Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.

Email:

brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!

Worlds:

I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.

PF:

Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.

LD/CX:

Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.

Speech:

I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.

Hey dudes !

I am a rad debate dad. I’ve judged world schools pretty frequently and consider myself to be a pretty okay judge. I’ll vote you up on style content and strategy, but really try and sell what you’re saying to me.

truth> tech

signposting will help you a lot

im a proud speech dad:)

speech events for me:

info, OO :

am I being informed , am I being persuaded and am I being entertained? This all is important to me in these events

try your best to know your material back and forth so you are able to make the best presentation possible when it’s Go time ????

DI, HI:

Does your piece move me and bring emotion to the surface-is it thought provoking ?

Congress : this always is entertaining to me

a good mix of speech and worlds debate here-

Please know your bills and cases for them - I pay attention close to that as well as the cross fire of questions afterwards and how you respond or how you are asking the questions if you are in that case

PF/LD-

this is all about your cases being built very strong - so this is research and memory and able to be quick on your feet in the crossfire questioning

please no spreading

amen.

let’s have some fun!

I did public forum debate for 4 years at Westlake (graduated 2022), qualified to the TFA twice and the TOC once. SPEECHDROP, don't email me.

Tech>truth. I can evaluate a flow

I don't have any topic knowledge but it shouldn't matter. Bring up everything you want me to know in speech.

Don't go too fast. I haven't debated for a while and was never great with too much speed, especially if you're unclear. I evaluate MY flow, so I can only evaluate the responses and weighing that I was able to hear and flow in round.

Don't say anything offensive or I'll tank your speaks and potentially down you.

Be respectful to everyone in round or I'll tank your speaks.

As far as progressive argumentation goes, I'm fine with theory and probably okay with K's (I ran a couple cap Ks but otherwise am not super familiar with any others, though I generally know how they work. also keep in mind I did PF). Friv theory is fine, but my threshold for responding to it will be lower than it would be for a regular shell. Extend all parts of a theory shell and the underviews that you want to be considered in summary/final.

Disclosure is good but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Paraphrasing is probably bad but I'm more lenient to it than a lot of judges and I won't hack for it if you can't defend it. Content/trigger warnings are good and it will be difficult to sell me on tw bad theory, but I won't hack for it if you can't defend it.

Second rebuttal has to frontline. Summaries have to extend everything you're going for (defense is not sticky) with warranting (NOT just card names and jargon) and should collapse. Everything in final needs to be in summary. You should point it out if your opponents bring up new stuff in final so that I can scratch it off in case I didn't catch on. With the exception of second constructive, arguments are dropped if they aren't covered in the next speech.

I presume by flipping a coin unless told to do otherwise in round.

I don't look at evidence unless I'm told to call for it/it becomes a major point of contention. Indicts need to have clear warranting.

PLEASE weigh. Your defense is probably not as good as you think it is and I will need weighing to evaluate the round. Strength of link is not a real weighing mechanism. Probability usually isn't either. If your opponent reads responses as "probability weighing" or does strength of link just point it out and tell me to scratch it off my flow so I don't have to evaluate it.

If you egregiously misconstrue evidence, I will drop you. So far I have been relying on kids to point this out during round, but from now on if I notice it and its badyou're done.

As a judge, I highly value the art of oration, emphasizing the demonstration of skill, poise, and the meticulous presentation of detailed evidence. I understand the challenges posed by virtual delivery and expect participants to approach the event with the same level of preparation as they would for an in-person competition. For virtual performances in, I request that the camera be positioned to capture the speaker's full body or at least knees and higher, if feasible.

While I acknowledge the importance of author's intent, I firmly believe that it should not be the sole determinant in ranking a round. Mature material, including the use of profanity or expletives, is acceptable to me as long as it is not excessive and serves a necessary purpose, such as contributing to the climax, character growth, and/or development.

