
  
  

• Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.
  
  

• That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it
  
  

• Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K
  
  

• Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear
  
  

• Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF(Particularly "fully realized" plans/CPs as it is against the rules of the event, I will of course consider arguments for the interp of what "fully realized" means and T/argumentation on the rule itself in round)

• Do not run any of the above in BQ, as per NSDA rules you cannot get my ballot, do not even run in round theory to call out your opponents violation this will also make it impossible for me to vote for you.
  
  

• At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not

Congress

• CLASH sorry for yelling but if you are not the author or sponsor PLEASE CLASH in at least some capacity please don't make congress 50 separate 3 minute pro/con challenge speeches

• Round vision and how you fit into your speaking position in round are often very important to my ranks

• examples being an early speaker presenting the “stock” issues(that haven't already been presented) which will have clash throughout the rest of the topic, presenting more uncommon arguments as a middle speaker, grouping arguments for more efficient clash as a later speaker, and giving a concise round overview and impact consideration on why we should/shouldn’t pass a bill as the set of final “crystallization” speeches

• Speech scores are relative to that speaking position only. Having a speech score of “5” for a pre-prepared authorship speech is not equivalent to a “5” for a crystallization speech for example. As the difficulty of the speeches are not equivalent, differences in rank as when compared to speech score sum are often attributed to this.

• The best way to make up for what you felt may have been a mediocre speech, in a non-ideal speaking position for your strengths is to ask pointed questions throughout that havent been said before that probe a weakness and set up another speaker. As a judge questioning period is often important to rankings on both sides of the question

• Despite some compelling reports to the contrary I am not a robot, and as such memorability influences my ranks, when I get down to the bottom ranks especially memorability can go along way to getting a 7 for example and not becoming just one of the 9s

Worlds

• For worlds I generally try to judge as by the book as possible for the 40/40/20 split for content, style, and strategy.

• Content: I do flow for the sake of content scores and a record, the flow is not the end all like it is for other events

• That being said for this part of the scoring being technical does matter, for example for me dropping an argument does matter and if pursued by the other team can significantly affect the content score

• Style: This scoring section pretty much correlates to how I would judge speaking for a platform event in speech. Examples being vocal inflection, rhetoric, stumbling, emphasis, etc.

• Strategy: When I score this section I first consider the question “Did you address the most critical issues as it pertains to both the round and the topic, and did you prioritize them effectively” This will be the bulk of the strategy score. The remainder of the score is considering POIs, particularly when you accept them(you probably wouldn’t want to accept one in the most impactful part of your speech), how you address them(skipping over it, punting it to the next speaker, or answering/outweighing it), and if you don't accept any. Not accepting any will only hurt you if the other team has given ample opportunities to accept POIs and you don't recognize any of them.

I am a policy and stock issues judge! I want to hear plans that will actually make a change, not just a basic or generic 1A that everyone else is running. If you are running a generic case, I want to hear extravagant arguments to those generic ideas.

CLASH is extremely important for me. I need something that will excite me. Both teams bouncing back and forth with good arguments that can tear down each other. I really like to hear arguments being set up in the cross-examination periods.

Clearly state your stocks, ORGANIZATION!!! Please do not be all over the place.

Be clear on each speech on why I should vote for you, not just rereading your cards, what do those cards mean.

Most importantly, even if you aren't sure what you are talking about I have to hear confident speaking! Clear and precise.

-I will not flow your speech if you spread.

This is literally my passion, so please no petty arguments in the round. Good clash and remember debating is always a learning experience.

Rex Kidd

Add me to the email chain - trexdebates@gmail.com

University of Houston Debate 2025.

I welcome arguments in all their forms. I mean this quite literally. Denounce modernity or impact turn innovation - within the parameters of debate, I don't care. My only request: whatever form yours may take, please be considerate and take the time to outline for me the claim of the argument, the warrants to support it, and the impacts of its significance. Even better, organize these arguments so the ideas are unambiguously clear; and at the end of the debate tell me in no uncertain terms why you win and why they lose. At the end of the day, I think debate is an enjoyable game with lasting subjective consequences. What these consequences are, and the extent to which they can become desirable or malignant, is open to interpretation. I believe this responsibility to interpret ultimately resides with the debaters, not the judge. I won't superimpose. I'll try my best to simply evaluate. Have fun!

Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

Online Debate

Speed - I am fine with spreading through the body of cards, but if you want something flowed (taglines, authors, analytics, etc.) you need to slow down, -75%-60% of top speed allowing me pen time to keep up with the debate.

