Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

1. I was a K hack in high-school, mainly PoMo (Deleuze, Baudrillard), but I have read my fair share of literature otherwise as well
2. Comfortable judging any sort of round
3. Tell me what to vote on and why, lay out the round for me in terms of voters, framing, and the lens through which I should frame arguments :)
4. On that note, I prefer a cohesive analysis in the final rebuttals of the round - messy rebuttal flows make judge intervention likely - how am I supposed to piece together your fragmented husk of a speech? lol
5. Email chain is preferred: yajbhargava@gmail.com
6. I give everyone 30 speaks, so please don't read speaker point theory in front of me lol. Speaks are arbitrary and screw breaks. I dont care how pretty you sound, I care about the flow.
7. Obligatory Paradigm Buzzwords: tabula rasa stock issues conditionality voters PIK NIB RVI time skew ROTB uniqueness perm double bind

About Me: I am Afro-Latino with the pronouns him/he. I graduated from Alief Taylor High school in Houston. I've debated in LD, Policy, and Congress all four years. I am majoring in Economics and minoring in philosophy which is why I love debate so much because it encompasses both those things.

Email Chain and questions: Carbajaljilson@gmail.com

Basic Details: I don't mind spreading, just make sure you're clear and slow down on specifically important information and analytical data to make ensure it's on the flow. If you aren't clear, I probably won't remember it or put it on the flow. I'll yell clear if needed.

I don't vote for people who kiss "butt" to the judge. Don't run arguments just to satisfy me, Run arguments that satisfy you and you believe will have a good clash. All that matters is that you're confident in your case and display great arguments throughout the round.

Don't expect or assume that I know exactly what you're talking about. It will hurt you. I haven't done much research on this topic so make sure To explain your arguments well and clear.

K: I like hearing all types of K's, especially performance K's and afro-pess, however, if you run them, please know what you're talking about and how to run a K. I've seen many K debates where both teams have no idea what they are doing or talking about. Don't run K's if you're unfamiliar with the information. It can lead to low speaking points.

K Aff: I don't mind it, just make sure not to stray away from the topic and have a clear Alt and link. Most K aff can get permutated if not run well.

Theory/T: I like theory debates however, please don't run STUPID theory arguments for the sake of winning the round or to get an advantage, I will most likely not vote on it if you do. (If you have a question on what I mean by "stupid", let me know before the round starts). For T's, I default to counter- interps. Have a good explanation of internal links and impacts.

CP: Please explain how your CP is better than the AFF's plan. Conditional CP are fine, just don't have like 5 CP and only have one of them as unconditional, this is abusive. This ruins clash in the debate round. I like to see clash. Please establish if a CP is conditional or unconditional if more than one is used.

DA: Make sure to have a clear link and internal link. Be specific on the impact and include impact calculus to strengthen your argument. Utilize DA's to enact turns on the aff's case. Have a great DA structure and try not to have too many links and internal links, it can hurt you in the end.

Clash debate: I love to see clashes in the debate round. If you avoid clash or dont clash with your opponent, speaker points may be affected. Just make sure to be clear in on voters

If you have any questions, feel free to email me or let me know before the round begins. :)

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Iyad Chowdhury | UT Austin '26 | he/they |iyadchow.db8judge@gmail.com

policy debate at UT Austin

pref sheet shortcuts

1-- K

1-- Plans/cp/da

2-- T

2/3-- Trad

3-- Phil

3-- Theory

4-- Tricks

tech>truth

"the round is about to start / i'm doing prefs, what should i know about you?"

1. yes email chain. my email is at the top. try not to use speechdrop.

2. debate is for debaters. i really don't care about what you run, just do it well. i find that the best debaters make smart line by line responses, strategic choices, and generally seem like they want to be there. the ballot is up for grabs, your speaks are not.

3. at the bare minimum, you should send whatever you are going to read before the speech that you are going to read it. see theory section for more info on disclosure

4. i really like judge instruction. the first few words of the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot for me.

5. i do flow cross ex. i think it is binding and i reward debaters for bringing cross ex moments into rebuttals. this is the best place to get high speaker points. make the most of the 3 minutes.

6. i always aim to disclose my decision orally. if i cannot, i would be happy to send my rfd in the email chain with coaches ccd.

7. call me either iyad or judge. do not call me sir. my name is pronounced eye-odd

8. i really like organization. make a road map, stick to it, and number arguments.

---

plans/cp/da

top level-- this is a safe, go-to argument if you have me in the back of the room.

1. straight turns and case turns are really impressive

2. better for textual+functional; textual on it's own is hard for me to buy. i am better for competition debates than theory debates.

3. i'm generally unconvinced by most counterplan theory shells, but that doesn't mean i won't vote for it.

4. heavily lean condo good

5. cardless cping is strategic and exciting

6. tell me if you want me to judge kick

k

top level-- go beyond the first page of jstor. your most recent wiki mine, nor that k file you bought off your friend, suffices. rigorously annotate articles, talk to the text, read against the grain, and even email authors with questions. the best k rounds are where debaters are immersed in the literature.

1. kritiks are not counterplans

2. default is "vote for the better debater" but i can be convinced otherwise

3. link specificity good; pull lines from the 1ac and make link outweighs/turns case arguments. both reps links and links to the consequences of the plan are fine.

4. illustrate what the alt looks like

5. lbl>overviews; the overview is probably going to repeat the same things on the lbl anyway so might as well not waste time reading an overview.

6. read rehilightings if you want to create offense, but insert if you want to create defense.

7. the aff may or may not get to weigh case; this is a debate to be had.

8. don't read a k just because you think i will be more likely to vote for it. i would much rather you read whatever you feel most confident in, rather than just butchering something you think i will like.

k affs

top level-- top level thoughts on k's from above check out here.

1. k v. policy:

-- aff: be ready for framework and presumption push. try to provide a role of the judge/role of the ballot and why your model of debate is pedagogically valuable

-- neg: don't stay tunnel vision on the framework page. try to generate offense on the case page.

2. k v. cap:

-- aff: chances are, your literature base also talks about capitalism. take that how you will.

-- neg: try to center framework on material action good, political change good, and organizing good

3. k v. k:

-- aff: i think the aff does get the perm but i can be convinced otherwise. the perm double bind is persuasive.

-- neg: i think it is redundant to read both the ballot k and presumption; read one or the other. i don't think "no perms in a method debate" is a strong argument but you can persuade me it is with enough warranting.

--both: explain your theory of power with extra detail on how it should frame solvency

framework/t

top level-- i generally agree that framework is a form of policing in debate, but i will check that bias at the door.

1. the aff should preferably have a relationship to the topic; whether that has to be a "topical action" is subject to debate

2. i think that the aff should be a net beneficial departure from the status quo. the negative can either say the status quo is better than the aff world, or, debate a counter advocacy that presents an opportunity cost to the aff.

3. i tend to think SSD gets underutilized.

4. fairness can be either an internal link or an impact, but i find it more persuasive as the internal link to limits. predictable limits as the internal link to clash is also persuasive.

