I'm not real...I'm a hallucination actually caused by black mold in schools.(Mass hysteria am I right?) Anyway, just make sure your arguments are reasonable and flow well, remember to have fun!

Name every Kanye album and you'll win

My role as the judge is to listen with openness and mindfulness and evaluate arguments given the evidence presented. To win my ballot: listen to your opponent, always provide warrants, and know what you are talking about. I'm fine with any style of debate but just let your case make sense.

If you have any questions about your round specifically, call me at (210) 982-5921

Hi! I'm Astrid, I debated for all three years of middle school! specifically public forum, modern oratory and impromptu besides debate I also did theatre including prose, poetry,and dramatic interp. I am 17 years old and in my fourth year of high school and this is my third year in high school debate,I've competed in Novice Lincoln Douglas, and Varsity Public Forum, finishing third place overall in both! :) I've also done Domestic Exemp (HS Impromptu) But my main event is Congress.

and I'll be your judge for todays round!

what I look for in a round/speeches:

-the why: why should I care? why does this affect us so much? Why should I vote for your side?

-good impacts!

-good framework and transition words

(Ex. I will now be moving to my second contention,Moving onto my last and third contention..)

-be kind! no interrupting your opponent when they are speaking, wait for your times to speak-no insulting of any sorts, only attacking I want to see is things from their case

-be loud and clear,I want to hear you this helps me judge better and therefore benefits all of us!

-confident speakers!!

-if I make any mistake during the round its okay to point it out but be kind and please don't argue with the judge

-cross fire doesn't impact too much on your ballots but if I do see you put to good use the questions asked and answers into your other speeches I will consider adding more speaker points

I can always do things like offering time signals during the speeches and taking the time if you don't have a phone or clock available!

I don't disclose the winner but I am always happy to give grows and glows (aka comments/constructive criticism) so don't be afraid to ask about that.

have fun debating and good luck :)

Winston Churchill '23- UT '27

I want on the email chain! cpepperdavis@gmail.com

they/them

Top level

I'm down for anything! I love debate, I love judging and doing debate, and I will do my best for my argumentative biases not to influence my decision.

Don't over-adapt or change your strategy after you read this- it is merely to help you understand the way I understand debate!

I will look upset as I flow, I am not upset! I am thinking!

Affirmatives

Read whatever aff you want!

--policy affs

The better your internal link chain, the better chance you won't lose on case. Case debates are probably my favorite to judge when paired with an impact turn or some sort of offensive position. I love case debates.

--k affs

I think affs should be in the direction of the topic, but if you win a persuasive reason why that's not true I will vote on it. I read K affs and policy affs. Assume I don't know your lit base, I probably don't and therefore will not know what the aff is talking about.

when you are aff vs framework, I don't care what strategy you will go for. Make sure there is offense in the 2AR.

know what the aff says, it makes it easier to leverage your impacts as offense

Topicality

I think T debates are underrated and (when done well) are really persuasive. However, I'm more likely to vote aff if you recycle generic fairness blocks rather than explaining offense about THIS topic being good.

I default competing interps but can obviously be persuaded otherwise. I don't want to hear your generic reasonability blocks and move on, tell me why your aff is reasonable under their interpretation.

You are likely to win my ballot if you have a good defense of what a season of debates look like under your model, and offensive reasons why theirs is bad.

Yes, evidence quality does matter. Yes, intent to define matters.

---framework vs k affs:

I have been on both sides of these debates frequently, I don't particularly lean either way, I will vote for the winner.

aff teams: utilize your aff, you have a built in answer to their offense.

neg teams: TVAs and switch side debate are the most persuasive arguments and more convincing than fairness.

A good explanation of why their aff specifically can be read on the negative > a pre-typed fairness rant

both teams need a solid defense of what their model of debate looks like, but emphasis on aff teams defending what that world looks like under the counter interp.

Counterplans/Disads

Not much to say here. I'm a 2A, so I have some biases towards theory args (process cp's, condo) but it comes down to the debating!

Idk read a link and be competitive!

K

I love a good K debate!

The more specific the link, the better your offense! Pulling lines from the aff, indicting their authors, etc will help you a lot!

I don't really care what K you read or your defense of framework, debate better than the other team and you will win.

