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 third year of high school and this is my second 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).

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- Currently debating at 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. I probably won't be persuaded by any debate bad argument and the more your offense is about the topic, the more likely I am to vote on it

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, I lean negative ideologically but will vote either way.

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!

My partner and I last year went for the K 60-75% of our neg rounds but read a very policy aff.

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!

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 tell Brett Maccay that he stole my paradigm he will give you an extra speaker point.

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

TFA UPDATE!!

if you are a K debater don't pref me. I do not know the topic well enough to adjudicate a tough K debate. If you are forced to pref me for some reason PLEASE read the K section below. (I'm begging you) Please just do your best.

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!!!!

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 requires the team 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 -- 3 years of mostly PF

Put me on the email chain, my email is cameroningramdebate@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have

most of this is taken from Vivek Yarlagedda, Ishan Dubey, and Ilan Benavi

TDLR: Tech PF Judge

---PREFS---

LARP -- 1

Theory -- 2

Plans/Counterplans -- 2

Topical Kritiks -- 3

Non-T Kritiks -- 4

High Theory/Phil, Performance, etc -- 5 (Strike)

---GENERAL---

Tech > Truth

Truth is largely determined by the technical debating in round. Debate is a game about persuasion. I am most persuaded by arguments. Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge is usually a safe bet, though not a lock. Conceded arguments are "true" per se, but only the conceded parts. "Even if" arguments and cross-applications are fair game. This should go with out saying but I will not vote on an argument that I cannot make sense of or explain back to you, even if dropped.

Prep Time

Don't steal it. Flex prep is fine. Clarification questions are flex prep.

Signposting

Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds. Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).

Cross

Cross ex is binding but you need bring up relevant concessions in a speech (it can be brief, don't waste time re-inventing the wheel). I'll likely listen to cross ex but will not flow it. Open cross and skipping GCX are good.

Weighing

Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits -- otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it.I'll be sad and you'll be mad.

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Defense

Frontline in second rebuttal -- everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," I'll be a little disappointed.

Evidence Ethics/Exchange/Thoughts

Send speech docs before you speak. This is non-negotiable for national circuit tournaments and entails, at a minimum, sending all evidence you plan on introducing. If you choose to send "specific pieces of evidence", I will not stop your opponents from stealing prep in the meantime.

Use an email chain, preferably, speechdrop, or tab for exchange. Don't send google docs, especially if you intend on disabling the option to copy and/or download. Long evidence exchanges are a huge pet peeve. The quicker and smoother the round, the better.

Marking docs doesn't require prep. Using accessible formatting on verbatim or sending rhetoric is fine so long as the cards are included as well, though I think that sending rhetoric may be a violation of some shells.

Evidence matters a lot to me. Debate is a researched-based activity. Evidence/warrant comparison plays a huge part in most of my decisions. Do it so I don't have to.

None of this is to say don't make make analytics.Sound analytics can be very convincing, especially when used to exploit inevitable gaps in logic. Smart arguments and strategic decision-making can absolutely beat quality evidence. That said, I may not catch nor vote on incredibly blippy analytics.

I encourage you to stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating NSDA and/or tournament evidence rules (generally clipping, fabrication, straw-manning, ellipses). If there is a rule against something and you are not willing to stake the round, it will be difficult to convince me that the practice merits a loss. That said, rules are a still a floor, not a ceiling.

Other

I'll probably always have done some research on the topic, but still explain jargon.

Absent warrants, I'll presume first due on non-fiated topics, and status quo on fiated topics. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.

Winning zero-risk is not impossible but will usually require solid explanation and/or evidence.

Speak at whatever rate you want so long as you are comprehensible, most people think they are clearer than they are. I was a fast-ish debater but appreciate the slow-and-steady approach. Fast or slow, pen time is nice.Do not sacrifice clarity. Slowing down on analytics and for emphasis, especially in back-half speeches, tends to be helpful. If you spread, please read real taglines (thus, additionally, etc. don't count) and actual cards otherwise flowing will be difficult and your speaker points will decrease.

I stop flowing when the timer hits 0. Time yourselves and call each other out.

I think long case extensions are bad for clash, so I have a very low threshold for extensions, BUT, they must be very clear. Ex. "We're going for our argument on X". Answering turns on arguments you're not going for is a must, however you chose to do that. I do think that extensions of things that are not case do require slightly more in depth extensions -- think turns, defense, etc, but not to the same extent as other judges. Things like impact turns and Ks do not need explicit extensions unless you want to clarify the link story for me.