5. make the shell specific to the aff. your generic file from last year is not good.

6. counterinterps to framework are persuasive. debate scholars have written about what alternative models of debate should look like, and leveraging that literature against traditional models is completely possible. impact turns to framework can be convincing if explained in addition to a cogent counterinterp strategy.

7. if you are going against framework impact turns: i am also convinced by arguments that highlight debate's potential to build movements/make us better researchers/make us better advocates. it is especially persuasive when paired with predictable limits = good for in-depth research.

8. i disagree with the community’s belief that discourse has no impact. it definitely does if you rummage the literature on how language controls power distribution.

trad

top level-- preffing me is probably a gamble. i am a 1 for k and plans. it may be strategic to pref me lower than a 2 if you do not want to debate against the k or larp positions. i say that i am a 2 for trad simply because i am more open to judging trad v trad rounds than other judges.

1. read trad/stock if you want to. clean line by line and simple debating is great.

2. try to make the round accessible if you are going up against debaters that are not as experienced and read trad arguments. you can read dense arguments and you will win but your speaks will not be good.

theory

top level-- theory debates are a farce. complain less, debate more. i'll evaluate it but speaks might not be as high as you would like.

1. default is counterinterps, dta, and no rvis. there is no chance that i will vote on an rvi.

2. don't use beef to get a ballot. i implore you to talk to the tournament directors and coaches about interpersonal conflicts.

3. don't ask for 30 speaks.

4. weigh standards. new standards under the sun are great. i don't have any strong feelings on what standards are more compelling.

5. spreading consent and disclosure are absolutely good norms. disclosure theory about new affs, plan texts, or the wiki is debatable.

phil

top level-- i would be happy to judge a phil debate, just be aware that i am not as well versed in the subject as much as other judges.

1. good with Kant, Butler, Hobbes, and Levinas. i have no clue about any other phil that is read in debate.

2. i understand phil in more of an academic than a debate sense.

tricks

top level-- debate's sewage

1. strike if you are reading theory tricks; i am better for substantive/K tricks. even then, i only have a surface-level understanding of substantive tricks.

2. slow down and explain. i don't have a developed shorthand for flowing tricks debates.

3. i will probably not vote on "eval after ___ speech".

4. i know what semantics and indexicals are in linguistics, but not as a debate argument. i might vote on it if it is explained thoroughly to me.

5. try not to read tricks against debaters who are obviously new to debate. the chances that i vote on it are already pretty slim, and even if you do win, it won't result in good speaks.

6. tricks might suck, but i have faith that this community is full of very smart and talented people that can innovate the argument into something else. i would be willing to vote for tricks explained as coherent arguments.

speaks

-- i tend to reward certain things with higher speaks. they are (but not limited to)

1. clarity -- i hate to sound old but i can't vote on what i don't hear. just slow down slightly on taglines and analytics. precise word economy, organization, numbering arguments, and sass will get you high speaks.

2. strategic use of cross ex-- you will get at least a 29 if you do not use a laptop, bring cx moments into your speeches, and generate avenues for offense.

3. strategic collapsing/choices-- debate is a game of tradeoffs, and making good tradeoffs typically means you win.

4. taking risks and being creative-- you probably only have four years in total of high school debate. don't be afraid to do something daring or out of the ordinary. add some seasoning and innovate your argumens. try something new, i encourage you to do it.

-- things that get low speaks

1. being rude to other debaters

2. delaying the round any more than it needs to be. going to the bathroom/tech issues are an exception.

3. stealing prep

evidence ethics

i will stop the round if i notice that a debater is clipping evidence.

you can stake the round on an evidence ethics challenge. the round will stop and i will contact tab. what i do afterward is condition to what tabroom tells me. if i can evaluate the challenge, i will, and the winner will get w30 and the loser gets an l25. if it is not in my jurisdiction to evaluate, i will follow whatever tabroom tells me to do.

---

good luck, and have fun!

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

TLDR: I will vote on anything. except arguments about things that didn't happen inside the round, although disclosure is fine.

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.

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.

Not voting on call outs. Not my business.

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 on my flow, 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.

--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.

--- 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.

--- I have heard a concerning amount of people saying "you cannot win a perm without a deficit" lately. This is absurd. The neg has the burden of competition. In the circumstances in a counterplan debate where neither the aff nor the neg has offense due to a perm, I vote aff. For example, if the neg goes for a consult NATO counterplan and the 2AR goes for "do the plan + consult NATO on other issues", the aff wins even without a deficit insofar as the 2NR does not clearly delineate offense vs the perm. There is no risk of offense for either side, but that means the plan is the logically safest option, as it is less of a deviation from the status quo than the counterplan.

Update: TOC '24 - congratulations! Making it here is a huge achievement. Be proud of yourselves - I'm proud of you. Also, please putdamiendebate47@gmail.com as well aspleaselearntoflow@gmail.com on the chains. Thanks!

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine."act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

1. Policy 2023-24 - fiscal redistribution

a. taught at the UTNIF, coach a team, and do moderate card cutting, but judging less policy this year than last year – consider topic knowledge high, but meta knowledge medium. I can hang for debates over dense economic concepts, but worth slowing down and explaining current trends and relevant debate shorthand.

b. so far, extremely reliable single-issue voter, with the single issue being business confidence. it is likely a bad argument, but the cards are excellent and nobody is making the good arguments against it. overlap between K and policy debates is that it all requires a dense operating knowledge of economic concepts, which makes me like this topic. most turns case/link arguments and most link turn/solvency arguments will be operating on different levels/mechanisms, and teams should contextualize why their offense matters more, e.g: if aff increases consumer spending but dumps tons of government spending to do so, how do these interact with overall purchasing power and business confidence?

c. T - Taxes seems to be the only take people care much about - probably lean aff, but only slightly. dont have strong takes on ground bc taxes don't seem impossible to defend, but also unsure how much neg ground actually relies on them. i just think neg literature seems to lack intent to exclude.

2. LD JanFeb '24 - WANA presence

a. T - "presence" is the defining battle of our times. inclined to place a much higher premium on good evidence defining presence as a term of art. probably more willing to exclude things like aid than some judges. can see myself voting aff on reasonability a lot because otherwise the topic becomes unbearably small.

b. most affs are well built to bead disads and Ks, but lose to well-executed straight turns and advantage counterplan. defining issues for these rounds often come down to a. uniqueness for neg offense, although this can be counterplanned in and might not be wholly necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence, and b. the ability to explain and unpack IR concepts through evidence properly. would consider myself extremely comfortable evaluating even the densest versions of these rounds, but threshold for good execution will likely be high. irresponsibly high speaks to a 2NR that is just turning the case if done well, though. it's a lost art.

c. assurances disad is busted. more teams should impact turn prolif.

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (highlighting/cutting, spin). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

parent judge truth > tech - pls send case in file share better for me to follow along

dont be racist transphobic homophobic etc thx

I am a parent judge, please speak at a conversational speed and have a traditional debate. 

Email: shoxha2020@gmail.com

Give me music recommendations and I'll give you +.1 speaker points.

