Winston Churchill ‘22

UT ‘26

Email chain: canaalblanton@gmail.com

Cana is pronounced kay-nuh. You can call me Cana, higher chance it will get my attention.

If we don’t know each other personally, you don’t have to make small talk with me. This will save us both time.

Don’t say death good. Don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist etc. I don’t care about things that happened outside of the debate and have no interest in adjudicating those issues.

LD Stuff for St Marks:

I haven't judged LD this year but all of the policy stuff should apply just as much. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, feel free to ask me.

TLDR:

Do what you do best- if you present a clear narrative and impact it out well, I should have no problem voting for you.

Tech>>Truth. Dropped arguments are only as important as you make them to be. You still have to impact them out and explain how they implicate the debate if you want them to matter.

Content stuff-

T:

I usually default competing interpretations.

Evidence quality matters- cards should have an intent to define and be contextual to the topic.

Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff. The size of the link to the limits da is important if you are going for this- if the link is small there is a higher chance I conclude the counter-interp is reasonable.

DAs:

Love them.

Comparative impact calculus is often underutilized here- good impact calc is far more persuasive than just asserting that nuclear war is bad.

Turns case analysis and case solves the DA analysis are important, especially if the 2NR goes for a DA without a CP.

CPs:

Neg teams try to get away with murder here and aff teams usually let them- smart arguments on both sides about enforcement, implementation, and evidence comparison matter.

I think aff solvency deficits need impacts to them, i.e., they need to be attached to some portion of the 1AC that is meaningful.

Ks:

Neg– I am not super familiar with many lit bases besides Cap and Set col, so just assume you will have to over explain in these debates. The aff probably gets to weigh the plan and you should read specific links to it. Aff teams should pick the best strategy for their 1AC, whether that is a big case OW push or a link turn/perm approach.

Aff–These should have some sort of connection to the topic. I am usually on the FW side of these debates and will have a hard time voting for you if you haven’t proved why your model is good for debate. That being said, do impact comparison and the debate can go either way. K v K debates can be really interesting, but if you make them messy and complicated I won't be happy to be in the back. Love Cap vs K affs.

Theory:

These debates are best when each team is actually engaging the other- don’t just read blocks back and forth. They don’t have to be boring unless you make them that way.

If you go for condo because you are afraid to go for substance you are my least favorite person, don't be a coward.

For any further questions about rounds/ email chains please email me at haldebate25@gmail.com

For anything involving judging opportunities, please email me at hdivalentone04@gmail.com

I was a 4 year policy debater and extemporaneous speaker, who also dabbled in interp events once or twice , I have experience mostly in the UIL circuit, so my judging style reflects that. I currently compete in the collegiate circuit and have seen many different styles of debate, so if you can run a type of argument, I have probably seen it before.

~Policy/CX~

Yes email chain :D

Decorum is one of my highest priorities when it comes to rounds, if you decide to be rude to your oppponents during rounds I'm not going to reward you with a win; this includes being racist, homophobic, sexist, or talking down to your opponent in any way.

If I had to label my judging type it would be a tabula rusa judge. When it comes to the actual content of the round, I dont mind if you run new in the 2, I dont mind the usage of theory like Kritiks, CPs etc, if its argued effectively and not just used as a timesuck. Anything can be game IF argued effectively.

This also goes for dropping arguments in rebuttals, dont just throw it out because you're not arguing it effectively, if your opponent still won the argument its going on my ballot, unless you can provide a good reason for why that argument doesnt matter in the realm of this specific debate.

If you're going to bring up a stock issues argument, please understand what the stock issue means, i.e dont run a "my opponent has no harms" argument if you dont know what a harm is.

Persuasiveness is also a huge thing for me, you can have all the facts and evidence you want but if you cant create a believable argument I have no reason to vote on it.

I know that disclosure is becoming a huge thing on the national circuit, but I wont vote on if someone does or does not disclose, since part of debate is the premise that you will have to think on your feet, and people have been debating without disclosure for decades, however I do feel that if you are going to stand there and emphasize disclosure and how it is effective for the education of the round, I think you shoud be reflecting those same qualities on your own end too.