Misc.

Death good, suicide good, etc will be L and the lowest possible speaks the moment it is read.

Don't misgender people, don't shrug off misgendering people!

Be nice:)

Middle school tournament debate update

if you read a k aff i will vote you up and give you a 30

about me: I am an extremely experienced debater that debated at harvard westlake for 26 years and won a couple tournaments like harvard(JV), Berkeley(novice), and the O'Connor cougar classic.

do NOT call me "Parker" "Hamstra" "Mr. Hamstra", or "Parker Hamstra", call me "JUDGE" or "Parker"

Disads:

Love disads! interact with disads or you won't win. Weighing is also important

the aff should never read defense to disads, you should straight turn everything in the 1nc

CP

Love this! I think that the more you cheat when reading a counterplan the cooler you are, but you still have to answer theory

Theory

Theory is always drop the debater and Yes RVI's - I think that policy debaters are really bad at defending their own practices so now you have to

Kritiks

Kritiks are the greatest form of argumentation in debate - I will vote on any kritik no matter what it says

Speaks

+1 for every minute that you end a speech early

+1 for making the other team look stupid

+1 for being mean in cross without yelling

-3 for yelling ever

Hello I am Parker.

Run literally anything you want and I will evaluate as long as it has a warrant, that being said be nice and don't cheat. i do LD and know nothing abt pf(don't try to gaslight me bc i know) but i will make you time your own speeches.

also weigh your impacts, I don't know who to vote for if you don't tell me.

Speaks:

nobody is perfect, but somebody can get perfect speaker points

30: what a great debater! I think I will put this ballot on my wall!

29: you made a strategic decision and collapsed

28: you were decently good and didn't drop anything

27: you participated and you weren't mean

26:said something offensive(doesn't include yelling)

if you show me that you reposted LaMelo Ball on Instagram I will give you +.3 speaks

My name is pronounced Leeee - uhh Where - ta

I did policy in high school at Winston Churchill, 2019-2023

Currently at UT ’27

Add me to the email chain: huertadebate@gmail.com

Top Level things:

Do what you do best.

Disclose to your opponents (good teams aren't scared of clash)

Do not be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, etc. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this behavior. Be cordial with your opponents. “If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.” - Yao Yao Chen

Do not say death is good in any context.

Please flow. It's a dying art. If you flow "on your computer"...stop. "A fairy dies every time you ask “Did you read x card”." - Natalie Stone

Tech> truth every time.

LD thoughts:

I'm fine with basically anything. The only things I do not like are tricks; RVIs and other fake arguments are annoying and bad for debate. Engage with your opponent and you'll be fine.

If you read more than 4 off (this is highly variable depending on the arguments you read) I will give you bad speaks. I believe to my core that you do not have enough time to develop these arguments and if you purely read them to throw off your opponent that is not a good strategy. Please engage with your opponent.

Please talk about the aff and not just the framing page. I need to know what I'm voting on rather than what lens to view nothing through.

If you have any specific questions it's probably answered in the policy section below.

Policy thoughts:

Case: I LOVE the case debate. Make it big if you can. Case turns, author indites, recuts/rehighlightings, responsive articles, any specific research makes the debate really fun and educational. I feel like everyone always forgets about the case page when it is supposed to be the “focus” of the debate.

Make it clean. Make it epic!!!!

I WILL NOT EVALUATE NEW OFF CASE POSITIONS IN THE BLOCK

Topicality: Really tough to sell sometimes but I applaud y’all who do it well. If it’s the 2nr you better have the goods. Please have real and contextual definitions from people in the field. I will default to that rather than a dictionary.

I default to competing interpretations rather than reasonability as there is no “reasonable” threshold or metric in deciding what is/isn’t “reasonable enough”.

Definitions that exclude specific actions rather than provide a caselist are more persuasive but obviously, both are great.

Disads: Severely under-utilized. Love em <3. I appreciate the in-depth research required for a good disad. Please have recent uniqueness.

Please have a specific link.

If you have an ultra-specific disad, I applaud you. Tiny debate is well-researched debate is good debate.

Counterplans: Love a really good creative counterplan. All are good with me, adv cp, actor cp, process cp, pics, etc. If you read a really generic one, I need you to have a really niche net benefit.