For safety reasons, I refrain from handshakes. As the NCCFA NATIONALS champion for prose poetry and a consistent judge at TFA state 2022, and 2023. As well as the district qualifying competitions from 2018 to date, I have also judged a variety of debate events including Congress, CX, and Lincoln Douglas. My experience has honed my ability to provide students with valuable feedback to enhance their speaking abilities both within and outside the competitive rounds.

last updated: 3/10

Ammu Christ (they/them/their)

Midlothian '22

UT Austin '26

please add both garlandspeechdocs@gmail.com and graduated@gmail.com to the chain

active conflicts: Garland (2024) + various independents

**Follow the bolded portions of the paradigm if you need to skim.

---

post-TFA State 2024 updates:

The state of LD has always been in a desolate state, but this past weekend has been extraordinarily disappointing. The frequency of judging beyond this point is up to my wellbeing and being compensated beyond minimum wage.

1 - I'm not sure why debaters feel the need to be cutting necessary corners to explain and win their arguments sufficiently well. It disservices you from winning by underexplaining your arguments and hoping I can make

2 - Be considerate when you're postrounding your judges. Many of us are paid well below minimum wage and volunteer/prorate lots of hours into the activity with little to no return in favor of keeping the community having adequate judging. I'll do my best to explain how I reached my decision and answer clarifying questions, but if you expect me to automatically change my decision, its too late, try again next time.

3 - I am not your babysitter and will give you a stern look if you or any person in the room acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Especially things such as grabbing another debater's laptop without their permission and turning it towards the judge.

4 - I hold absolutely no sympathy for individuals that don't make a concerted attempt for disclosure (ie explicitly refuse to send their cases over, not disclosing on opencaselist dot com) and then read some 2000s-esq theory shell saying they are unable to engage with the 1AC. Go argue with your coach, not me.

5 - It should go without saying that if I find out that you attempt to make a structural/ontology claim (or analogously use some grammar of blackness) through cutting a sui**de note as your basis, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will contact your coach either by the RFD or directly. Absolutely ridiculous.

---

I would best describe myself as a clairvoyant when it comes to judging. I have no strong feelings when it comes to how I evaluate arguments, and feel that I agree with a wide spectrum of opinions and debate takes, even the usual divide that exists within educational/“non-educational” forms of debate.

I will vote up anything except anything morally repugnant (see: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) or out of round issues. Some arguments require a lot more instruction than others in front of me, choose accordingly.

General takes:

• Evidence determines the direction of argument quality - Bad arguments will either have little to no evidence, but it is possible to spin smart arguments from bad evidence. Arguments without evidence is definitely doable, but then again, y’all are high schoolers.

• To win an argument, you need to sufficiently win that it has a claim, impact, and warrant.

• The 1AC will “set the topic” (whether it adheres to the resolution or not), the 1NC will refute the 1AC in any form. I am inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative world is more preferable than the status quo or a different world proposed by the negative.

• Debate is a communication activity. It may or may not have “spillover” into the real world. I am of the opinion, by default, we probably don’t. I can be convinced either way, though.

• My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting.

• At bare minimum, I need to get submit my ballot in before tournament directors nag on me. Other than that, do whatever other than being violent.

• As a neurodivergent person, it is sometimes a bit hard for me to follow implications/strategies of things as well as deciphering rebuttals. My favorite type of rebuttals will respond to things top-down in the order of the previous speech and/or group and do sub-debates in specific areas on my flow. Your speed when it comes to the rebuttals should be 70% of the speed of the constructive.

• I care a lot about form and content. The 2NR/2AR must isolate and collapse to one argument (most of the time). I am very receptive to arguments that specifically complicate the reading of multiple conflicting positions in the rebuttal. (See: a non-T aff going for condo, collapsing to multiple Phil positions and a util advantage, etc). This doesn’t really apply if conflicting positions are read before the rebuttals.
• I default no judgekick.

• I think I’m pretty good at nearly transcribing most speeches. My typing speed spikes anywhere between 110-140 words per minute. I tend to flow more and try to isolate warrants since my brain tends to forget immediately if I don’t write down full warrants/explanations for things. Not a you problem, just a neurodivergent thing. In terms of speed, not a problem, just need clarity and will clear you if it is not present or give up not typing anything if I can’t legibly type anything.

• Speaks are based on execution, strategy, collapse, and vibes. 28.2-28.6 is the cume for average. 28.7-28.9 means you’re on the cusp for breaking. 29-29.3 means you’ll break and reach early/mid slims. 29.4+ means you will go deep elms and/or win the tournament. Not all speaks are indicative of this, but normally they will try to follow this guideline.