I dont do spreading, I think its detrimental to the art of debate and your speaks will be docked for it. I wont flow anything that is being spread, and if its up to your opponents to tell me what youre saying, then thats what im gonna have to put on the ballot if its the only thing that is being spoken clearly. If you choose to spread, you get a single verbal clear, after that I will not be flowing and your speaks will be docked. I think there are much better ways to have a productive debate without exclusionary tactics, that being said I am fine with speed if you are speaking coherently and without excessive breaths in between every word. At that point you waste more time attempting to catch your breath than you do speaking, and its not productive.

~PF~

I am pretty comfortable judging PF, and I have quite a bit of experience doing so. While I never actually competed in the event, part of the philosophy behind PF is that it is supposed to be an accessible event for all, thus my judging philosophy upholds this.

One of the biggest things about PF is that, more so than Policy, this event should have no spreading what so ever, as it defeats the purpose of the event entirely.

In Public Forum, a lot of your arguments should not be evidence based unless you have something that specifically counters the evidence given by your opponent. I think that this is a super fun event to sit down and judge, but debates over evidence are kind of meaningless in this event. If you are able to attack your opponents arguments logically and with tact persuasion, then I believe there shouldnt need to be a huge amount of cards that support your case if there is a logical conclusion. For example, if your opponent is saying to ban all baked goods because they are unhealthy, and your logical refutation is that banning all baked goods will put small business bakers out of a job, thats a lodical conclusion that doesnt necessarily require a lot of evidence.

You should also be respectful during crossfire, no matter if it is regular or grand. Little quips or comments are not appreciated, as decorum is something that is supposed to be emphasized in this event, yall arent policy kids, so dont act like it.

~LD~

I am all for technical arguments in LD such as Kritiks, but I think that CPs and DAs should be used disparingly since the whole premise of LD is the moral question of should we or should we not pass this resolution, so sometimes Disads and CPs work and sometimes they do not, keep this in mind.

As is with my philosophy in all events, I believe that decorum and communication come first, without these two mutual things there is not a physical way possible to have a productive round. If you both chose to disregard this, your speaks will get docked.

Another thing that is crucial for me in LD is defintely the framework of the round, it is preferable when both sides present a strong framework for their cases, complete with philosophical reasons to prefer. Definitions are neither here nor there unless theres a really good reason to prefer one definition over the other. Overall, LD is one of those events where I dont judge on the same thing every time, just because I vote on one thing in one round doesnt mean I will vote on the same thing the next round. I try my best not to bring background knowledge into this event, but if you are presenting something that I have reason to believe an average person would reasonably know, then I can bring that into the round and use it in personal decision.

I also enjoy when rebuttals are clean cut, and well organized, as it helps me fully emphasize points on my ballot.

Overall, have a good debate, dont be a jerk, and good luck

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Last updated: September 2022

Background:

• 4 years policy debate in high school (Churchill HS, San Antonio, TX, 2005-2009)
• 4 years policy debate in college (USC, 2009-2013)
• 3 years coaching at Highland Park HS (St. Paul, MN, 2013-2016)
• 3 years coaching at University of Minnesota (2013-2016)

TL;DR: Do what you want, I'll flow the debate and do my best to render a decision without allowing any biases to affect it.

I'm not an active debate coach any more, and I haven't judged very much over the last few years, so: 1) my flowing ability has probably deteriorated; and 2) I haven't thought about how I lean on particular types of arguments in a long time (my old thoughts are below, if you're interested).

I tend to make decisions based on what I've flowed rather than what I think the logical extension of an argument is, or what a card says absent in-round explanation. So, make sure you actually explain what you think is important–and why–and don't assume I'll give you credit just because your evidence is really good or because it's a logical leap from what you did say in-round.

I've got a PhD in political science and research/teach about race & representation in Congress and Latinx politics for a living, if that matters.