If you read a cp with a silly “internal” net benefit it better be real. Ie. “Do it this way because it will make x-thing better” is not persuasive. Please say something similar to “the aff causes x-bad-thing, and the cp avoids it.”

Kritiks: Preface: I am a K bro's worst nightmare. I have a VERY high standard for Ks. I was not a K debater and did not read much Kritikal literature. If you read a unique K I will need you to explain it to me very thoroughly or else I will have no idea what I am voting for. If you read something more mainstream ( Cap, Set Col, Fem adjacent args) I will have some prior knowledge but if you do not explain it well I will not spot you my understanding.

I need you to be ORGANIZED. Large stretches of text are boring and difficult to follow. Tell me where we are on the flow. Name links so everyone is on the same page. I am not a fan of big overviews with hidden arguments – I will not flow them. Put those arguments on the flow where appropriate.

For K affs - I need you to have a tie to the resolution and a thorough reason why the resolution mandates debaters to endorse/uphold/advocate for/etc what you are kritiking. I find really generic K affs quite boring but if you have something nuanced and in the direction of the topic, you’ve got my attention.

Framework – More often than not I will default to the negative in k aff debates. I need real explanations of your standards and actual responses. If your blocks don’t match up, I don’t care. Answer what is in the debate, do not rely on your preconceived answers. You actually have to think about what matters in the debate and most importantly WHY it matters to a “fair” model. Do not go for every standard in your final rebuttals. It only matters as much as you tell me it does.

ROJ/ROB: These arguments mean almost nothing at the end of the debate. I tend to default to the Role of the Judge is to decide who wins/loses and the Role of the Ballot is to indicate who won or lost. If you have a real reason why those should be different, you really need to sell it well.

For Ks on the negative – I need you to have specific links to the aff ie. Why does the aff action make your -ism worse or create a bad thing(s) for the world post-aff? It is far too easy for the aff to just say no link or win an easy perm if your link is just to the squo or a link of omission.

Floating PIKS – Do not lie to your opponents. If it’s a floating PIK tell them.

Theory: Generally, I need you to prove why the thing they did was actually bad or creates a really bad model of debate in the future. I’ll evaluate any theory arguments with some level of skepticism because you have to do an immense amount of work 90% of the time to prove violence.

Conditionality: I tend to lean on the side of "condo is good" with the caveat that all arguments need to be real and viable arguments. If you are an older team debating younger kids do not dump on them “for fun”. There is no real bright line for “how many condo is too many condo” because I think it is highly subjective to the debate itself, where it is, who’s debating, etc.

Random details:

I do not follow docs while you speak. I will open them after your speech to read ev. Please do not wait for me to receive a doc to start your speech.

Please do not send card docs at the end of the debate. I will ask if I want one.

I will say “clear” but if I can’t understand you, I will not flow you.

You will be able to tell what I think of your arguments as I am a very expressive person. Please do not take it personally.

“I won't flow things being said by anyone besides the person giving the speech.” – Ian Dill

Number or say “and” in between arguments ESPECIALLY analytics – walls of text are boring and hard to flow. If you want me to flow your arguments, be organized.

If you “insert” a case list or rehighlighting I will not evaluate it. Read it.

Winston Churchill '25

Yes chain (please), cameroningramdebate@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have

TLDR: Tech PF Judge

Winston Churchill ‘23

Trinity University '27

I coach at Winston Churchill and teach debate at Eleanor Kolitz Hebrew Learning Academy

they/them, my name is brooklyn or bk, not judge, not ma'am

Email chain: bking2@trinity.edu

Trinity has plenty of scholarships! please don't hesitate to ask me about college debate!

T/L:

- credentials: I have debated on the national policy circuit for 6 years. I've been to finals of nsda and qualed to the ndt twice, Im familiar with both styles of debating. I have judged for 2 years.

- please do what you do best. I am willing and able to judge any debate. I have the most experience in policy v k, k v k, and T framework but I hold no bias against good old policy v policy.

- I will not vote on warming good. I will vote on condo and in round "isms". I would really rather not decide a debate on out of round or personal matters.

- I appreciate promptness

- I find myself more sympathetic to pushes against understanding dropped args as true especially if they are blatantly illogical, morally abhorrent, or embedded in clash.