Intro / About Me:

Shout out to Westside High and UH - I wouldn't be anywhere without you. <3

Don't be discriminatory. I'm warning you now if you have to ask, "Is this problematic? Don't read it - there are better strategies out there.

Also Important: If you read spreading bad in front of me, I will not hack for you. I can spread and I can flow, but I am disabled and these skills were harder for me to develop than most. Many debaters see this as an opportunity for a persuasive 2ar and 2nr push, don't let this be you. I consider this motivated and ableist.

You're either winning an argument on the flow or you're not. Trivializing my struggles or the struggles of any judge for the ballot is an easy way to get me to despise you.

Debate is a game, but it is an academic game. Tech over truth, but truth constrains tech. You'll have a harder time convincing me global warming is fake than convincing me warming will destroy the planet. If two debaters are equal on a particular flow, truth is the obvious tie breaker.

I will try to intervene as little as possible - I'm old school in that you need to explain things to me like I'm 5 for me to grant you the arguments you want to go for.

I have been in this space for too long. I have zero clue how some old heads have been here for 20+ years. As such, it's becoming much harder to tolerate cringe, posturing, flexing, and generally being an obnoxious debater stereotype. While I will not punish you for it, it will still make me cringe. Be nice to people, there's a difference between being confident and being mean.

I vibe check speaks, I don't know what a 30 looks like, but I can feel it. But that doesn't mean that speaks are arbitrary because my flow checks my vibes. I default to a 28.5 and go higher or lower based on your strategic decisions.

Online debate and its consequences have been a disaster for the debate community. Disclose quickly, don't steal prep. I am growing tired of people that can't manage their files and make a 45-minute round an hour long.

Post UT update: Post rounding is cool and checks against dumb decisions, I frequently make bad decisions and I encourage you ask questions, but do it nicely.

Now for the gross stuff

K

I love the K. I've read many lit bases.

Know your lit, theorize, and don't neglect the material implications of your literature.

I think generic links are fine, but specific links are always better. Saying that a K link is generic and so I should gut check it is never sufficient - you need to explain why a generic link doesn't apply to your aff.

Don't drop your alt unless you're winning a framework push because dropping the alt means that I have to weigh the aff versus the status quo, and 9 out of 10, you will lose that debate.

I default to weighing the aff against the K or something to that effect. If you wan't me to exclude aff offense, you need to do some heavy work.

Fairness is not a good argument if a K team is winning that your model is problematic, justify policy making and then cry about fairness.

Substantive reasons for why they don't get the perm > Theoretical reasons for why they don't get the perm.

You must explain how the perm works for me and the net benefit. Saying "perm do both" - is okay but super weak and usually will not be enough to overcome disads to the perm.

K Affs

Love kritikal affs, but TVAs usually pick up my ballot here. You need to explain your model of debate / method. You should have a strong relationship to the topic or at least explain why a relationship to the topic is bad or doesn't matter.

Framework:

Define how your method of debate works, the benefits only your method can access, and why you can include their model / arguments, even if they can't argue for their perfect advocacy.

Generally speaking, it's okay if the topic excludes your specific author - you don't get the perfect aff sometimes, it is what it is. Debate is about controversies and every advocacy (mostly) will have side-constraints, disadvantages, or criticism from different schools of thought. You should embrace this.

Don't neglect case - if they're winning that their scholarship is good and key, it'll be much harder for you to win this flow.

T

Debatability is not the sole metric that I use to decide T debates. Real world application of literature is another side-constraint of an interpretation.

Sure, your interpretation might produce the most clash, but if there's no exportable topic education, what's the point of clash?

I'm very happy to vote on "Nobody in X field or expertise defines the words in the resolution in a specific way." I hate fake debate T interpretations with 0 real world application.

You need to weigh between standards and different implications of interpretations.

Also weigh definitions - but saying, "Our definition is from a reliable source, and yours isn't." is not an argument.

Competing Interps > Reasonability.

Policy

Deploy whatever arguments you need to win the round.

I love a good counterplan gimmick.

Pics are good. But my default can change.

Delay counterplans are not legit. Unless, the net benefit is fire and super specific.

Process counterplans are suspect, but I'm willing to vote on them.

Actor counterplans are fine.

You must justify judge kick - and say you're kicking something.

Use differential degrees or lense of sufficiency framing to explain how I should evaluate solvency deficits vs. the net benefit of the counterplan.

Weigh between different scenarios please.

Compare warrants and explain why yours are better, this is super neglected in policy and LD especially.

Explain how the PIC solves the aff. I will not give this to you just because you label something a pic.

No opinions on condo, dispo, or how many offs are too much. I will police this more in LD. I think 2 to 3 condo positions + squo is enough neg flex, but you're more than welcome to convince me otherwise. I really don't care.

There can be 0 risk of a DA - but it's very rare. You need to do stellar work here for me to say there's no risk to the DA.

Theory: 3

I don't like these debates in LD - they're way overused.

In policy, theory debates are fine.

Defaults:

Reasonabilty > Competing Interps

No RVIs.

Yes, 1AR theory.

DTA > DTD, unless DTA is impossible.

Tricks:

I used to discriminate against these arguments, but there's no reason why these arguments are any less legit than the K, a DA, or T. I'm just not qualified to be your judge - read at your own risk.

Rex Kidd

Add me to the email chain - rexwkidd@outlook.com

University of Houston Debate 2025

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.

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.

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

Hello! My name is Michael Kurian and I did Natcircuit LD for 2 years at Dulles High School in Houston, TX.
I had 5 career bids and qualled to the TOC as a junior and senior. I also did a bit of policy as a senior and qualled to NSDA in CX.

Yes, email chain me friends:

Mkdebate@gmail.com

Kritiks: 1
Phil: 1
Theory: 2-3
LARP: 2
Tricks: 3-4

Do whatever you want, some things tho

1. I will say clear and slow if you're incoherent. I have ADHD and will lose focus if the debate has 5+ shells and every single sentence refers to a specific line by line argument. Extremely dense theory debates are not good for me and I will vote on overviews and voting issues, ignoring line by line concerns sometimes. I would not recommend you debate like this infront of me.

2. I dislike theory when frivolous (you know what "frivolous" means) but will vote on it. This means yes, I will vote on it, but I give the opposing side a ton of leeway. If the aff makes a bad I meet or has marginal offense on a really dumb shell like "Link chains bad" I will err that way. I like theory when strategic, but LOVE it when there is legit especially if you use creative interps or good combo shells. My favorite theory shell is O-Spec :)

3. Lets say you read a dump of some kind and you don't flash the arguments to the room. If your opponent asks you to flash them during CX or prep, you will do so. Otherwise, I will eviscerate your speaks.

4. You're allowed to be a jerk proportionally to the amount of foolery going on in the debate
ex. If the aff has 3 NIBS, you can be a little mad. If the 1NC is racism good, you can be furious etc.

5. I dislike partial disclosure shells ie. "Must disclose Plan Text of new aff, must open source, etc."; Disclosure is simple - if you've read it, disclose it. All of it. If you haven't broken it yet, you don't owe your opponent jack. You can give them the ROB text or the plan text if you're feeling benevolent.