Specific arguments

Performance, Identity, similar arguments: I am not opposed to these arguments and think that including them in debate is beneficial. When debating these arguments, teams will be better off in front of me if they attempt to engage the aff/neg substantively, rather than reading their entire framework file. That doesn't mean I won't vote on framework - my preferences for how teams answer these arguments will not influence my willingness to vote on the arguments teams choose to make.

Topicality: I tend to think of topicality as a question of competing interpretations. I'm typically most persuaded by limits type impacts. RVIs are silly. I can be persuaded by a k of topicality, but the argument should be more nuanced than "t is genocidal".

Disads: Uniqueness doesn't determine the direction of the link or vice versa. I prefer links to be as specific to the aff as possible. Quality of evidence > quantity of evidence - one really good card is better than five terrible one-line cards. There can be zero risk of the disad.

CPs: Counterplans are best when they have good solvency advocates and are functionally competitive with the aff. I really only lean aff on the theoretical legitimacy of consult and conditions CPs. Other than those, i don't have strong predispositions and think that the legitimacy of the CP is up for debate. I will NOT kick the counterplan for the 2NR unless this option is explicitly explained in the 2nr.

Theory: I probably lean neg on conditionality, even if there are contradictory positions (I was a 2n, so yeah). But I'll vote on conditionality if the aff out-debates the neg on it, my own predispositions be damned. I don't really have strong predispositions on other theory arguments.

Ks: These are the arguments and the literature that I'm most familiar with, but don't assume that i've read all of the stuff you're talking about - the burden is on the debaters to explain their argument. Specific links are always better than generic ones; specific links that allow for specific "turns case" analysis are even better. The aff needs to make sure to answer the stock k tricks - if they don't and the neg is able to execute, then I'm fairly likely to vote neg. I don't think that the k necessarily needs to have an alternative, but there needs to be some other way of generating uniqueness for your arguments.

Please be quick calling for cards and setting up email chains. You waste time and slow the tournament down when it takes super long in between speeches to show evidence.

Overall, use critical thinking skills and your own analysis to persuade me. Don't read straight through your evidence and count on me to understand everything; do the intellectual footwork for me. Weigh throughout the round. Framing is encouraged. Speed is discouraged. I'mokay with open cross if circuit rules and both teams are.

Read my written comments on the ballot! I give useful, constructivefeedback.

Disads: Try to make these arguments persuasive and reasonably believable. Sure, you might chain the impact to include nuclear war, but if it isn't likely, it's less important to me.

Counterplans: Please read the plan text slowly and thoroughly explain why it would solve better than the affirmative . The counterplan text should not be a paragraph long. Use your own words in the speech to signal that you actually know what you are advocating for.

Topicality: Please go very slowly on these arguments, because I want to write down every part of the shell. If I don't understand every part of the shell, it's difficult for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Kritiks:Only run these if you can explain every part of the shell in simple terms, especially what the alternative would tangibly look like. Provide authentic analysis in your own words on the kritik's substance so I can understand better.

Theory: Make sure it's an important enough of a violation to warrant the theory. This should not be kicked prematurely.

Conditionality: I get irritated when more than 2 off-case arguments are conditional because I feel like it turns the debate into a "see who can cover everything the fastest" match instead of a "use evidence and logic to prove why you're right" match. I also think multiple worlds theory is argumentatively lazy.

Disclosure: I do not vote off of disclosure theory. Good teams should be able to use their topic education and research as well as their argumentative and persuasive skills to engage in and refute cases that they've never seen before. Disclosure undermines critical thinking and creativity.

TFA LD:Avoided frivolous definition arguments. Off-case arguments are great.

Congress:Please don't just tell me how a bill won't solve the problem, argue against general purpose of the bill.Use evidence and clash with other people in the room.

Email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

TL;DR. I’m cool with whatever you have to say in whatever format you would like to say it. I think that your arguments should interact with the topic in some way, though that doesn't necessitate having a plan text or defending the federal government. Assume you need to over-explain arguments and link stories, I like to refrain from doing work for the debater(s) - that has gone poorly for some folks I've judged in the past that assumed too much. I’ve lost some flowing proficiency since high school, but I will try my best to keep up.