- Debate is an incredibly difficult activity and I understand the amount of labor and sacrifice you all put into this activity. I take judging very seriously to provide the most education and to respect your time and effort. As a result, I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind.

- Please feel free to email me with any questions you have after the round, I am more than happy to clarify, send cards, or listen to a redo! [please include the tournament name and round in emails]

Policy-----

Topicality:

2024 topic edit: who on hell is IPR?

-- im not plugged into the lit here despite hailing from the topic school, please over-explain yourself

-- I am happy to judge a topicality debate
-- I prefer evidence over community consensus

-- I enjoy in-depth comparisons of caselists, seasons of debate, and impacts

Kritikal Affs/ Framework:

-- I currently read a queer theory degrowth aff if that gives you an idea of my position here but I can be convinced that roleplaying empire defense has benefits and have voted neg on fwk many times.

-- I find myself particularly compelled by topic-specific offense.

-- sure, fairness can be an impact but like trump is president and subject formation also exists so please update your blocks

K V Policy Affs:

-- I am of the opinion that the best K debate requires great case debate. I adore case debates and would also love to listen to 13 minutes of author indicts + case turn

-- Im not very persuaded by aff theory that lacks nuance and substantive framework pushback

-- link specificity goes crazy

Counterplans:

-- my only hardline is that solvency advocates are a must and i dont flow inserted cps or whatever bs we're doing now

-- cps cut from aff solvency ev will earn you speaker points

-- we let affs get away with permutation murder and it is my moral belief that written perm texts are best policy. i would probably find myself nodding along with the 2nr telling why the 1ars bizzare extrapolation of “perm do both” is illegitimate.

Disads:

-- yeah of course

-- a substantial amount of time spent on impact calculus (with ev comparison if you really want to wow me) will make me oh so very happy. otherwise, I will be sad sifting through this "goes nuclear" mess.

Theory:

SLOW DOWN SLOW DOWN SLOW DOWN SLOW DOWN

-- yes I will judge kick the cp unless there's a reason I shouldn't

-- ASPEC is ridiculous

LD------

--if tricks or phil debate is essential to your strategy i am likely not the judge for you.

--i would consider myself a very progressive LD judge and am more than happy to evaluate kritiks, cps, etc

--it would behoove you to do evidence comparison and impact calculus

misc:

from every RFD i've ever given -"do not think about cross ex as an argument with your opponent, think about it as a conversation with the judge to showcase holes in your opponents argument. you should be asking questions, not making statements. look at the judge, not your opponent."

- I am quite expressive, you will probably know how I feel about your argument.

- I am flowing cx, why you would use this as prep is beyond me.

- Evidence quality is very important to me: peer-reviewed, written by people with relevant quals, from reputable sites, etc. Well-done evidence comparison will be advantageous to you. I will not evaluate evidence that lacks citation.

- Insertions = thumbs down. If you didn't say it, I didn't flow it. Inserting egregious rehighlighting may be my only exception.

- I prefer to listen to complete arguments. I will not decide a debate based on a six word perm answer

Graduate from Churchill HS, participated in PF for four years. x3

My Framework for judging is CBA

Truth > Tech: to clarify, I wont be making decisions based upon my own background knowledge of the subject. What I mean by this is that impacts need sufficient warrants to hold weight on the flow even if dropped by opponents.

No Off-Resolution Theory or K: Debate is first and foremost an academic opportunity. Discussing PF, the topics routinely change to give students the opportunity to learn about a new subject. Pre-fiat arguments avoid the resolution and direct debate away from learning about said subject.

Finally to check off the rest of the boxes Cross has no weight in round andVoters given in Final Focus needs to be extended from summary.

Email for chain: oliver.laxson@my.utsa.edu

p.s. Chain is up to debaters.

About Me:

I invented debate. Before you had even been conceived, I had already conquered the world. My reputation is known across the lands. Cease any efforts to deceive me, for I cannot be fooled. My decision is absolute, my spirit untamed, my flowing lazy, and I like debate.

Speaker Points:

I believe speaker points is a flawed system. I will evaluate you as a speaker, and you shall not pass. Unless you participate, in which case I will give you at least a 26.A Thirty is impossible, unless you incorporate a rhyme.

