Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek High School

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Yes, I WILL vote for backfile checks, death good, wipeout, etc.

Policy Debate Paradigm

It has been a minute since I have judged. I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it must generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – DA + CP or case in the 2NR is not what I went for or coached primarily in my years of competition. Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I love to judge a good debate regardless of the argument.

Counterplans – I think that PICs can be an interesting avenue for debate, especially if they have a nuanced or critical net benefit. PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though.

Kritiks - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career.

"Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how does it resolve the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. I would strongly prefer email over NSDA Classroom fileshare, and please title the chain as so: "Tournament Year + Name - Round # - _____ vs. _____ (Judge)"

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: 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, 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.
• 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.
• 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; if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it.
• Signpost please. I prefer debaters to be explicit about where to flow things and I appreciate pen time.
• 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 have 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'll evaluate shells via reasonability if you ask me to but I'd prefer an explicit brightline for determining what constitutes a reasonable vs. unreasonable practice rather than drawing upon my intuitions for debate. If you just ask me to intuitively evaluate the shell without an explanation of what that constitutes, my aversion to intervention will likely lead me to gut check to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI).
• 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 magically 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 or I will likely miss something.
• Disclosure is good. However, I do coach both sides of this debate. Read it if you'd like, just don't be mean about it and be prepared to defend your performance if your opponent is clever.
• "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. It is in your best interests to keep your speeches well-structured so they are easy to follow.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates. Less good for k v k debates.
• I especially appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative. Good K debates typically include quotes from lines in your opponent's evidence/advocacy with an explanation of why those are additional links.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. I have voted for both framework and k affs.

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 topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• Especially if your framework is complex or obscure, a brief summary of how it functions (i.e. how it sifts between legitimate and illegitimate offense) would be helpful.
• Default epistemic confidence.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 8.5 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 almost certainly 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 random 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.
• I'll yell "clear" or "slow" once but that means I already missed something. Honestly though, it's not uncommon for me to be so preoccupied with trying to keep up that I forget to call clear or slow.

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 won't disclose speaks so don't bother asking.
• 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 high 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 then.
• 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.

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.

For any further questions 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.

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, 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 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.

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

LD and CX:

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.

PF:

Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.

Congress:

I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.

Speech Events:

I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).

Interp Events:

With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.

Director of Debate: Dulles High School (2022 - Present)

Formerly: Westside High School (2017 - 2022), Magnolia High School (2016 - 2017)

Every round I judge: esdebate93 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in Policy: dulles.policy.db8 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in LD: dulles.ld.db8 [at] the google mail service

I am a full time public school teacher who oversees a large team and judges a lot. As a result, I can be a bit of a grumpy gus, but I promise that I care. I'm glad that you're choosing to be here and hope that you continue to make that choice. If you require accommodation or are uncomfortable with something that is happening and I'm not picking up on it, please let me know either verbally or by email. If you have any questions, just ask.

Non-Negotiables - The lightest consequence for a violation of these is me tanking your speaks. The harshest is stopping the round, reporting you to the tabroom, and contacting your coach. Anything between these two is on the table.

1. Safety, inclusivity, and accessibility are preconditions for us having an activity worth doing. Don’t be a bully, make threats, advocate/threaten self-harm, or engage in harassment. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist. Respect people’s pronoun preferences, provide accommodation upon request, and be kind to novices. Wheaton's law is always in effect.

2. Content/trigger warnings should be given if you have reasonable suspicion that the material you are discussing could be triggering. The onus is on you to ask the room to read the position and give observers time to leave. Read something else if any of the people who have to be there (competitors or judges) objects.

3. Debate tournaments are long, difficult, and overstimulating for everyone involved, often due to factors beyond your control. That said, debaters regularly behave in ways contribute to delays and stress. Do your best not to do that. To elaborate: Get to round on time, have the email chain ready to go, clean up after yourself, and don't be obnoxiously loud and in the way of others.

4. Do not clip cards (cutting/reading them in such a way that omits/distorts the author's original meaning, such as omitting sentences where the author contradicts your tag; complete cards are comprised of whole paragraphs; bracketing out offensive language does not constitute clipping) or steal prep (preparing materials or strategizing with your partner outside of prep, speech, or CX time). If you decide to stake the round on ev ethics you will win if you are right and lose if you are wrong.

5. Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech times and will submit a decision with one winner and one loser. I will not be making decisions about behaviors that occurred outside of the round or prior disclosure period.

Decision Making

I try to be a good judge for research driven, content heavy strategies and find the best debates to be focused on central controversies rather than edge cases. I will privilege technical execution in most instances; however, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want the ballot to consider is super important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation.