If you want to read a complex/wacky argument, just be read to defend and explain it (especially the latter). You'd be surprised at how often you can win rounds on "untrue" arguments, so it's disappointing to hear such arguments read solely for comedic effect.Being strategic and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Well-warranted impact turns are often strategic: democracy, growth, food prices, climate change, disease, etc. Please supplement these with impact defense and interact with your opponent's impact evidence/explanation if you go this route. Arguments like spark are fine, arguments like wipeout are questionable.

Please label email chains clearly. Ex. "Grapevine R1 -- Winston Churchill IM (Aff 1st) vs Southlake Carroll RY (Neg 2nd)".

---PROGRESSIVE---

Theory

I prefer binary theory debates over semantical ones. I will probably ask myself: "Is X practice enough for Y team to lose the round?" Avoid theory as a crutch. I am not a good judge for frivolous theory. In elimination rounds especially, you have to win substantial offense to convince me that it is more important than substance. Substance crowd-out is absolutely an impact and one that I will implicitly consider. Lack of a CI is not always round-ending, especially if you plan on impact turning the shell; I will simply assume that you are defending the violation/status quo. Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

Defaults: Text > Spirit, CI > Reasonability, yes OCIs (non-negotiable), no RVIs (a turn or anything of the sort is not an RVI), DTA, DTD doesn't need to be explicitly said or extended -- a warrant for why something is a voter/reject the team/debater is sufficient.

Paraphrasing is bad. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. I will not directly penalize you for paraphrasing if it is not an issue in the round or unless evidence is egregiously misrepresented, in which case speaker points will suffer and you may lose. Bracketing can be just as bad as paraphrasing. If you bracket, do so in good faith. If there is a theory debate, intent matters. The only difference with paraphrasing in terms of penalization is if there is clearly excessive bracketing then I will decrease speaker points and call you out.

Disclosure is probably good and open-sourcing is probably the best way to do so. I do not think OS qualifies as semantical. If you read disclosure without open-sourcing, it will be a harder sell. More broadly, reading disclosure with bad disclosure practices is a colossal risk.

You only need a Content Warning if discussing something something graphic, but I do not personally think that the absence of a CW should be an in-round voting issue and opt-outs definitely aren't.

I don't love "IVIs" (short procedural arguments are different) but will vote on them if they are presented as a complete argument and won. If the abuse is clear and obvious, an "IVI" will suffice, though I strongly dislike the term.

I will never vote for call-outs, ad-homs, or arguments based on things outside of the round that are non-verifiable (I think disclosure is different but not all circumstances surrounding it). If there is an in-round issue, that's a different story.

The K

I'm interested by these arguments but do not have an amazing understanding of most of them.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T.

"Conceding" the text of a ROB does not mean the round is over: creative weighing under a conceded ROB is welcome.

Reject alts and discourse alts are probably fake, but I will vote on them if won. I'm pretty flexible with extra-topical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. (pls do that; ontological revisionism > reject capitalism)

I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".

Framework and T-FW are pretty persuasive to me. Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.

Framing/ROTB

I default to util and will evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.

Plans/Counterplans

I've run them before, I think they're good, but I'm probably pretty lenient in terms of responses. If it's a natcirc, I don't care about the rule that bans them, if it's NSDA districts or nats, you might be able to sneak it in but I probably won't eval it.

Won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.

Tricks

I won't evaluate anything I don't understand and my knowledge on these falls off a cliff once you go past "predictions fail" to "dogmatism paradox", but in general, probably just don't.

---EXTRA---

After Round

I will disclose who I voted for unless there is a rule against it. There will always be some explanation on the ballot.

Speaker points are my decision (I will not give everyone 30s because you asked) but I will try to standardize them as much as possible. I will base speaker points off of the event norms, strategy, coherence, argument quality, increments, and tournament (local, national).

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

Speaks

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor.

---NON PF EVENTS---

The PF paradigm applies, I do almost exclusively PF, but I'm not super unfamiliar with a lot of policy arguments, LD is the event I'm least familiar with.

Main difference to note is counterplans, read them, go for them, but be sure to explain them. Theory is a valid response to a lot of things, i.e. process CPs, mostly.