Microphone quality- if I am unable to understand you due to microphone quality, I will give multiple “clear” warnings, but if the issue isnt resolved I simply will stop flowing.

Hi! My name is Atirikta Kumar and I'm a novice debater at the University of Houston.  I’m currently a sophomore at UH pursuing a double degree in journalism and political science. 

Be kind and Treat People with Kindness. 

Add me to the email cycle at: atiriktakumar@gmail.com

Sydney Lacer she/her University of Houston '25 my email is J.Lacer02@yahoo.com 

Hello, I am currently a psychology major/pre-med student with backgrounds in mostly pharmacology, neuropsychology, and biology. I am fairly new to debate, but I value and respect the institution and love exploring different arguments. 

Generalities: 

• Be confident in yourself and your abilities, you can do it!
• Be good to each other. Debate is a chance to interact with others and learn new things, there is no place for sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other kind of prejudice. 
• Enjoy yourself and have respect myself and others' time. 

Krishna Lathish

they/them

if u don't put me on the email chain i'm holding your speaks hostage and also it will definitely impact my flow quality especially if ur a super spreader or whatever so be warned - if i can't keep up i'm flagging you twice to slow down then putting down my pen: krishnalathish14@gmail.com

let me know how the round can be made accessible for you and any pronoun/name stuff

did speech - oratory and broadcasting - in high school, started policy in college

i've only been rocking with debate for about a year and also have zero experience in pf or ld so everything i write is in the context of policy

i like:

• clarity > speed
• clear interaction with the other team's arguments, especially picking apart specific warrants and responding to their fairness, clash, education impacts and giving disads to their f/w
• when you name and number arguments
• offense then defense
• good lbl debating, i kind of hate flowing rounds i'm not competing in so help me find and mark the args and ev you've responded to!
• JUDGE INSTRUCTION - omg ur 2xrs last 30 seconds should be "here's your ballot and rfd". i like spectating more than judging to be honest and i am decently lazy, so i want to be told what was and wasn't dropped and what your pathway to the W was. that being said, i'm still flowing the round so don't tell me smth was dropped if it very much wasn't lol
• interesting cx questions - its enough to just ask a question the right way sometimes to show me a gap in the other team's arg/thinking
• kritikal argumentation aff or neg especially when link specificity has depth and isn't just "your actor is the US, state bad" and you have clear impact framing; so very interesting stuff

i don't like/am not good for

• high debate theory - to be candid it's not very engaging to me and i'm just not great for it bc i'm still wading through my own understanding of stuff like condo
• kind of a subpoint but on T: i'm not a topicality-head but it is something i'd LIKE to vote on, so weigh this how u want to: i think T is cool and am not hostile towards it vs i have decent inexperience with debating it myself, never voted on it before
• f/w debates that don't interact with each other, tell me why your model is preferable and then why theirs isn't don't just reiterate ur 2ac, 2nc voters over and over
• basically just debating that just presents evidence but doesn't take time to tell me why i prefer it to the other team's stuff and makes me do debating work for the round in my head, does that make sense? yes
• being rude to be assertive, there's a difference and if you don't know what it is you should err on the side of kindness
• when you jump around on the doc and don't clearly and slowly flag it; i swear this'll kill your speaks and maybe your ballot if it messes up my flow and you don't send a marked doc
• stolen prep; its a bad habit i know sometimes you don't realize other team cut prep i'll still call you on it
• time urselves pls

tech > truth until u try to be terrible, will stop the round if u try to impact turn racism, sexism, any of the -phobias. don't be my judging horror story

have fun debating, i'm just here to write you a ballot and give feedback and be wowed. really i just love to watch this activity eeeee u guys r so smart ⸜(｡˃ ᵕ ˂ )⸝

Pronouns: she/they | Email: mmartinez.mtz94@gmail.com

University of Houston '24

Hey y'all! My name is Mellissa, I'm currently in my first year as a competitor in college Policy and Speech Debate at the University of Houston where I am studying Psychology and Political Science. Outside of academia I am heavily involved on local, state, and federal policies under several grassroots campaigns for years on reproductive justice, environmental and climate justice, transportation, public safety, universal healthcare, and more. As you see, I like politics disad. So if you bring up any politics, know I will point out on missed opportunities to address! Also please time yourself.

First, be nice: interpersonal hostility sucks, especially in debate. I won't hesitate to nuke your speaks if you're rude. Debaters should show each other mutual respect for the work they put into the activity. If you saying something racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, ableist or problematic to anyone, it’s a no-go and speaker points docked.

