Hello, I am Chris Lester and I have done LD debate for 4 years. When I judge a debate I judge off on how well your case was presented and the amount of clash there was in a debate. Debate is all about fun so in the name of education of your peers I ask that the debaters not spread (only in Novice tournaments). In my opinion, clash is the bread and butter of debate, so without it, I will always default Aff. At the end of the day, debate is about fun and education so any personal attacks or reductive actions will be met harshly. Make sure to extend clearly and give voters in your final speeches.

Argument Scale:

1 - Phil/ Trad - The most basic and simple form of debate. When done at a higher level it makes for a fun debate. Just make sure your making the FW and Impact debate clear. I was a Structural Violence debater so do with that information as you will.

1 - CP, DA, Plan, etc - I mostly ran DA's and CPs as Neg and have lots of knowledge in the area.

2/3 - K &Theory - Don't assume I know most K lit. I will only evaluate Theory relevant to the debate (so no Christmas Clothes or no dress shoes debates.) Also no K/ Theory in a Novice debate.

5 - Tricks - Tricks are for kids. Don't do them. That is all.

Hi, I'm Zarik (he/him). You can call me Zarik, ZT, Tao, judge, or any combination of these names. I would like to be on the email chain - zarik.tao@gmail.com

Background: Bridgeland '23, Texas '27.

5th at 2022 6A UIL State, qualified to TFA State x3, Doubles at TFA State 2022.

I was a heavy on LARP and Phil as a debater, so take that information if you will.

Pref Shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory - 1

Phil - 2 (Depends on type)

K - 2 (Depends on type)

Tricks - 5 (or strike me tbh)

I will pretty much vote on every arg if it is cohesively developed and I am able to explain back to you the claim, warrant, and impact in my RFD. (except if the arg is obviously morally reprehensible e.g. sexism, racism, etc.)

LBL > Long Overviews

Tech > Truth (but I think both are important)

Flex prep is cool; prep stops when you finish compiling the doc.

My judging philosophy is to be as non-interventionist as possible; people spend a lot of time prepping for this activity and you deserve the right to read whatever arguments that you want. That being said, I am a very expressive person, so if your argument does not make sense, I will probably make a face at you.

In Depth:

LARP - Pretty self-explanatory; you can run pretty much anything (plans, cp's, 7 minutes of case turns, disads, etc.). If you are aff PLEASE extend solvency or I will negate on presumption. Also, PLEASE collapse in the 1AR/2NR. I do not want to hear 5 different extinction scenarios that are all really underdeveloped in your rebuttal speeches. 0% risk is a thing.

Defaults:

1-3 Condo is probably good for neg flex; anything else is probably sketchy.

Functional and Textual Competition in the CP is probably good, but I will vote on PICS and Consult CP's etc. unless the aff wins abuse in the shell.

There needs to be an justification for judge kick (can be like 5 sec) if you want me to kick the offs for you; otherwise just spend the time kicking them yourself.

Comparative Worlds over Truth Testing (really easy to be convinced otherwise)

Theory - Fine with any theory; the more frivolous the arg then the lower threshold that I have for responses, but I will still vote on it UNLESS it pertains to the appearance/properties of the other person (e.g. water bottle and shoe theory is absolute b.s.). PLEASE extend paradigm issues.

Defaults (Please don't make me use them):

DTA > DTD (Unless it's T)

Competing Interps > Reasonability

No RVIs on shells

Content > Form

Text > Spirit

Topicality - I actually really enjoy topicality debates, including Nebel and Leslie, if they are done well (which is find is pretty rare, even for myself). Just contextualize why you win semantics>pragmatics or vice versa/both and the warrants for T "a" or bare plurals and if you do it well, you will probably get good speaks.

Phil - Fine with mostly everything if explained well; I pretty much only read Kant on aff LOL. If it's kind of a benign philosophy, it's probably good to have in the case to me whether is deon v consequentialist and how impacts are weighed under the framing. Syllogism > Independent Justifications. If you are reading util, PLEASE stop reading the Moen evidence it says a bunch of nothing and just switch to the Blum evidence.

Kritiks - I have a good understanding of Set Col, Afro-Pess (I will not vote on non-black Afro-Pess), Baudrillard, Pyscho (Lacan), and Foucalt/Agamben. I have a base level understanding of Empire, Queer-Pess, Asian Melancholy, Adorno, and Deleuze. If you are reading other authors/topics, you either 1) probably shouldn't read it because I might not understand it, or 2) explain it really well to me.