Winston Churchill ‘23

TU '27

they/she

Email chain: bking2@trinity.edu

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

T/L:

- promptness >> everything. disclosure when pairings are sent and sending the doc shouldn't take more than 10 seconds

- do what you do best, I have ideological biases but nothing good debate can't overcome

- please please please don't try to over adapt! I am perfectly capable and willing to listen to your best arguments

– Tech > truth

- I take judging very seriously to provide the most amount of education to everyone and to be respectful of the time and effort you put into this activity. 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]

LD------

if tricks or phil debate is essential to your strategy i am likely not the judge for you, that being said I still know how to evaluate these debates.

it would behoove you to do evidence comparison and impact calculus

many of my policy thoughts are applicable

why are we saying "we" whos we??

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."

Policy-----

Topicality:

-- yeah!! I am willing to vote for T against any aff

-- I default to competing interps

-- evidence > community consensus

-- im totally open to whatever impact you can give the best 2nr on

-- the team with the best articulation of a season of debates under their interpretation and why its uniquely good is probably going to win my ballot. TVAs/Caselists can be helpful here.

Kritikal Affs/ Framework:

-- my thoughts here are probably best summed up by natalie stone, "I’ll probably like your k aff if it has a reason why people should negate it."

-- always down for a non fwk strat but specificity is always key

-- yes I've read kritikal affs but do NOT assume I know your lit base

-- I tend to lean neg in fwk debates but I find that topic-specific aff offense is pretty compelling. I am terminally unpersuaded by debate bad args.

-- the team with the most contextual offense and thorough comparisons of a model of debate is more likely to get my ballot.

K V Policy Affs:

-- potentially my favorite debates

-- I am of the opinion that the best K debate requires great case debate.

-- im well versed in cap, set col, anti-blackness, security, realism. Anything more niche than this is cool but make sure to explain.

-- read an alt or don't, but I tend to auto-filter the link debate through the scope of alt solvency. More than happy to hear why I shouldn't though.

-- link specificity goes crazy but I will also listen to shady piks

side note for policy affs:

explain how the perm solves individual links!! it would be great if this started in the 2ac.

I adore case debates and would love to listen to 13 minutes of author indicts + case turn

Counterplans:

-- yes please!

-- CPs should be functionally and textually competitive but I have certainly been on the most abusive side of this and I've also given the 1ar on theory. I don't lean a particular way here but impact calc and comparison goes a very long way.

-- solvency advocates are a must

-- 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

-- not much to say here but link uniqueness and uq controls the link args are quite persuasive to me

-- a dramatic reading of the link wall and a substantial amount of time spent on impact calculus 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

-- condo is good but i will vote on it

-- i will judge kick the cp but the threshold for the aff convincing me not to is quite low

misc:

- 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

I’ve done PF for four years. x3

Email for chain: olaxson3846@stu.neisd.net

Truth > Tech

My Framework for judging is CBA

No Off Resolution Theory/K

Cross has no weight in round

Voters given in Final Focus needs to be extended from summary

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.

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

Email chain: natstone111@gmail.com

TLDR:
–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. Debate is a communicative game; I won’t flow things you don’t communicate to me. 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.

-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:

(Presiding Officer): Maintain order throughout the round; i.e. keep the round running smoothly. Go over all procedures before or after PO elections have ended (precedence/recency/gaveling, etc...) During PO, elections I would prefer for both candidates to briefly leave the room for ballots to be casted.

For everyone else: Reading off of Laptop's for speeches is acceptable, however I do look for eye contact. The same go for legal pads & anything else used; make sure you maintain a good level of eye-contact within the chamber.

During all speeches, cite your evidence. After the Authorship/Sponsorship & first few speeches are done, I expect clash from every other speaker. Clash-(Clashing/rebutting opponent's arguments made during the round)

Try not to focus on the pathological side of debate; prioritize the facts.

If you go over 3:10, I will not count your speech.

When questioning, please make an attempt to not interrupt either asking or answering the questions.

Judging: I will judge you off of your speaking pace, eyecontact, arguments & clash during the round (I do not expect clash to be made during the first speeches on the legislation).

Lincoln Douglas- (LD)

I judge both based off arguments and how each side holds their value within the debate. When debating prove to me why your value is better than your opponent's. When debating, I prefer a slow speaking debate (Abraham Lincoln style). I can understand some spreading but if you are going to spread please let me know; if I can't understand you I will say "stop flow", letting you know that I am no longer considering arguments in my decision.

Arguments you make have to uphold your case. Let me know the roadmap of your case before your speech.

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].