For rounds I want y'all to have fun and enjoy yourselves! When judging please be able to convince and win me over your argument on the context of your speeches. The best way to win me over is by explanation, this allows me to know that you understand your topic and ability to reveal concrete impacts to vote for. Plus, you're educating on why one should be influenced by your argument's logic, when doing so it makes it constructive and enjoyable to learn. Have a good attitude. Especially in crossing, cross is for exchange of ideas and curiosity not for being hot headed and having the last word. Because remember, it's about influencing the judge and reasoning for your argument. Lastly, be respectful - this is the bare minimum. Be mindful of others, environment, and respectful to the judge, my results, your partner, and to opponents. I do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. This is an environment for joy, learning, and welcoming for all.

Pronouns: she/her | Email: alicetlnguyen@gmail.com

Currently a JV Policy debater for the University of Houston.

CX: Run the arguments you like and do it well. Tech > truth but if something is blatantly wrong, then the threshold to take it down is very low. I like voters and impact comparison. Case debate is underrated and people should do more of it.

LD: Framework sets the foundation for the entire round, and I'd like for it to be applied throughout the whole debate. If one debater persuades me that their framework is better, I'll use that to evaluate the round; if neither do, then I'll default to who was argumentatively more persuasive. It's important in this type of debate that you are mindful of the things you say and the implications they may have, both inside and outside the round.

Speech: Always welcome to new perspectives and fun takes on things. Though, it goes without saying that a controversial opinion should never supersede basic respect for others. Really love in-depth research and exploration of different perspectives, but make sure that counterarguments don't detract or distract from the position you take in the speech.

High speaks for all events if you're entertaining.

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

-- Paradigm

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in topical research (from any part of the library) rather than theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit), Daniel Guo (Strake Jesuit)

I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.

Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021. Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

-- Misc

I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

Hi, my name is Tanner, and my pronouns are she/her, I'm a double major in business and political science. I'm a first-year debater at the University of Houston for policy debate. I like debates with a clear link story, I don't put as much weight on theory and topicality. I'm not as familiar with K literature, so reading policy to me would make more sense. I don't tolerate any forms of misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Attack arguments in cross, not your opponents. Mostly have fun and do what you do best!

Laura Sanchez

School affiliation:

Westchester Academy for International Studies

University of Houston

Judge experience:

Former World Schools debater for WAIS and have judged for TFA tournaments, as well as CASE

Current UH debate team member

Email: coognation99@gmail.com

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2024-25 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.
5. Sending case docs is a good practice.

Hello everyone,

Email: victoriaaa119@gmail.com

My name is Raquel, and I am a former policy debater with the University of Houston debate team. My experience is entirely with policy debate, but I have judged public forum in the past.

I went 3-3 at the Texas open and ADA nationals. I finished 2nd speaker in my division at the open and finished as a quarterfinalist at CEDA.

For me, warrants and contextualization are very important. It's not just enough to state evidence, your evidence needs to be supported with warrants that explain why said argument is true, and that needs to be further contextualized to the entire debate. Create a story for me. I like to see the development of arguments throughout the debate so I can thoroughly understand your position.

I consider myself more policy oriented, but I have read K's as part of my own negative strategy when debating. K's are great and if you're going to read them, framework should always be present. I need to know how your critique should be evaluated in terms of the consequences/impacts and why that matters. In general, my feeling about k's is the same for all arguments. There needs to be a line of development that unfolds into a story from beginning to end. I need to know how your critique interacts with the topic at hand and what arguments are the most important.

Important-At the end of the day, however, you should always debate in a way that is most comfortable for you and demonstrates your best abilities. Regardless of my paradigm, I will always vote for the strongest argument, and that is wholly dependent on what the debater does. So go all in.

Other than that, have fun and do your best. Please be respectful to one another. There is no need to be disrespectful or overly aggressive with your opponents. Healthy debate is always encouraged. We are all here to learn and use this space as an educational opportunity. Please keep it that way.

I am a first-year policy debater at the University of Houston. 

My main philosophy as a debater and a judge is strategy. Be strategic, however, do not let strategy compromise your overall argument. 

I do not like squabble debate arguments, theory, or topicality but I will not hurt your score if you choose to go with it. 

Overall, have fun with the debate, and be sure to email me if you have any questions. 

Email: varughesedian@gmail.com

I am a parent judge with no prior judging experience. I will judge based on common sense and logic. I would rather you speak slowly than rush through. More words don't necessary add strength to your argument. Being able to make your point concisely with smallest possible amount of words is a plus. I will pay attention to the structure of your speech, i.e. what is the premise, how evidences are linked and what the possible conclusions are . 

As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.