K Tricks (root cause, alt solves case) are cool, Floating PIKs are probably abusive but the other side should either run theory or ask for it in CX.

Tricks - Please delineate them and not hide them in a paragraph; that's not cool for me nor your opponent. If you're winning on tricks you're probably getting low speaks unless it's actually developed really well in your first speech and I've never seen that trick before.

Turns to tricks under truth testing is actually really cool if you pull it off you'll get good speaks.

Hey debaters, my name's Connor Taylor, he/him. I'm a freshman at the University of Arkansas and a former debate for Cypress Woods High School. I'm good with all kinds of debate (I've done LD, Policy, and Pf) but here's my listing for LD bc that's what I'm doing now. I qualified for UIL Regions, TFA State, and broke at UT to trips in 2021. Jacob Koshak was my coach, if you want to have a good understanding of my background go read that. I wanna be on the speech drop or email chain: cjtricky04@gmail.com if ur using gmail or cjtricky@icloud.com for others. For online, lets just use the online speech drop. Its way easier. I probably will disclose speaks if you ask.

TLDR - go for pomo ks or larp, I don't know id pol outside of ableism, tricks and spikes will most likely not get you a ballot, use theory as a check not as a strat. Ill give high speaks I was a recent debater I understand how brutal it is rn

1 - Pomo Ks

As long as debaters thoroughly explain the link as well as the k itself, it is my favorite form of debate. It'd be my first voter. If you don't know the K don't read one please its a no bueno. I read a lot of DnG, Baudi, and Bataille. If you go for the K, tell me why you win on the ROB page. if the rob is textual to the k, that's sick, but why does the k meet the rob and why does the rob deserve the ballot? Don't run a k if it has a bad link that's no fun

1 - LARP

LARP is fun. I did a lot of larp, most topics are good for larp. Plz don't force it read ur best strat but larping is what I would say I was probably the best at. I think good larp needs heavy on the weighing page, and inherency is something I need to take from my policy days. Plz plz don't read an aff that has already passed. Make sure

2 - Id Pol Ks

I like ableism a lot more bc I can relate to it, but I am bad with other id pol lit. Doesn't mean I wont vote on it but most Id Pol args are pess and I do not enjoy a pess round. plz plz don't run an id pol you don't actually identify with... its super gross to claim you suffer from something you don't actually suffer from.

2 - Phil

I enjoy a good phil debate. I think debates w phil are hella fun instead of boring ol util v util all the darn time. Make sure to leverage fw and why it matters. If ur running phil and u lose the fw debate, its basically over, so make sure u don't just wipe out on fw.

3 - T/Theory

T is a good argument, don't force it. I like T as an answer to actual abuse, like if they run a non-disclosed K aff or something. However, don't come in w some garbage t interp that literally breaks the ground. If you do go for T, please do a good job. I feel that T can get washed out and super duper boring to the point that the round loses its whole meaning. Theory is a good check, but I don't like it as a strat. I'm not the judge for you if you mostly do theory, the K v theory debate is fun though.

5 - Trix/Spikes

Tricks are for kids and spikes are dumb. I would vote on them, but its a low threshold for answering them. I feel like they skew the round unfair for the debate, like the "cover" speech literally cannot concede an argument or the round is done basically.

Defaults

edu>fairness - debate is a game sure, but I debated to learn about new topics n crap. Like yeah fairness matters, but education serves as a method for us to understand what is fair. If we were not educated, we wouldn't know if something was skewed. Education is the only thing we can keep from debate in the long run.

competing interps > reasonability - Unless the shell is friv, competing interps makes for better debates. If the judge can reasonably decide whether the theory is good or bad bc the debater spends time telling them to, the debater can just give a counter interp that makes the round more fun.

tech>truth - its a game but if you play the game bad you have to lose. Theory does come on the highest layer unless told otherwise (i lost on that so i know). I will say that i prolly have theory and k closer than most for layer so just tell me where to evaluate it.

Other junk

Do underviews and overviews. It won't hurt to do either and is good, makes it an easy way to the ballot. I like rebuttals that are top down and not all over the place, tell me where to flow it/when to im on paper as of writing this idk if that if that stayed

If you have any questions ask. Make jokes if you can. Don't put those dog photos for speaks I'm gonna try and give high speaks bc ik how competitive making out rounds is. As for speech, you ought to be fine unless you aren't fine. If you aren't fine you'll prolly know. Just don't be racist/sexist/homophobic. I'm open to questions before and after rounds, plz just don't post round my decision. Ill defend it, and if im somehow wrong sorry :/. Ig u got judge screwed