Resolution:

It's there for a reason, so stick to it.

Email Chain:

My email is "brettkellymackay@gmail.com".

Crossfire:

Answer the question your opponents ask. No games of ???? and ????. Otherwise I will be very upset ????.

Public Forum:

General:

I served my tenure in a generic office building as a lie detector. That being said don't test me. I know how to defend myself from your ruthless onslaught of misinformation

First Speech (Constructive):

Read a case, not a theory or a k. You are not a philosopher so don't try to get overly intellectual in your speech.

Second Speech (Rebuttal):

Signpost, I need to know which way albuquerque is.

Third Speech (Summary):

I would prefer if you summarized, but that is just my take on the summary speech.

Fourth Speech (Final Focus):

I need to know why you big number bigger than other big number.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Don't get lost in the sauce.

Former Public Forum debater at Winston Churchill High School.

Speaker Points:

- I will evaluate you as a speaker on a scale from 26 - 30. It is very easy to get a 30 with me as long as you are clear when speaking and demonstrate a clear knowledge of the topic. A severe lack of signposting and argument organization will knock you down points. Calling for an unnecessarily large amount of evidence will also drop you points. Only call for what you need. (shouldn't be too much)

Email Chain:

- Email chains are completely up to the two teams, but if one is started I would like to be included. My email is "thenikita0302@gmail.com".

Crossfire:

- Don't be rude in cross. Make sure you keep your cool and give everyone a chance to speak. Questions should do more than just clarification unless you truly do not understand a part of your opponents case. Questions should be asked with the goal of setting up an argument in your future speeches. I do not flow or vote off anything in cross.

Public Forum General info

- Not a fan of theory or K's but the debater is free to run them. Please do not blindly assume I'll understand your progressive arg. Make sure to clearly explain why the theory/ k is important and why it might be something I should vote on. Theory debate needs to be engaging. I don't wanna just see blocks read back and forth. If blocks are the only form of attack / defense of a theory or K in Summary speaker points will be docked.

- With framework, make sure to extend it every round and really tell me why it should be the evaluation factor. If two frameworks clash explain to me why yours matter more on a Impact, timeframe, probability scale.

Speech Specific

First Speech (Constructive):

I am fine with speed as long as your opponents are as well. Make sure you are using adequate volume and speaking clearly.

Second Speech (Rebuttal):

Frontline if speaking second. Make sure you at least say something to everything, group arguments if you must, dropping args is detrimental. Your speech should be a mix of analytics and actual evidence. Don't just read me statistics, make sure you implicate those stats and explain why they matter. Also don't just attack sources, unless they are undoubtedly corrupt or biased.

Third Speech (Summary):

Make sure you extend everything. Anything you do not mention I will not vote on regardless of if it is mentioned in ff. This speech is called the summary for a reason! Make sure to go over everything that has happened in the round and outline to me why your side has won the ballot. Lets not overcomplicate it. Remember to weigh and address framework. (if any)

Fourth Speech (Final Focus):

If your summary was good, then all you need to do in ff is wrap up the round. That means touching up on any last args on the offensive and defensive side. Weigh the round! Make sure you use impact calculus, magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope, etc... Your goal should be to write my ballot for me.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I have not spent nearly as much time in LD as I have in PF. That being said I am fine with any argument as long as you implicate it and truly explain to me why it wins. Write my ballot.

What's up y'all! I'm Rohail, a current freshman at UT Austin, McCombs and a high school debate veteran. Excited to be judging you today!

Email for chain - rmlddebate@gmail.com

Conflicts -Crash Course Debate - prep group and coaching I run, ask me for any questions (specifically Brandeis, Tempe Prep Academy + various independent debaters)

About me - I debated for Claudia Taylor Johnson for 2 years in LD and CX, in both progressive and traditional debate formats. I received won UIL State 6A LD my senior year, got 1 bid to the TOC, and got various top-3 speaker awards at various nat circuit tournaments. I also qualified to TFA State for CX and LD, and made it to elims at NSDA Nationals.

Positions read - I read a mix of everything. I especially read lots of K's (logistics, psycho and set col were my main ones), various theory shells and a decent amount of phil (Kant, determinism, etc.). I read some policy args and trad as well. I should be able to understand whatever, but if it's confusing and not very common, err on overexplaining.