LD specific takes:

• Pref guide:
• I feel best apt to evaluate K, non-T, policy, Util/Kant debates.
• I can adequately evaluate theory. I find that these debates aren’t impossible, but I definitely will be thinking a lot more harder in these debates.
• Exercise caution around tricks and “denser phil” (anything not Util or Kant). I can still evaluate these, but I find in these debates I need arguments overexplained in terms of strategy for me to follow.

• I default comparative worlds over truth testing. I think offense under either form of argument evaluation is doable, but I need that blatantly explained to me.

• I’ve changed my thoughts on tricks. I think that I was formerly being dogmatic by saying they don’t hold “educational value”. I actually don’t care now. Read them if you fancy these arguments, but I require a lot more judge instruction to understand strategy/collapse.

• As formerly for tricks, I’ve also changed my thoughts on theory. A shell must have a violation to be legitimate. See below in a later section about specifics with theory offense.
• A caveat for evidence ethics theory. I do not find this shell convincing at all. In order to win with this shell in front of me, the alleged violation must prove that there was malicious intent with the altercation of evidence. I will also ask if both debaters would like to stop the round and stake the round on evidence ethics. If the person who read the shell says no, my threshold for responses on the shell automatically goes down to the lowest possible amount of responses. The threshold to win the argument at this point becomes insanely steep.

• If I haven’t made it clear already, please spend more time explaining function and implications of these arguments if you want to win my ballot. I find that I am following these arguments more better than I was like a year ago, but you should do more work to overexplain to me to win. I don’t know to make that more obvious.

• I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater on theory shells.

• I am willing to zero out a theory shell’s offense if there is no real violation. It is up to the person reading the shell to prove that there is either a textual or functional violation in the first place. No amount of competing interpretation justifications will matter if there is no violation to the shell. I don’t care if the violation is textual or functional, I just need one to grant offense to the shell in the first place.

• I find that paradigm issue debates are sailing ships in the night — you should really group them whenever they’re spread across multiple pages. If the warrants to your paradigm issues are the same I’ve heard over the past year and a half, I will flow them as “dtd, c/I, no rvi” (and vice versa when responding)
• I enjoy unique warrants to paradigm issues, but find non-T offs trying to come up with their own warrants sort of fall flat if they reject a conception of debate.

• IVIs need an impact when introduced. Will not vote on these without one.

• I default theory > K >= content FW > content — this is a rough diagram and open to different justifications for weighing.

• You can find any other relevant thoughts on the K and policy here in the archive for December 2023. My thoughts really haven’t changed as much for the K nor policy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KidiW8WJQi0-PWf2lx33GPi9kiRySLl1TbV_fGZ1PY/edit?usp=sharing

You can request a copy of your flow at any point after the RFD is given.

Good luck! :>

About Me:

Jack C. Hays High School CO'2019

UT Austin CO'2023

Add me to the email chain: jackcoffey@utexas.edu

Events I have experience from actually doing in High school: Extemp (FX/DX/UIL Extemps), Congress, PF, LD, World Schools

I have experience judging other speech events too: Info/OO/DI/HI/Duo/etc.

My primary events overall were extemp & congress and I have experience on the local, state, and national level after having competed all throughout high school.

PF/LD Debate:

For PF, I generally always vote based on impact calculation. So pretty much tell me why your side does more for whoever or why the other side doesn't do enough for me to vote for them. Weighing on what side is more important and which has more to gain is really how I prefer to do my ballots. Always tell me what side is winning and why I should vote for them and how the debate has progressed to preferring their side. For framework, I won't vote based on it unless you make a point out of it on why I should. Really framework doesn't make or break a ballot from me unless a team explains why it's relevant and why it essentially causes one side to win over another. Overall, the easiest way to get a ballot from me is through impact calculation on which side brings more to the table or why the other side does not do enough. My biggest evaluation for a ballot is always impacts. Please avoid spreading and watch the speed. I am a more traditional judge so speaking so fast to the point I can barely understand you is not always going to be the best option for you. Please avoid speed, especially when explaining things. Being a bit faster on reading cards is okay I guess, but I prefer having less speed overall.