Evidence quality matters a lot, but you need to be the one doing the comparison in your speeches. If the spin is good and you don't challenge it, I'm not going to be checking for you. Liberal use of rehilights are encouraged since they help to adjudicate between competing interpretations of what a piece of evidence says.

I am attentive to cross x but will not flow it. It is your job to incorporate cross x moments into your speeches if you want me to flow it.

Speaker points start at 28.5 and move up or down from there based on a subjective, holistic evaluation of your performance. Will not disclose speaks.

Important Preferences

1. This is a research and communication activity, so you should be doing research and trying to communicate effectively. Too many debaters do neither, and I'm not a fan. Being well read, having a personality beyond doc botting debate bro, and trying to be persuasive will go a long way.

2. The documents you send during the debate are a reflection of how seriously you take your pre-tournament/round preparation. They should look good. Your cards should include author quals within the citation and you should highlight in comprehensible sentences.

3. I enjoy fast debates, but clarity, efficiency, and smart argument choices are way more important to me than speed. Please leave pen time when spreading, even if I am flowing on my laptop. If I can't understand or flow it, it won't factor into my decision.

4. Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling, numbering, or otherwise compartmentalizing your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad and I will not waste time or mental energy trying to parse them for you.

5. Have a strategy and execute it well. I love creative and innovative approaches, so don't be afraid to experiment; however, if your strategy is to bamboozle your opponent, you run the risk of bamboozling me too.

6. Gish-Galloping is bad. I will privilege quality and specificity of argument over quantity.

7. Clash is good. I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that try to avoid engagement.

8. Line by line is preferable to long overviews. 30-45 seconds is the max overview l think has any sort of utility, provided that the focus is judge instruction or impact comparison. There has never been an instance where a separate sheet for an overview has been necessary or helpful.

9. Please, I am begging you, learn to flow. If you have to waste cx flow checking, speaks will drop.

10. Beyond these preferences, don’t overadapt. Debate is for debaters, so do your thing, do it well, and have fun.

Affs

You should have a clearly articulated relationship to the current topic, identify a significant harm or set of harms that is inherent to the status quo, and propose a method that solves or starts to solve the problem(s) you’ve identified. I am open to various approaches to satisfying these burdens but if I vote for you I should be able to explain my ballot in those terms.

Regardless of style, consistent and compelling narratives are key if you want to win while affirming.

Neg Case Debating

More case 2NRs, please. Your case pushes should include more than just impact turns/defense and cross applications from other pages. You should read cards/analytics that contest theoretical assumptions, claims of solvency, and causal claims. If the negative answers to the case are only cross applications from other sheets (I'm looking at you K debaters), I will be annoyed.

Framework

Both sides should have a clear model of debate (interpretation/counter interpretation) that they think is desirable. Creative approaches are welcome, but whatever you choose to do, you need to be prepared to defend your performance. Your model should account for the role of both the affirmative and the negative. Thinking about this through case lists that would be allowed for both sides under your model is a good practice.

I find the Limits + SSD + TVA = better clash/education/skills model of FW the most persuasive. Negative teams who make their explanation of this reasoning contextual to the outcomes the aff desires (better radicals, less gender/racial bias, etc.) will have an easier time than teams that go for fairness oriented models in most instances; however, I'm happy to vote for those as well. Again, do your thing and do it well.

Aff teams should be aware that I generally think that discussions about the object of the resolution are probably important. I do not think that USFG policy on that object is necessarily the best starting point. As such, you will have an easier time winning if you contextualize debates about the resolution within your theory of power and identify the better starting point prescribed by that theory. If I don't know how your model of debate solves/mitigates the impact turn to theirs, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

Kritiks

I am most excited to be in the back of debates featuring kritiks that are specific to the topic/aff you are challenging. I would prefer fewer offs so you have time to explain the K, as these arguments are often counterintuitive. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about. If you're not winning your thesis, it is unlikely I will think that you are winning anything else on the K page absent really good arguments to the contrary.

Thesis arguments contextualize the link and link arguments support the thesis. They’re mutually reinforcing. When developing links, you should name them, theorize, link your theorization to the aff with a quote from the aff, and impact that out. Lazy link debating loses debates. If a link functions independently of your thesis, you should make that explicit. Don’t rely on me to implicitly follow your reasoning.

Examples are important at every level of these debates. Don’t just name check people, movements, and events. Explain their relationship to the argument. The earlier they show up the better.

Methods/Alternatives should do something that solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link debate. You should tell me what that something is and how it solves. I do not think this must necessarily be material change, a new paradigm or mode of relation is fine; however, it should make sense with regard to solvency claims.