TLDR -

- I will vote on anything, literally anything, as long as it has a claim, warrant and impact and is coherent. I believe anything else is judge intervention and that is horrible, so y'all can read whatever you want. But I do draw the line at anything that's blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- Spreading - I can understand it of course, but please SLOW DOWN on the taglines and citations, and keep at an 8/10 of your regular speed ideally. I will slow and clear you if I must.

- Quick prefs - I will vote on anything, but this is based on what I actually understand, from 1-5

• K, Phil, Theory, Trad - 1

• Policy, Tricks - 2. I understand this, but please make it clear where I vote on high level CP competition debates and confusing tricks rounds.

- Tech over truth extreme.

- I will vote on whatever’s conceded as long as it has warranting. Ex - i won’t vote on ‘eval after the 1AC since the sky is blue’ since that isn’t coherent. New warrants require new responses.

- Solid advice - please weigh and collapse for everything

Specifics - opinions/facts that may help

K -

• Debated this the most so comfortable with most sides of this debate

• K’s must have a ROTB to be K’s. Otherwise it’s just a DA + CP.

• No new ROTBs or arguments in the 2NR

• I find weighing on the ROTB flow pretty strategic

Policy

• Didn’t do this as much as other forms of debate but should be comfortable judging it

• Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh! If both cause extinction, then idk what to do lol, neg on presumption!

• Case debate and impact turns are smart!

Theory

• If you do not read a DTD implication on a shell or at least X is a voter, it is not a theory shell. I will not read voters/paradigm issues for you

• Weighing a shell to its voters and collapsing on a shell is smart!

• If you read theory, have proper extensions. Too many times i hear ‘they dropped this, we win’ and that’s it. Extend your arguments and explain them

• Fine with friv theory as long as it’s explained well. If the shell is really 'frivolous' opponents should have no problem answering it. Default to CI so offense over all

• Default - Competing interps, no RVIs

Phil

• Phil debate is dying sadly.

• I have no inherent attachment to util/consequentialism, good with whatever

• If it’s complex philosophy, overexplain

Tricks

• Fine w tricks but so many debaters have no warrant. Make sure you have a warrant and an impact

• I default to comparative worlds, but am totally fine with truth testing. For a lot of tricks, you must win TT first.

• Please have warrants. I won’t vote for stuff i don’t understand

Trad

• Heavy experience in this form of debate. Feel free to run whatever you would like.

• I am tech over truth. I care less about your ability to speak and more about WHAT you are speaking and what your arguments are.

• Many trad debaters forget the criterion debate. This matters more than the value. Please please weigh under your criterion.

Speaks

• I have lost so many random rounds because of speaker points. I'll probably err higher on speaker points, but they'll be more focused on arguments and strategic choices rather than presentation
• Will vote on speaks theory!
• If you read disclosure against a trad opponent or novice, you won't like your speaks.

Winston Churchill ‘23, UT Austin ‘27, you can just call me Natalie!

Email chain: natstone111@gmail.com

----LD----

If it takes you less than an hour to correctly send an email +30 speaks

TLDR:

—I don’t know much at all about this topic; I’d appreciate a little bit of extra explanation so I can better judge you!

–I really like debate, and I like people who like debate. I have ideological tilts, but there’s no need to over-adapt to me.

–Tech over truth

–I have some involuntary facial twitches, don’t read into my expressions.

-I would prefer not to adjudicate things that happened outside of the round. That being said, Title IX investigations and Twitter beef are largely different offenses.

Things I like:

–Cross-ex. It’s useful! Thought-out cross-ex strategies are always obvious and very productive. If you’re running prep instead of cross-ex, what are you doing?

–Adaptivity. Nothing wrong with sticking to your A-strat, but capitalizing on mistakes will make my decision easier and your speaker points higher.

–Clarity. I’ll certainly open your docs to read ev, but I won’t fill in missing arguments on my flow. I'll call clear if I'm having trouble flowing

–Debaters who treat me and their opponents like human beings.

Things I dislike:

–Insertions. Inserting perm texts, counterplan texts, and re-highlightings is bad practice. My only caveat to this rule is if ev has been misrepresented and large surrounding areas/paragraphs are necessary for context.