For some niche things, if you do not mention an argument from either side or touch debate it in any way, I am just going to assumed it has been dropped. While I can keep time if you want, it is not preferred, so please time yourselves.

In regards to presentation, since it is PF debate and meant to be easily accessible to the public, please don't spread especially in the later speeches. More speed will make me less likely to understand what is being said and gives me little reason to vote for your team. Pretty much consider me more of a lay judge than anything. For speaking, just be clear and concise really. Also I really don't like rude or spiteful speeches no matter how the debate has ran.

More LD Specific Stuff:

I am not a totally progressive judge when it comes to some arguments so if I do not mention them below, just assume I have no experience in those types of arguments and avoid running them at your own discretion unless you think you're just that amazing to introduce me to a new argument and compelling enough to get me to vote on it:

Plans/Counterplans (CP) - Completely cool with me, just be sure to explain what it does and how it causes your side to win the debate. Plans/CPs are acceptable in PF for me.

Topicality (T) - Topicality is cool as long as you explain why the other side violates topicality in regards to the debate.

Kritiks (K) - I am very new to this kind of debate, but I am generally okay with it as long as you don't have a ton of speed whilst explaining. Additionally, you need to explain what harms/impacts are brought on when you assert your opponent violates the K argument. For example, if you run capitalism K, explain to me why capitalism is bad. So many people have just said that I should vote for them because capitalism is bad without explaining much how or why it is bad. I know this is super basic but you have to explain why other teams violating the K argument is a bad thing (whether it be capitalism, settler colonialism, states, etc.). Tell me why capitalism is bad and why I should vote for you!!

For speaker points, I generally give higher speaks to people who are more clear, articulate, and organized. The lowest I usually give to people is ~27 unless they have done something so bad such as being rude or very disorganized throughout the whole round to warrant something lower. Speed plays a part in speaks in that I do not prefer spreading and speed is not my forte in a round. Overall, as long as you are organized and well articulated and respectful throughout the debate I will give you decent speaks.

Extemp/Speech:

I did both FX & DX in high school so I have experience in these events and know what an appropriate speaker looks like. For your speeches, you should obviously be well-spoken and organized in throughout your round. In particular for content, good extemp speakers are able to articulate information from a wide array of sources and convey it in a manner that is articulate and entertaining. Specifically, I prefer speakers who are informative and/are entertaining by incorporating humor, emotional content, pertinent information and a wide array of relevant sources. Being funny when relevant and doing it well will always gain good points with me! Additionally, always be sure to EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Many people often just give me some facts and expect the audience to make something of it. Explain what information is important and why! Tell me what it means and how it pertains to the question of your speech. For the beginning of your speech, it should be a well done introduction that at least initially catches my attention through a thought provoking or funny statement, provides some background to your topic, tells me the question verbatim, provides me your answer and a preview of your points. For your actual points, you should aim to provide at least 2 sources of relevant information and have some structure within each point to have some flow and organization. Within each point you should again always explain the information you present to give some good insight into the importance of each point and why the audience should essentially care.

In regards to performance and presentation, I prefer speakers who speak clearly with adequate speed since a lot of people get nervous and tend to speed through their speech and use up their time. As a speaker, you should aim to be relaxed and be able to balance the time you are given throughout your speech to make the most of your presentation. Moreover, having a good physical presentation is preferred such as a good usage of hand gestures, appropriate movement (such as a slight walk when transitioning between points), and maintaining eye contact with your audience.

For cross-examination, I don't put too much emphasis on this as it is not something I would consider making or breaking your speech. Really, I just look for speakers who are kind and respectful and are able to defend their points and know their own topic well. Pretty much just don't be rude or sarcastic and you'll be fine with me.

Congress:

Pretty much refer to my extemp/speech paradigms. I have tons of experience of doing Congress from high school so I know what to look for and how good speakers are supposed to look. For your speeches, aside from the first or second affs/negs of the bill, all speeches should include some sort of clash or argumentation of the other speakers' arguments. This is congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving.