Exceptions:

*****I will NOT vote on ****

1) Brackets theory
2) Font theory
3) Arguments that are explicitly homophobic, racist, or otherwise bigoted.
4) Evaluate the debate at X speech (no - I will eval the whole debate regardless)
5) New affs bad (but "Must disclose plantext/framework" is fine)
6) Arguments that exclusively link to your opponents/your identity without structural warrants- ex. "White ppl should lose", "vote for me cuz im X minority group"
7) Must Disclose Round Reports



Kritik:

This is the form of debate that I did the most in high school. I will probably understand your insane postmodern nonsense as long as you understand it enough to explain the application back to me. Race and Id pol Ks are fine

1) Link work - really important.

2) Alternative explanation - I have a somewhat low threshold; I'll assume it solves case and the K's links unless that is contested by the Affirmative

3) WEIGH with the ROLE of the BALLOT - tell me why your pedagogy is important, why it belongs in debate, and how we can use it to derive the best form of praxis. If you aren't doing these things, you will probably lose to a more intuitive RoB.

Things I don't like but will still vote on:

1) Kritikal presumption arguments

2) Links of Ommission

3) Lazy, overused link arguments

4) edgy jargon that stays edgy jargon (explain ur stuff at SOME point at least)




Framework:

Love it, think its cool and underused.
.

Do lots of weighing and explain why your framework resolves meta-ethical problems -- Infinite regress, Constitutivism, Actor spec. etc. If not, tell me why it should be preferred over another framework. I don't like particularism (or rather I like it as an ethical theory, but think it is weird when used in debate); my favorite frameworks to hear are Pragmatism and Virtue Ethics.


LARP:

I prob went for a DA 2 times in my entire career lol. Just do weighing and warrant comparison. It's a relatively intuitive debate style and if it doesn't seem so, I'm not one to say, but you might be doing it wrong. I'm a sucker for good IR analysis. If you understand how States function in relation to eachother and can use concrete examples in explanations I'll be persuaded and also boost your speaks.


Theory:

Weigh. Make good arguments or make really creative bad arguments. Failure to do either will make me sad.

On the Theory vs K debate:

1. If the AC references the topic heavily, is strongly in the direction of the topic, defends implementation, and/or in some other way grants you your topic ground, don't whine and call me a K-hack when I err aff against whatever shell you read. If they're doing everything within reason to grant you your prep, and I still hear 9+ mins of crying in the 1NC and 2N about how you have LITERALLY ZERO GROUND™ I'm going to be much more likely to vote the other way. That being said, if you genuinely feel like the aff is out of the range of the topic or is straight up non-T, go for T, or T - Framework, and go as hard as you want.

2. Reading disclosure against K affs is a good strat.



Tricks:

I just evaluate it the same way I would a bs-heavy theory or framework debate, which lets be honest, is what this is.
Paradoxes, Aprioris, and presumption/skep triggers are all fine.



Things I'll boost your speaks for:


Naruto Reference in speech: +.1
Dressing like you don't give a crap: +.1
Cool Affirmatives: +.3
Solid Collapsing: +.5
Ethos: +.2
Creative arguments: +.2

Speak Breakdown:

30: straight fire
29.5-29.9: ur fire
28.6 - 29.4: You good
28.1-28.5: meh
27.1-28: oof
26.1-27: big oof
25.1-26: go to church dude lol
25: f you

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

Pfers: Round should start at start time, that means first word should be spoken at start time. I will dock your speaks by .2 for every minute past start time that the first constructive has not been sent.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), debate coach at Seven Lakes HS (‘23-Current)

Political science major with a focus in international relations/political theory and a philosophy minor.

***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round - If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with TAB before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue. Commodification of racism, sexism, etc. any form of discrimination or violence for the ballot is bad. I do not want to see Twitter screenshots about what X debater said.

I apologize in advance for the horrific typos that may be in your ballot. I tend to quickly jot my thoughts down as to not keep tab/debaters waiting too long. I usually fix ballots after rounds, but the deeper we get into elims the less time I have. My ballot is usually just my oral rfd, but if you have any questions just send me an email.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col/Phil > Identity Ks > Tricks/LD Theory

^^^ Based on my level of experience with specific args - For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over adapt. You are more likely to win running an argument you’re good at and know well.

Tech > truth in most cases - I think my role as a judge is to be an impartial arbiter and evaluate the debate skills of the debaters. For the most part, a dropped argument is a true argument. However, when arguments are equally contested, implicit biases and prior knowledge will inevitably lower the burden of proof for arguments that are more true.

I think almost everything is debatable, will vote on almost anything with a warrant and impact

Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing you do and the more judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I have to arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.

I will vote off the flow - I don't care how good your evidence is if you don't debate it well. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will still follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L)

Time yourself

-------

Specific Args:

My paradigm for LD, CX, PF are combined below. Read what applies and skip what doesn’t. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it and that it is up for you to debate.

K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:

I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt, however, I have voted on all of them before. I am just less familiar with these literature bases and am better for Ks like cap and security.

2. I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but it’s implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hominem is a losing one.

Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated then I am more likely to be convinced by FW.

Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Ks which are able to interact with the aff on the fiat-consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive from proximate violence impacts.

CP --- I default to judge kick if there’s no offense on the CP. Creative and niche CPs that actually solve are cool.

DA —- I'll evaluate them in the order of Impact > Link > Uniqueness when no other offense is present. I tend to default to evaluating the round like a policy maker. I can vote on risk of a link if it is contextualized to weighing, but I think it’s also possible to zero the link in rare instances.

Theory—- My threshold for voting on theory is relatively higher than for other args.

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I err towards the team defending against theory. In CX, theory is fine since there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in CX as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry.

Disclosure: I do not want to see your laptop screen after the speech. If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.

------

Extra notes for specific events:

PF ---

Your best bet with me for PF is to run traditional or policy arguments.

If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks and give you at least a 28.

You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.

I will judge the round like a policy maker under and offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.

Weighing - I notice that in most PF rounds, weighing doesn’t end up playing a large part in my decision making process despite the fact that the impact is the first place I look to when evaluating the round. This is because PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not tell me why, for example, I should prefer time frame over magnitude. They also do not contextualize the weighing to the amount of the impact that is actually accessed.

K:You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes but that is doubtful.

Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.

LD ---

I ran phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge. The only thing my high school experience affects is my familiarity with LD theory and tricks. - I will judge these rounds based on my knowledge of theory in policy.

I judge phil like an LDer and everything else like a policy debater. As in, I tend to switch back and forth between LD being about truth testing vs competing worlds depending on the content of the round. In a policy v phil round you should explicitly tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

Phil: yes <3 love it but only when it is substantial. I think debates like Kant v Util are fun. I have a pretty good background for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.)

Theory/Tricks: I might be unfamiliar with some args you make. This means my capabilities to flow your 32 point analytical 1NC shell decreases.

----

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there.

Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, are funny, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space

Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep

Lay judge. Please don’t call me ma’am. Gabby is fine. If I am confused you will be able to tell.

Attorney, and old CX and LD competitor and judge.

1. Mostly a tabula rasa judge (“clean slate”) which means I don’t try and insert my opinions and beliefs into the round. If the debater says “the moon is green” then I must believe that unless the opponent says otherwise. On the other hand, if you are running a low probability argument (like Nuc War), I'm not going to be easily convince of it.

2. Stock judge...I want to hear the stock issues debated...framework in LD, Topicality, Inherency, Solvency and Significance in CX.

3. I believe that this is a full body/mind exercise. In that vein, I expect for everyone to stand when speaking, judiciously use facial and hand gestures, as well as tone of voice, display proper etiquette (“is opponent ready?) and refrain from rude behavior.

4. Cross examination is a critical component of debate. In my opinion, perhaps the MOST critical, as it truly reflects the knowledge, thinking and skills of the two debaters. Students should spend almost as much time preparing for Cross as they do their constructive speeches. I expect a spirited cross.

5. As to LD, I don’t believe that values debate can be completely divorced from the real-world aspects of their decisions.

6. Spreading: Speed, tone and modulation of voice are all aspects of the art of persuasion. Vomiting out arguments in an unending, unbroken, and unmodulated stream of verbiage does NOT appeal to me.

As a parent judge, I prefer that you slow down the talking pace in your speech to ensure that I clearly and fully understand your arguments to provide proper feedback. I would also like to receive and review your cases during the debate round(email address is rongli916@yahoo.com).If you can time yourself, that will be the best.
My goal is to make myself a fair judge, more importantly, to support your passion and efforts as a debater!

Hello! I am a parent judge but I have judged some traditional rounds before. My email is catchup.liang@gmail.com if needed for questions / the email chain. 

Please refrain from using extreme debate jargon and stick to more policy-esque positions since I'm rather unfamiliar with judging others. 

Also, please speak slower so that I can flow well and avoid spreading. 

Finally, please be kind to each other and be respectful (don't cut each other off, etc.)

Hi all!

My biggest request as a judge, especially since we are online, is that you speak slowly. I'm not the biggest fan of spreading but I can comprehend it, but please don't spread at the speed of light during your round.

I am also not a fan of K affs and theory args but if you think you can argue it well, then be my guest :).

I would like to be included on any email chains as well shashaogork02@gmail.com.

For IEs, I'm okay with giving time signals just let me know.

Just to be transparent I haven't judged debate in quite a long time. I'd categorize myself as a more "traditional" judge

I really don't like spreading, like at all( it's also important to note my flowing abilities have greatly declined- however I'm a big note taker so you won't catch me not trying). Also volume is nice but just don't yell please. Just make good arguments, support your case and values. I won't completely downvote a debater based on speaking ability but please try to avoid filler words (uhm/but) and I despise when anyone says "My Bad" just don't do it! If it seems like I'm making a big deal out of delivery it's because I really value it. I'm not harsh on speaker points just be confident, keep eye contact, and do your best.

I really don't like nuclear war arguments they're just...boring....

Judges say this a lot but debaters tend to forget it, write my ballot for me! Good impact calc is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Rebuttals should always come down to line by line analysis and voting issues. 

emailchain: passapungchai@gmail.com

Current:PhD student @Rice

Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,

Debate stock**, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not just at 300 wpm. I am not that fast anymore, I do not coach, and I don't even read the topics. You have been warned.

** I like fun arguments still and can get quite bored of stock. If you run zanier things, just take the time to explain better.

TL;DR:

Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump

I do not like seeing theory shells in PF. Please do not do it. Debate substance. Pretend that I'm a very well-read parent judge at this point

I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.

Condo bad

"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."

I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.

Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).

for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.

If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~

If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.

I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.

Online Stuff:

It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.