–Not flowing. A fairy dies every time you ask “did you read x card”.

–Clash intolerance. Refusing to disclose, not answering cx questions, or generally being shifty, is a no from me. I would love to vote on disclosure theory.

-Being super aggro. Why?

K Affs and FW:

–These are my favorite debates. I’ve been on both sides of it, but I probably lean neg ideologically. Nuance and contextualization behind your model of debate goes a long way.

–The most persuasive 2NR’s can encompass some portion of the aff’s offense, do good comparative impact calculus, and condense down quite a bit. I think 2NRs on framework can easily get unorganized and go for too much. Also, don’t drop the aff’s disads.

–I’ll probably like your k aff if it has a reason why people should negate it. I think that question ends up being the crux of these debates. If unanswered, I’m probably voting neg.

–I don’t like k affs that straight up negate the topic and dump k links into a 1AC. They feel lazy and clash-avoidant. That being said, if you have a genuine reason to negate the res, I’m down. I prefer k affs with unique takes on their relationship to the topic.

–Identity and performance affs are fine.

–If you’re reading a k aff, I don’t care if you want to impact turn framework, or go for a c/interp. That being said, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that debate is irredeemably bad, that this singular ballot has a significant impact, or that rules of a game are equivalent to real world violence.

–I prefer clash impacts to fairness ones, but you do you. I think fairness is a worse explained impact, not a worse impact. Fairness is the ability for judges to resolve a debate in an equitable manner, which I think is really important! However, debaters having to read critical literature isn’t unfair.

–Debate is certainly a game, but it can be many other things as well! The best K affs account for competition and use it to their advantage.

K V Policy Affs:

–I never extensively read or went for k’s other than cap and fem. I feel familiar enough with anti-blackness, security, set col, and liberalism/realism k’s. As far as anything more niche than what I listed above, I’m down, but please take a few moments for thesis explanation.

–I’d prefer you defend an alternative, but I suppose the scale of what constitutes solvency is up to you, make it as large or small as you like.

–Specificity and uniqueness of the link will guide my decision a lot. An aff specific, well-developed link with some alt solvency claim will make me skeptical of aff framework pushes about mooting the 1AC. That being said, a framework 2NR is fine by me.

–Biological death is bad and human suffering is bad.

–I dislike the fiat k.

Topicality:

–Love it. Read your questionably topical aff. Go for T. I'm probably better for the neg.

–Evidence > community consensus. Competing interps > reasonability. Impact calc >>>.

–I don’t really have a strong opinion regarding what internal links and impacts are best. Decide based on your 2NR vision and explain it well. Ground, limits, precision, education, fairness, etc are all perfectly viable.

–I care most teams having a defensible vision of a season long of debates. Whether it’s three affs good, or functionally no limits good, I want you to paint a picture of what affs will look like, what neg teams will go for, how that will change between tournaments, and why it’s good.

–Evidence quality matters a lot in these debates. Intent to define and exclude matter. Author quals matter.

–Reasonability has become 2A whining. Reasonability is guided by the lit base and thus must be grounded in it. Aff teams should cut quality T evidence, otherwise I probably will have a hard time assigning any precision, debatability, or education claims much weight.

Counterplans:

–Yes please.

–As far as counterplan theory like consult, certainty/immediacy, textual/functional competition I genuinely think I fall exactly in the middle. I double 2-ed my senior year going for process counterplans on the neg and theory on the aff. Comparative impact calculus and line-by-line go far. I care most about 2NR/2AR offense that centers around clash and quality debates.

–Sufficiency framing means basically nothing and I will judge kick if told.

–Well researched and well applied advantage counterplans are OP.

-You probably don't need to read that overview.

Disads:

–I love good link spin, comparative impact calc, and disad 2NRs.

–Link controls uq/uq controls link arguments are very persuasive to me and make decisions much easier. If not instructed by debaters, I’ll have to assign it myself anyways.

–Aff teams should turn straight turn disads more often.

Misc:

–I’ll keep prep and dock your speaks if you’re stealing it. Sending the email isn’t prep, but sending an email does not require typing.