Presiding Officers should aim to be quick, effective, organized, and knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure. Just maintain precedence for speakers and be transparent about what is being done so the whole chamber understands what is going on. Making mistakes is okay as long as it is not a pattern so I know you really know what you're doing. Also it's cool with me if you time with your phone as the P.O., just make sure it does not become a problem through using it for communication or if you have tons of notifications that can be distracting.

World Schools Debate:

Just refer to the Speech and LD/PF portion of my paradigms as that is how I generally judge speakers and how I view a round is supposed to look. I do have experience in Worlds so I am pretty aware on how the event runs. Just be well organized, clear, and articulate. As a side note: avoid using more progressive arguments (theory, topicality, k's, etc.) as they are not to exist in worlds in my opinion. Overall, just provide clear impacts and weighing throughout the round and you'll be fine.

CX Debate:

I have no experience in this event and should not be judging it unless you like relatively traditional PF judges.

Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol

Tabula Rasa

Debate is a game

K's, T, disads, theory, and any progressive args are fair ways to play

I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them

you're probably not winning a generalized theory bad IVI in front of me,

if you think you've encountered bad theory, read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive

default competing interps

speed is fine

feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision

will.erard@gmail.com

For readers:

I flow real good so follow the rules

No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read extinction framing or struc vi in final

Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped

If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore

You should frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary

I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech

I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess

FOR LD

tech pf judge

larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise

theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably wont mess it up

T: T is cool i guess

Ks: mostly familiar with the structure but not with the lit, go easy on me, I might mess it up but I'll try my best

fine with spreading as long as I have the doc

ask specific questions if you have them!

Email – chrisgearing333@gmail.com – chain me up

i will vote on pretty much anything as long as you justify it in the context of the round.

I default to reasonability on procedurals and theory.

Non-CX events: I’ll vote on whatever, cool with speed, you do you.

My email is mbglasheen77@gmail.comif you have any questions! :)

UT '26

I did high school debate for 4 years and have both local & nat circuit experience. I did pf for 2 years and qualified to TFA both times. I consider myself a pf judge.

If I hear you were discriminatory or bigoted in any fashion at any point, in or outside of the round, you will immediately get tanked speaks for the rest of the season.

Before the round

• Include me in the email chain (knayeon117@gmail.com)

• If you are going to spread (full on ld/cx level spreading, double breathing and whatnot), send me a speech doc. Unless you plan on reading that fast I won’t need a speech doc.

• I don't care about how fast you read as long as you send me all the evidence/arguments. If I miss an argument that is not on the speech doc, I won't put it down on the flow. It is your responsibility to articulate your arguments well enough for me to understand.

In round

• tech > truth.

• If evidence A says sky is green and evidence B says sky is blue, please weigh and tell me which evidence I should prioritize or I would be forced to intervene and believe what I think is true (evidence B). As long as you weigh evidence A over evidence B, yes I will believe that the sky is green.

• I like framework when it’s run well. 2nd rebuttal is too late to read an overview/framework of any sort: the round is already too crystalized for you to tell me what I should prioritize first and foremost when signing the ballot and if you are going to run framework, you should be willing to sacrifice your speech time to expand upon it- aka take the risk of going first. Utilitarianism is the default weighing in round unless you tell me otherwise.

• I don't vote off of cross unless it is completely mind blowing. Most of the times, I won't be paying attention to it. If you want to bring up something from cross in your later speeches, shout "Judge, this is important" or something along those lines during cross so that I can note it down. Don't turn cross into a shouting match and don't be rude.

• Don’t extend your own case in both rebuttals and in 2nd rebuttal you HAVE to frontline or you’ll automatically lose the round. Reextending cards in case isn’t frontlining.

• Defense isn’t sticky

• Whatever goes conceded in summary can’t be brought up in final focus and in summary go beyond just reiterating what went on in rebuttal and be interactive with your opponents’ argument.

• In final focus, the round should be narrowed down to 1 or 2 voters and I honestly don’t like it when you overcomplicate things by trying to go for multiple things when you can just focus on one voter and extend it really thoroughly. A good final focus should mirror summary and quite literally tell the judge how to write their ballot.