I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.

~~~

PF prefs:

I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.

Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"

NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.

Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.

On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.

ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:

PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.

Pref. Name: Erwin

Pronouns: He/Him [don't really care if you accidentally use They/Them]

Email: ErwinTheDebater@gmail.com

No Hate. Be polite.

I'll try to avoid any preconceived biases, which means tech matters.

Clash is very important, because, debate...

Extend warrants -- I wanna hear the whole story, not just 2 or 3 keywords

Judging instructions are expected!!!

No messy rounds, I don't wanna give you an arg, you gotta win 'em.

 - This also means that you have to tell me where I should flow the different arguments that you are making. It is not my job to sit there and creatively cross-apply your args to different flows.

 - Do not assume that I always know which args you are responding to or extending, be clear.

Sophistry is frowned upon but if you pull it off, you've pulled it off...

Anything and everything is a voter. (Including Presumption)

Feel free to critique me / my judging, I genuinely wanna learn and hear from you, but don't expect that I'll just suddenly change my ballot.

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

I am a new judge, and I don't have enough experience to write out every circumstance, but here is what I would like to see:

Warrant your arguments - make sure to elaborate and make it as clear as possible why your evidence in each contention sustains your value, and/or your warrant on your opponent's evidence.

Speed - I am new to judging LD and I won't be able to keep up if you spread - spell things out for me, make me feel what you are debating for.

Signpost - feel free to take a reasonable amount of time before you speak to outline what you are going over - it will allow me to take better notes.

Disclosure - create a speech drop room and give me the code so that I can have access to your cases and evidence in case there are any discrepancies.

Crystallization -Just like the Kiss Principle, keep it simple, stupid. The debater should explain to me why I vote for them, and why not the opponent. 

Julie Sedelmyer

cj@houstongroutsmith.com

No spreading, I will most likely vote you down for spreading.

Please keep each other in check on time, I would like you to use your own timers. For online debate please do not make your timers full volume.

I am a new judge, some things I would like to see:

Warrant your arguments - make sure to elaborate and make it as clear as possible why your evidence in each contention sustains your value, and/or your warrant on your opponent's evidence.

Speed - I am new to judging LD and I won't be able to keep up if you spread - spell things out for me, make me feel what you are debating for. Do not spread, I will not be able to understand you.

Signpost - It will help me to take better notes and decisions if you signpost before your speeches.

Judge instruction - explain to me why I should vote aff or neg.

Don't run super complex phil cases or kritiks, I won't be able to follow.

TOC Conflict List:

Coach for Break Debate: Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH.

If you're looking for a cost-effective speech/debate camp, come to the UH Honors Debate Workshop (HDW). We have top faculty from across the nation and an intense two-week course for CX, LD, PF, WSD, Congress, and IEs.Can't recommed this enough, truly astounded by the quality of faculty really great value and amazing deals for commuters in houston. Check out the website for more info: https://uh.edu/hdw

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Seven Lakes HS, Barbers Hill HS, and anyone in Break Debate.

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

If I am judging PF also put sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Overall perspective ---

Please don't call me judge---Bryce is fine

I will vote on anything. I have done extensive policy and K debate so it is naturally my preferred styles. I am open to other styles of debate and will vote on anything just might be less comfortable.

I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To minimize this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME. If the email chain is sent at start time (WITH A DOC PF DEBATERS) both teams will get .2 speaks boost.

thoughts---essentially the same for policy and LD.

--- 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

--- Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.

--- I'm more convinced by affs that commit to, and defend, an action coming out of the 1ac.

--- Ks should prove the plan is a bad idea.

--- I'm not convinced by CP theory arguments like condo or PICs bad. Private actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, or object fiat definitely have merit.

--- I default to judge kick unless 1ar and 2ar convince me otherwise.

--- I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round.

--- New affs bad is a bad argument.

--- 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.

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Email: ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

The debate will be decided based on the arguments on my flow at the end of the debate.

Do not be rude, exclusionary, or bigoted. You will not like your speaker points. Consider an alternative extracurricular if your strategy requires you defame your opponents.

Callouts, character assassinations, and screenshots are an auto loss---no exceptions.

I will not evaluate evidence written by competitors, arguments about your opponent's identity, or personal anecdotes.

I flow on paper. I will not be following the speech doc during the debate. Cards should be clear. If you're unclear, you'll get two warnings. After that, I'll play solitaire on my phone.

CX is binding. I don't flow, but I will pay attention.

If your speech docs look horrendous, so will your speaker points.

Policy

Conditionality is good. I have not yet heard an objection to condo that is not resolved by getting better. Other theory args are reasons to reject the CP, not the team, and based phrased as competition args.

No insertions. Debate is a communicative activity. It is deranged to consider pointing at something an argument.

The AFF does not get "intrinsicness tests"---those are called counterplans. You are not the NEG. Stop being a coward and cut cards.

Evidence matters a lot to me. If you are slightly ahead on spin but they have vastly better evidence than you do, you are in an awful position.

I don't share the same disdain for process CPs, riders DAs, or anything of the like that most people do.

I default judge kick unless the AFF says otherwise.

Zero risk is possible, but usually only when a blatant concession has been made (ex: the NEG concedes impact d). You can get close enough to zero for me to assign it functionally "zero risk".

No-Plan AFFs

I personally believe that debate is at its best when the AFF reads a plan that is topical and the NEG attempts to disprove the plan by demonstrating the status quo or an alternative is preferable. I can and have been convinced otherwise.

I'm kind of annoyed by the generic criticisms of topicality. No, you were not "harmed" by the fact the 1NC said you should've read a plan. Topicality is not policing. That does not mean I cannot be convinced topicality is bad model, just that your impact turns should be nuanced and researched instead of shallow and generic.

I am terrible for K vs. K debates, minus Marxism. I am not well-read enough to understand the nuances and interactions between your theories.

Non-topicality strategies such as DAs, impact turns, and process CPs I find strategic and enjoyable. Heg good, cap good, tech good, liberalism, etc., are all very winnable, and their answers to those arguments are usually way worse than their answers to topicality.

Throwing around random voting issues in the 2AC/1AR will not help you. I will likely reject the argument. 'Trigger warnings', screenshots of your author's social media accounts, etc., are unconvincing and obvious attempts at evading debate.

Ks

I like the K when it is debated as a DA/CP that can both turn/solve case and has explanatory power for the AFF's internal links---but I am fine if you just want to moot the case entirely.

The "middle ground" framework is obviously stupid, but has strategic value against NEG interpretations that are along the lines of "we should discuss epistemology/scholarship" instead of "discussing plan implementation is bad".

Absent a clear explanation about what the alt does that is distinct from the status quo, I am unlikely to find it persuasive. Creating "new ways of thinking" is useless. If your alt divorces itself that significantly from the real world, you should have a defense about why that is good.

Links must be to theplan. That does not mean it has to be to the literal mandate of the plan, but I should have a clear understanding of what is unique about the plan that makes X violence or structure worse.

Explanations about why the conclusions the AFF has come to are accurate, true, and robust are of way more utility than your generic state/IR good cards.

Please innovate---there are a plethora of highly intelligent and hard-working scholars formulating nuanced and creative takes about the world every day. Your generic backfile cards from authors people have been reading for over a decade will not impress me, and is frankly lazy and disrespectful.

LD Quick Pref List:

K -- 1

T vs K-Affs - 1/2

K-Affs - 2

Policy Strat - 2

T - 2

Phil - 3

Theory - 4

Tricks - 4

About me:

I'm Avery, call me Avery. I use She/her. I don't like being called judge. If you "Sir" me you will not be happy with your speaks at the end of the round.

email: awilso10@trinity.edu

Put me on the email chain. The email chain should be set up before the round starts, NOT AFTER!

I debated for 4 years at Jack C Hays.

Trinity 2025

Not voting on cards written by current debaters

"techy but not super tech over truth".