Congressional Debate:

I have competed in congressional debate from 2022-2024 competing in the TFA, UIL, and NSDA circuits. I am a TFA tournament champion, UIL & NSDA qualifier for their championships. I do not say these things to brag, rather it is to express the experience that I have in this event. As a judge I will rank all competitors under the following criteria:

Competitors: When presenting your speech make sure you maintain decorum, i.e. ensure that respect and attentiveness is present.

For sponsorship speeches as well as for first speeches in negation of legislation, I will not consider your rank in terms of clash (the ability for you to consider other(s) positions on the legislation and either expand or negate them). As for all other speeches on legislation clash is a necessity if you want to be competitive. No clash = lower rank.

Uniqueness matters. Every speech that is given on either side has to present content that is new to the debate or has already been brought up but is presented in a way that extends on the point and maximizes its importance. If you fail to achieve this criteria it will guarantee a lower rank in the competition.

Topicality is key: If you want to give a speech on the legislation whether it be for or against it, make sure that not one but all your points in your speech stay relevant to the legislation. For example: The legislation wants to remove funding from schools that utilize standardized testing. Topical Argument: Standardized testing allows for benchmarks and indicates which areas schools need to improve to better student success. Untopical argument: Standardized testing in schools is beneficial because it establishes the norms of the workforce that students will eventually join when they graduate.

Evidence: While all arguments are subjective, facts are objective. Without evidence to support your claim, it is vulnerable as it can be. This is not to discredit statements that may not need evidence to support; whether it be empirical or theoretical evidence, make sure you include and explain the impacts of it and how it benefits your position on the legislation.

Key Takeaways:

- Be respectful to all competitors

- Clash is a necessity to be competitive

- Ensure uniqueness in your speech(s)

- Maintain topicality

- Always include evidence (empirical or theoretical)

- No crutch words (um, (long gaps of silence), etc...)

Presiding Officer:

I have debated in congressional debate for a number of years long enough to know that you promise a "Fast, fair, and fun" round with equity and fairness ensured. I will ensure that you keep your promise to the chamber by keeping you up to the following standards:

I will also be following along with recency and precedence throughout the round on my sheet; if an error occurs in speech or questioning selection, I will call a point of order and state what the error is. All errors will be considered in my ranking of the presiding officer so ensure that you minimize them for a competitive rank.

I will prefer if you share the PO sheet with me and the other competitors in the chamber if it is online; I do believe the PO may do an exceptional job if they track precedence and recency on paper: just make sure that all competitors as well as I may be able to view it at any reasonable time during the round.

As the presiding officer, I will ensure that you maintain decorum during the round as well. If competitors are disrespectful, unethical, not in-line with congressional debate rules or standards, it is your job to call them out on it and to ensure they nor any other competitor doesn't indulge in the same behavior. I as a judge share responsibility in this as well, however you have the gavel and you were elected to do this for a reason. This is how we ensure "Fast, fair, and fun" rounds.

Disclaimer: I do believe that the presiding officer may be the top rank within a round: the only way this may be achieved is through minimized error and a speedy debate procedure.

Contact:

If for whatever reason you may disagree with my rank for you and or want more feedback on judging please email me at grantstoppel77@gmail.com

Please include your name, school name, and what tournament I had judged you at for me to ensure I can respond to you in my best ability.

Top-Level:

---Put me on the email chain:ryan.debate.rr@gmail.com

---Call me whatever during round, whatever is most familiar/comfortable

---Please organize the subject---"[Tournament Name] [Round #]---[Aff Team vs. Neg Team]---J: Whalen, Ryan"---close is close enough

Affiliations:

Reagan High School ['20 - '24]

University of Texas, Austin ['24 - '28]

Thoughts:

[Influenced by Philip DiPiazza and Tristan Rios]

---Treat me as a "tabula-rosa" judge - I'm fine with anything and everything as long as you give me explicit judge instructions and argument interactions [or WHY your arguments are right/matter]

---Now, that excludes racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic, xenophobic arguments which will render the lowest speaks possible and insta-L [not the same as impact turns]

---Spread as fast you can, but do so clearly. I will only evaluate arguments that I can take down/properly hear. If you're going to spread through blocks, either send them out... or just don't.

---Don't be rude, respect your opponents/judges, have fun, and if you can, be fun [which will get you +0.5 speaker points].