Stuff about me:

I haven't debated for several years, so I’m not going to trick myself into thinking that I remember everything about every debate argument or that I'm still able to effectively flow at super high speeds. However, I vow that I will do everything in my power to be present and alert of what is happening in the round and be respectful of your time. I will also do my best to explain my thought process for every decision so that you understand why I voted a certain way if the tournament allows. If not, I will make myself available to you to provide my insight or comments if you wish.

I debated for 4 years at Ronald Reagan HS in San Antonio, TX (2012-2016) and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (hook'em). In my first three years, I did exclusively LD and Extemporaneous Speaking. I attended many national tournaments for LD, so I am very familiar with the argument types and strategies on the national circuit. I also attended UIL State for Informative Speaking. Policy debate, however, was the highlight of my senior year. As a 2A/1N, my partner and I attended elimination rounds at various national tournaments, was the top seed at TFA State where I was 5th overall speaker, was in late elims of NSDA Nationals, and attended the Tournament of Champions.

My advice to you: Do what you do best. That doesn’t mean that adaptation isn’t important. I’ve had to do my fair share and I know of its challenges and rewards. The big takeaway is that I am open to anything you have to say in any manner or format to which you would like to say it.

Some house-keeping items:

- Be Kind. Please.

- Prep stops when the email is sent/when the document is saved to the flash drive and is out of the computer.

- Speed is fine. Go slower on Theory/T Interpretations and CP Texts, as you should. I try to flow everything said in the round including the text of evidence and cross ex. Hopefully this isn’t anything new, but clarity is very important.

- I like reading evidence, and I'll call for it if it's pertinent to my thought process at the end of the round.

- Sure I'll be on the email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

Affs -- Read whatever you're comfortable with.

- I believe that affs should be a critical discussion of the topic. What that "critical discussion" entails is entirely up to the debaters. Heg/Econ scenarios, poetic performances, whatever you do best, do it. Though, I'm likely not going to be persuaded by an aff that I feel could be cross-applied to any other topic (I think you lose out too).

- In order of how much I've read them in HS (from the most to the least), it would go "middle-of-the-road" affs, K affs, then Policy affs. I do not have a proclivity towards any one of them: I've enjoyed reading them all.

- In LD, I do not have a preference as to what the aff should look like. You can do the traditional "definitions, framework, contentions," thing or you can switch it up and do it in reverse, I don't care. As long as the information is read.

Topicality -- I enjoy Topicality debates and have no qualms voting on a well-executed topicality shell.

- I default to competing interpretations if all things are equal - actually, I probably default to an offense/defense paradigm on most things.

- In HS, I rarely read any other standard than predictable limits; I intuitively think that both sides have reasonable ground for argumentation if they're smart enough, but I can be persuaded to vote for other standards. That being said, I generally think along the lines of "the caselist" in topicality debates, so doing your due diligence in these debates should be rewarded.

- I don’t think that RVI’s are a thing and I'm not sure why they ever were; I've yet to vote for an RVI argument I thought was persuasive. BUT, *shrugs* if it's conceded, then there's not much I can do about that, now can I?

Framework/T-USFG -- Go for it.

- As a 2A I've both defended and not defended a plan text, so I have experience with both sides of the framework debate. I've also read it quite a few times on the negative, so I'm familiar with how it ought to be executed.

- I don't think that FW is inherently violent, but that doesn't mean there aren't sweet impact turns to roleplaying/policy education.

- Carded topical versions of the aff are very persuasive for me.

LD Frameworks -- Do your thing.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the Framework should look like for the aff or neg. You can do the Value/Value-Criterion if you want. You can do a Standard if you want. You can read a Role of the Ballot/Judge interpretation if you want.

Theory -- With me, you should explain the violation more than normal if it's anything other than disclosure or condo.

- In all honesty, based on my skill level I'm probably not a good judge for you if your strategy is to spam 4 tricky theoretical violations and go for the undercovered ones.