My opinions about the world don't leave when I enter the round and the same applies for every other judge in existence. Certain args are obvious no go-s such as transphobia good, racism good, sexism good, etc. If your thought before an arg is "should I read this," its probably safest to assume no

I will not be friendly towards misgendering/transphobia in debate and reserve the right to vote how I want at the end of the round. Don't want me to make interventionist decisions? Don't be transphobic. This is an activity that should be safe for those involved in it. I would recommend avoiding gendering your opponent during the round, instead refer to the speech, arg, or if you must refer to the debater saying "the neg" or "the aff" will suffice.

Will I vote on death good, spark, wipeout, etc? Yes, Happily. Anything else is cowardice.

I feel as though I'm often read as a K judge - my voting record probably doesn't really reflect this to the extend one might expect. I tend to vote on extinction first a lot. I get annoyed at K args often in LD due to lack of explanation and relying on overarching claims with little to not actual debating of the aff.

Longer thoughts on things -- Updated Feb 2024

Every arg in debate is either defense or offense. At the end of the day, the team with the most winning offense wins any debate, so make your offense clear. offense, offense, offense.

K - I'm K competent, explain your thing. If you can't explain your thing I dont want to fill in the gaps for you so I'm not going to. I think LDers often don't enough framing with the K and just kind of have floating links and vague impacts, a coherent framework component to the 2nr solves a lot of this.

I've engaged and read a lot of the debate K literature, my personal interests as far as readings go should not influence what you go for. Pomo, Identity, etc (whatever arbitrary category you prefer) are all on the table. My personal interests as far as "critical" literature go are Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, and Marxism. I am probably familiar enough with your literature to have thoughts on it and not be in the dark no matter what you read.

Very low threshold on some procedural arguments (misgendering, evidence uses racist language, etc) - If debaters did a bad thing that I notice it will likely sway how I end up viewing arguments across other flows unconsciously anyways. Don't be afraid to go for "people doing bad things is bad and its a reason to reject." I'm pretty easily convinced if there is an actual violation

K Affs -- it helps a lot if they are tied into the resolution in some way as far as answering framework goes, but I dont think there by default needs to be a need for this. If you are going for a counter model that actually maybe solves things do that, if you want to just go for impact turns do that. As far as performance goes I find myself not really every doing more than writing "poem" on my 1AC flow and it never being brought up again. Performance should probably be tied into the whole speech act and not just "look I read a thing"

I have been cutting more k-affs recently and understand their strategic appeal and value -- I like it when teams pull out the k tricks when their aff instead of relying on more pathos leaning explanation. Solve an impact.

Framework vs K Affs -- I think a lot about framework debates and have become mostly opinionless on them. I find these debates conceptually really interesting but I'm not sure how much of that can ever be drawn out in LD. Do things with framework besides "limits good!" and engage the aff more. This debate in LD I think is very skewed negative.

Policy Affs vs K -- I end up tapping out on extinction first a lot, but this is mainly due to lack of impact framing or weighing by the negative. If you are doing a framework push in the 1ar/2ar you need to implicate what winning it gets you/ why the links dont matter anymore etc on a substance level. I often find perm explanations from policy affs very lacking, I'd much rather judge an impact turn to the K than a nonsensical perm 2ar. How affs win this debate is by having offense on the the K at some substantive level (links, alt, impacts, not broad issues of "fairness"). Negs should be turning the aff in some way or interact on some level with the aff outside of "there is a link, moving on to impact." otherwise I'm left just evaluating between 2nr impact rambling versus 2ar impact weighing.

Phil - Yes. I have cut phil affs of all varieties and read a lot of them in highschool (Rawls, Contractualism, Scanlon, Virtue Ethics, Kant, even a little Schopenhauer)

I've cut and prepped induction fails, Trinity goes for no free will and we live in a simulation. I rock with a lot of these arguments. I think teams are pretty bad at answering them. do with that what you will. I don't think any of these arguments require truth testing framework to win.

Make it so I either negate or CAN'T affirm the resolution with offense of why affirming would be bad or impossible then you will probably be in a good spot -- Just make sure its CLEAR and an actually strategy and not paired with like 20 other tricks and triggers -- If it's your winning arg, make it win the 2nr and GO for it

Policy Args - Yes they are good. Functionally and Textually compete, explain things. I don't go for or extend these things very often, but I promise I will follow whatever you do. Don't be afraid to go for a CP DA. There's isnt much to say about DAs -- Have uq, a link, have an internal link, have an impact; do that and youre golden

I find a lot of cards about China to be kind of ridiculously racist at points. Policy teams please point this out more.

T - LDers please read an interp with definitions of the resolution words, I'm not a fan of people just saying "grammar" or basing the interp on vague vibes the aff maybe did something bad (Nebel). I try not to hold on to many defaults on T because I think debate about meta level questions should be largely up the debaters. Counter-interps should be extended, they should have standards, and they need reasons why they are good (I dont really care what the reason for it being good is, just make sure you answer the opponents args, otherwise T interps become two ships in the night).

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

RVIs on T is an arg I think is foundationally silly -- you dont get to win for following norms. However, drop or undercovered args are undercovered args, go for them if you must.

Theory - Most theory read I find pedantic and rarely a reason to DTD instead of DTA (except condo). Lean neg on condo in LD but very open to it being read. Strong tendency to not vote for AFC, ACC, Colt, TJFs, etc.

Probably not the judge if your A strat is 1AR theory restarts, but I will vote on it I just likely won't be very happy. These debates just end up becoming theory overview 2ars which become very intervention heavy to evaluate.

Disclosure is weird, I don't like voting on specific kinds of disclosure (open source, first three last three, etc). I think this is distinct from args such as "New affs bad" or "mis-disclosure." I do however think disclosure is a good norm and not very persuaded by a lot of arguments to the contrary -- going for disclosure bad is an uphill battle. I don't like voting on disclosure however, but I do feel like this is a problem easily solved by debaters disclosing so my sympathy only goes so far.

Speaker Points -

Every time I enter speaker points it is basically a number randomly generated from my head. I don't have a system for this nor plan to make one. I will give speaks on the vibes, but I tend to hover around high 28 to low 29 for doing an okay/good job.

I've found out I am not a fan of highschoolers trying to be funny in speeches and at worst has made me very very uncomfortable in the past. I like snark, I'm no stranger to it and its how I often come across, there is just often a lack of tact in how this is done.

If you're looking for a cost-effective speech/debate camp, come to the UH Honors Debate Workshop (HDW). We have top faculty from across the nation and an intense two-week course for CX, LD, PF, WSD, Congress, and IEs.Can't recommed this enough, truly astounded by the quality of faculty really great value and amazing deals for commuters in houston. Check out the website for more info: https://uh.edu/hdw

I wont give anyone a 30 because they ask for it but my ballot IS up for grabs.

He/Him/His

sri pronounced "sh-ree"

Westside '22 | UH debate '26 |

evidence rocks. It's obviously secondary to the content of the speeches, but the evidence that actually says the thing will be rewarded in terms of speaker points and my confidence in a risk of your offense.In incidents I hope to avoid, I will use it to evaluate an evidence ethics argument.

quickest overview of what follows: do what you want and do it well, don’t be evil

ask questions before start time --- i'll try to reach room asap so when I am there get questions to me, especially if anything below is insufficent

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

I will start speaks at 28.5 and go up down from there

The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder

I will not flow off of the doc --- but will prolly follow along to check clipping

eDebate: cameras dont need to be on, mine will be on if I am ready, you should still ask if I am ready once my camera is on, record only with the consent of everyone in the room

Endangering students through your behavior or arguments you read enforced by an L25

Don't ask what was read in the speech after it's given -- use CX or prep time for this --- this will affect speaker points. Also just flow better, not just a skill issue but indicates that you dont respect your opponents enough to put pen to paper. The exception is in situations with tech issues or unclear portions of a speech

Evidence Ethics: Here is what i think is an issue: clipping, articles inside articles, cards ending in the middle of the paragraph, but usually misrepresenting evidence through heavy bracketing. This is not something I want to end the round on but to ensure the perpetrating debater recuts the evidence into something usable you can stake the round on it.

It is difficult for me to evaluate someone's character from the parameters of a debate round, however, a serious issue with the behavior of a debater will result in me contacting an outside entity. I will intervene if necessary