The pre/post fiat distinction people try to draw is silly. Talk about your scholarship/research practices, their impacts, and weigh them against your opponents'.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations because affirmative teams should have to justify their choices. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not your aff. Your interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Disadvantages and Counterplans

Policy throwdowns are the kinds of debates where I am most likely to call for cards, as these quickly turn into card wars, and I am far from a topic expert. Please be ready to send a card doc including all evidence referenced in the 2NR/2AR. Know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.

Disads, ideally, are intrinsic to the action of the plan. Please have a cogent link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness generally controls the direction of the link.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides.

Condo is good. You'll have to do a lot of work to get me to believe otherwise. Aff gets "unlimited" prep, permutations, and intrinsicness tests to balance against neg flex.

Counterplans v planless K affs don't make sense given my understanding of how counterplan competition works. For example: The aff says that we (the people in the round) should change the way we think about a thing and the neg says that the USFG should institute a policy regarding said thing. Where is the opportunity cost? Absent a really good answer to this question, aff will get the perm every time.

LD Specific Stuff

Everything above applies to LD. You should attempt to actually resolve arguments for me. Slow down on analytics, please.

Substantive phil debates are fun and I'd like to judge more of them. Syllogisms should be clear with an explicit relationship to how I weigh impacts.

I can't believe that I am giving this note to people outside a Debate 1 class, but plan texts must have actors.

Debates are evaluated at the conclusion of the 2AR or when I conclude that a winning NR/2AR is no longer possible.

Everything is open to contestation. I will not be evaluating AFC. If you want to include theoretical justifications for your framework, those are not good arguments, but they are acceptable since they don't insist that there exists an obligation to concede things. I think the distinction matters.

I will not evaluate theory of the frivolous variety. You will lose if you make theory arguments pertaining to your opponent’s appearance or mode of dress.

I’m agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs.

IVIs are K links that function independently of the thesis being true because they also have procedural implications (ie use of exclusionary language). Anything else is just a lazy theory shell.

If you must read tricks, I am okay for substantive tricks with a developed ballot story; however, I would prefer not to judge these debates.

I am a policy centered cross-x judge. I try to stay tab as much as possible and keep an open mind but I don't have the high-level experience that many other national-level judges have. I flow the speeches and take notes during cross-x. I will look at the doc to get the cites and try to read the evidence between speeches.

When you stop prep time, please be in the process of sending or uploading the speech doc. If you say "stop prep," do not turn around and whisper to your partner. If you are the 1NR and you say "no prep," do not start talking to the 2NC and you should have the doc already uploaded if you have new evidence.

I did not debate in college and I am not well-connected to NDT level trends.

As I get older, cognitively I am a little slower and a more concrete thinker. That being said, my weaknesses are high theory kritiks, performance / identity arguments, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplan theory.

I have no predispositions against arguments. I actually love innovative arguments like critical philosophy, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplans but I just lack experience so my decision may be a bit unpredictable. I will defer to an offense-defense paradigm and list the offense that each team is winning and then decide which impact or framework I should choose based on the arguments. I will also try to compare the evidence if needed and use the arguments to compare warrants.

I do my best to get a tight flow but I can't get every word. If you are debating theory, you might want to go 90% of top speed and make sure you are enunciating well. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and it won't be on the flow.

Topicality-I like topicality debate but I am looking for examples of cases that the other team would allow. I am looking for specific arguments that you will not be able to run. Saying "limits" and "ground" does not qualify as an extension. You will need at least 2 or 3 sentences to explain what that theory means, give examples of in-round or potential abuse impacts, and warrant out why I should down the team.

Theory-I can flow theory pretty well and I will vote on it. But again, you need to give a 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what the in-round or potential impacts are to your theory and why downing the team is merited. Extending taglines or buzzwords won't be sufficient.

Disadvantages-Make sure they are unique and the links are specific. Do impact calculus and compare the impacts.

Counterplans-I like counterplan debate. I like all types and am open to counterplan theory but just don't go too fast and be specific. "Perm: do both" might not always be sufficient. The affirmative may need to have a perm text that is written out and specific to what the perm does especially in a process round or advantage counterplan round.

Kritiks-Sure but I am not the most up to date on kritiks. I sometimes don't understand really dense theory and philosophy. I do prefer specific and timely links that interact with the assumptions of the case over generic links of omission. Framework debate needs to interact so if you are going for an identity or performance argument, I can't be expected to automatically vote for your framework; there needs to be a clear extension of the in-round and out-round implications of endorsing your specific framework and a comparison with the other teams framework. I do prefer kritiks that are timely and germane to the topic and connect to real-life events.

Case Debate-You probably are going to need this and it needs to specific and recent. There needs to be impact comparison and engagement with the warrants of the evidence.