- Except for conditionality and disclosure, I am not really experienced with the various types of theoretical violations floating out there, especially on the LD national circuit. In my HS experience, I'd never read anything on the affirmative that justified opponents making theory a 2NR position, so I rarely had to give a substantive 2AR on anything other than condo.

- If theory ends up being a "game-winning" 2NR/2AR strategy, I would implore you to please go slow and over-explain the argument. It’s not that I am incapable of understanding theory (I think I'm actually selling myself a little short), it's just an area of the argument spectrum that I don't have much personal experience with.

- I am more receptive to theory as a result of actual cheating, whatever that means for the debate.

- I don't think theory needs to be in a traditional "shell" format - as long as all the components are there, we should be good.

Counterplans -- Explain to me what they actually do.

- The only caveat I have with CPs is the quality of solvency advocate evidence; I'm just a sucker for evidence that actually says what you're claiming it says.

- An explanation as to what the counterplan actually does would really help me conceptualize how it interacts with and is different from the plan, especially if it deviates from being textually and functionally competitive.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the net benefit should be. Internal Net Benefits, DA's, on-case DA's. All fair game.

Disadvantages -- I'm game for anything you've got.

- I'm a stickler for strong, definitive pieces of evidence, especially on the uniqueness debate. Though, I'll probably give you the benefit of the doubt if you do a fair amount of explanation as to why that piece of evidence may be true.

- I've read politics, linear, and on-case DA's with extinction-level or structural violence impacts so I shouldn't be unfamiliar with whatever you decide to read.

- I've done my fair share of impact turning DA's on the affirmative (I am particularly familiar with dedev or "warming irreversible" arguments) and I think these can be particularly strategic.

Case debate -- Underrated, and that is a darn shame.

- I've had some 1NRs where I just extended the warrants of 1NC evidence, read 5 minutes of cards, or a mix of the two. I’ve got no qualms voting negative on presumption if the aff’s responses are lackluster.

- Some of my best and most fun 1NRs to give were impact turns to the aff (dedev and "warming irreversible" again).

"Critical" arguments/K Affs/The K -- Read whatever you want, but be smart.

- Out of anything on this page, the K is probably what I have the most experience reading in HS. K affs and one-off K strategies were the bread and butter of my senior year.

- Some authors/criticisms that I enjoyed reading and deploying in-round include: Anti-Blackness, Berlant, Oliver, Settler Colonialism (plus every Eve Tuck article, ever), Critical Asian Studies/Orientalism/Model Minority Myth, (Racialized) Capitalism, and the Academy K.

- I prefer the line-by-line to long-winded overviews (oftentimes, they are hard to reconcile).

- Big overarching theme: you do you. This also encapsulates different arguments characterized as “performance,” though I tend to think that how you choose to debate is a performance of sorts. If you need to play music, dance, scream, do your thing.

In conclusion, some parting words.

Since my paradigm page is part love-letter-to-debate, part diary, I would like to share a thought about my philosophy on judging that may be helpful for you to know. Reflecting on my experiences as both a debater and a judge, I am a firm believer that debate, while an educational activity, is also primarily a persuasive activity. I have become increasingly annoyed with debaters and judges that are disappointed with someone's skill level (particularly if they are a novice debater or judge) and verbally express those frustrations to the public or behind their backs. Yes, having an experienced judge gives you more options to deploy different arguments and strategies, and that can certainly make for a more entertaining and enjoyable debate. But the world is not full of debate hardos. The next time you have a "lay" judge in the back of your debate, consider this: if you lose, perhaps it has less to do with the judge missing something and more about your inability to persuade someone outside of the activity (i.e. 99.9999% of people). This academically elitist pedestal some debaters find themselves upon is incredibly insufferable. So don't vent to me about how your last round's judge was a random mom or pop, you will find the opposite of sympathy from me.

If there are any lingering questions about how I view the debate or argument types I haven't listed above, don’t hesitate to ask!

Thanks y’all. Happy debating, and good luck!