Insert rehighlightings -- read the rehighlighting if the tag doesnt communicate what the rehighlighting says

SPECIFICS

I have preconceptions that can be changed

a. disclosure is good: steadfast opinion with few exceptions

b. condo is good: will vote on it if dropped, atp you just have to implicate it as a reason they should lose and why they shouldnt get new 1AR answers

c. judge kick is good

d. If there are any other preconceptions you need to know feel free to ask me at any point before the round

Disadvantages

Good for any DA, I evaluate the core topic DA with just as much enthusiasm as the rider DA.

final speeches should explain which impact comes first. I will weigh risks of squo vs aff unless a cp/case mitigates aff offense.

Counterplans

Impact solvency deficits when aff (e.g. why is a 4 month delay undesirable if the cp solves all of the aff while avoiding a DA/doing whatever silly internal nb thing)

if it avoids smthn flag it and tell me why

I am ok with 20+ condo planks and you can kick out of individual planks

2NC planks and counterplans obviously allowed

Kritiks:

explain your theory of power and how it interact with case clearly. Not a fan of overviews but can deal if i have to.

if the 2NR is FW + Link explain why they dont get to weigh the plan and what they have done that warrants a negative ballot

Otherwise the 2NR must articulate a link that outweighs (maybe turns case) and/or an alternative with a net benefit that outweighs.

Alt doesnt have to be in the 2NR or even the 2NC but without it you are suddenly facing uniqueness issues (absent the framework-y pivot)

K Aff

explain aff impact and solvency clearly.

Your aff should do something, refuse to do something, or impact turn doing something --- if you cannot beat back the presumption push I will vote negative on a risk of offense but i can evision a ballot on just presumption.

framing is important -- what's my job? is there a filter i should apply when deciding?

K v K round: weigh impacts. This is only kind of different than in a aff v da round because sometimes an aff that describes violence in debate and a mechanism that addresses it has to contest the risk of capitalism-induced ecocide from the "localism" link or wtvr. It seems intutive that the negative is contesting the aff at a very different scale but the negative and affirmative must identify the direct implication of the affirmative method at it's determined scale. I think this gets messier when the aff goes from 1ac=big global movment 2AC= in debate materialism 1AR/2AR=discursive intervention in the round. I get the strategic value of having an aff that access all these layers but centralizing on one of these is needed to adjudicate the round coherently. Also perms are up for debate as they are in aff v cp debates, there may be better justifications for the aff NOT getting them in these kind of match ups however.

K v FW: clash is the go to i think it turns case 9 times out of 10 but explanation of why can be weak sauce, I think fairness is an impact IF debate is just a game. I am good for most aff framework pathways I dont NEED a counterinterp but without it the negative gets to weigh ALL of the value of debate against your impact turn. Without a counterinterp I think just smart bits of defense on limits and ground can go a long way in weighing the impact turn against clash, skills, etc. Neg just needs to win that aff model is bad in a way that outweighs the value of the aff or the impact turn and i think to mitigate both... ssd and TVA!

LD

refer to my CX paradigm where topcality, theory, K, framework, and policy stuff apply

strike for tricks update: I will vote on anything that is not morally abhorrent. The note below about phil explains my reluctance for these arguments as well.

bad at evaluating phil debates. I think clarity issues and blippiness in this activity make it hard for me to evaluate phil outside of well understood ethical frameworks.

PF

The closer this debate is to traditional LD the better

Do not read the kritik in PF. If you plan on reading the kritik be conscious of time constraints and ensure you know what you are saying

I am good with theory stuff I think this is strategic and valuable in an event like PF where paraphrasing and refusing to share evidence is still common practice.

Please disclose -- If you disclose on the PF Wiki I will grant the team 1 extra speaker point that is .5 on both speakers -- Use email chain or speechdrop.net if necessary, not sure if flash drives are still in use but that would be a great alternative if none of the above work.

Defense is not sticky

Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD) and just recently graduated with a Business degree from UT-Austin. I currently work at a FinTech firm as a Business Analyst and do part-time independent coaching. I coach, judge, and research a decent amount so I can follow-on substantive topic jargon but don't be overly aggressive with acronyms.

TOC Conflicts - Actively coaching Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, Westridge TW, San Mateo YR. Conflicted with St Agnes EH, Westlake MR, Strake JW, and Strake NW.

email - elmeryang00@gmail.com

This paradigm has been changed to reflect the most important aspects of my judging. When I was a younger judge/coach in the community, I used to have pretty heavy predispositions and annoyances. Now, I care most about you performing your best regardless of style. Everyone has spent so much time on this activity and it would be a disservice to not see you at your best due to my dispositions. The only true thing that annoys me when judging is avoidance of clash. If you chose to introduce an argument for me to listen to, I expect that you know it and are prepared to rigorously defend it through an attack from multiple angles. If you introduce an argument that is so obviously put with no thought and meant to just be hidden and dropped (yes this is most but not all of modern day Tricks debate, but also reflective of incomplete DA's, T shells w/o cards or offense, and 3 second Condo Shells), I will be sad and annoyed that you did not care enough to produce your best. Whether you are reading a K-Aff about Clowns, the Arrow's Paradox, or the Politics DA, I just want to see that you care and you've put thought into your craft. Debate is so much easier to judge if you as debaters look and feel like you're enjoying it and I will enjoy judging you.

That said, I do have argument styles I'm more familiar with. I work mostly with K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, and K v Policy debates. I occasionally work with light Phil (mostly just Kant and Pragmatism) and almost entirely in Phil v K debates. I very rarely work with or encounter Theory and Tricks debate. I have no predispositions towards arguments, but the less experience I have with them, walk me through your claim, warrant, and ballot or else I will mostly likely evaluate the debate in a way that you would not expect or like like.

Things that increase likelihood of high speaks (and also winning):

1] Clarity - I've judged both fast, clear debaters and slow, clear debaters. I have no issue with speed but I do have issue if you're going faster than I can flow or process.

2] Strategy - showcase that you've come prepared OR make tactical moves on the fly in the middle of the round.

3] Innovation - I've been judging for a while so a lot of debates tend to be reduxes of debates I've judged in the past. Introducing new args or making new spin on args I've heard before often impresses me.

4] Vision - demonstrate that you are able to see the round from a multi-layer and dimension perspective. If you can connect the dots between args on different flows and comparatively weigh them, that will go a long way for speaks and the ballot.

5] Packaging - 90% of the time, the thing that distinguishes a winning arg from a good arg is how you frame and phrase it. Explaining complex args simply is an art and being able to explain why it matters is extremely important in any round.

Lastly:

1] Absent a Perm or Theory, my RFD in a Process CP or CP/DA debate will be "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve that question.

2] Do Impact COMPARISON not Impact Weighing. I can intuitively understand why your Impact is bad, why is it worse than your opponents. In a debate style with so little time, you need to invest a significant chunk of it on resolving arguments.

3] Topicality arguments need cards to compose of real arguments. I would prefer if they defined the words in the resolution but if you give me a master class on grammar principles, I will be impressed.

4] K debates now are super Framework heavy and there's only been once that I've decided the Neg has won Framework but lost the debate. However, I wish they were heavier on the Link. Ontology is a thing but it usually is not a thing that can be resolved by the Alt or worsened by the Aff. The worse your link, the higher burden it puts on the Alt (and the inverse of that is true). Good link debating is the most important part of any K v Policy or K v K debate.

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

Hi, I am parent judge and I've judged IEs and debate during the 22-23 debate season for TFA and NSDA District.

IEs:

For speech delivery, I appreciate that you speak clearly without excessive word crutches. Use time wisely to fully develop the speech. Fluid speech and professional mannerisms will be noted.

On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure your points discussed clearly address the question that you’ve chosen. Following the standard speech outline and including clear impact analysis would help. Cite your sources. I read broadly about economics, geopolitics and technologies on a regularly basis. Logical analysis of event and impact will be noted.

On INTERP, it is a performance and characterization is important. All movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose.

Debate:

- I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I also evaluate on speaking ability.

- I will evaluate how each side address other’s arguments with good logic and evidence.

- Off-clock road map is much appreciated.

- Please add me to the email chain: joyzhang08@gmail.com