• Progressive arguments : I probably won't be able to evaluate progressive arguments to an extent that LD/CX judges do, so keep that in mind whenever running them.

• YALL PLS DON'T BE LIKE "OH THE SPREADING WAS ANALYTICAL" I CAN'T FOLLOW ALONG, ALWAYS SEND A SPEECH DOC

• I don’t want to see a pf round turn into LD 2.0 so if you are going to run progressive arguments, make sure it fits into the format of a PF round. Don’t spread like 5 off and expect me to follow along w/o a speech doc and I honestly don’t think any education can come out of a round that a judge can’t understand properly.

• Kritiks: this is the progressive argument I feel most comfortable in judging, in most cases I probably won’t have any trouble evaluating them.

• Theory: If you are going to run it, do it well. What I mean is if you would like to run theory as a sole voting issue in the round, you would need to put in time and effort to persuade me into thinking that I should drop the debater (which is a pretty high goal). If you are going to read it as a time suck and ultimately end up kicking it (which you totally can), don't expect me to account for the t shell in making my decision. Also, don't be abusive with theory. If you're objectively from a big school with lots of resources running theory to a small school who doesn't even know what theory is, I don't think the round would be very fair. In short, don't run theory just because you want an easy win and don't weaponize it.

• don’t be abusive/disrespectful with progressive arguments

• Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, discriminatory, or derogatory in any manner. That would result in a 25L. If you're going to run an identity based argument(especially afropessimism, orientalism, LGBTQ+ literature, etc) don't do it unless you're part of that community.

• Please weigh. If you and your opponents both do everything right and I'm left with two valid arguments that say the opposite, it is quite literally impossible for me to determine who the winner is without intervening. Tell me why your evidence or logic is better than your opponent's.

WSD Paradigm

• yall pls don't sound like this https://youtu.be/tj7n9Cnbmu8?si=pCJCPt634i-zjD8s&t=76
• the so called "worlds accent" is my biggest pet peeve
• the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
• the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
• each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
• i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to startat the latestin the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
• if you want me to vote on argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing inanyof them, i will not evaluate it

Tuloso Midway’ 22

UT CBHP’ 26

Hey, I’m Shreya Komire (she/her/hers). I did speech and debate for five years and primarily competed in CX, FX, DX, Informative, and Oratory (+Extemp Commentary in NSDA Supps). I have experienced a majority of speech and debate as I competed on the TFA, UIL, and NSDA circuits for a range of events.

For debate rounds: Please put me on the email chain: heyshre@gmail.com (to make it easier and organized: subject line the email: Tournament XYZ: Team AK vs. Team XK, Round #). I am fine with paper debate if that’s what you do, but please try and have copies for flashing. I don’t count flashing/emailing to prep time unless you spend an extended period of time doing so.

–My paradigm is influenced by: Chris O’Brien and Vada Janak.

Speech and debate was and is a very rewarding activity, but there are a few things I value.

• I expect everyone to not be racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, or have any hatred for any individual for their identity. Everyone has the right to themselves, so please respect one another. Be respectful and mindful of others’ pronouns too.

• Another thing, please be nice. I have been in so many different rounds, especially CX rounds, where debaters are too aggressive. Debate is meant for passion and aggression, but there is always a respectful way to do it. Don’t target one another as individuals, you are supposed to be debating arguments or ideals. Don’t belittle or degrade one another either.

• Enjoy yourselves! I hope everyone in this activity does it because they are genuinely excited to be in it. Have fun and remember your success goes as far as you take it!

If you have a question about anything, ask! I’m here to help you do well in the event, so if I need to clarify or missed something on my paradigm, please don’t hesitate to ask.

For debates, feel free to post-round me, I don’t take offense to it, I want you to get the best experience and critiques out of every round. I’ll do my best to answer any questions.

Policy:

Note: I did policy debate starting my freshman year, made three different TFA state appearances, and was the 21-22 UIL CX State Champion and received a top speaker award: I have a traditional/progressive mix, but I am not someone who lived and breathed progressive/K debate. I know and understand K’s/K Affs (in terms of literature and functionality, but I also don’t read K lit on a daily basis, so if it’s not the normal K’s, you may need to do some explanation), but am not familiar with PIKs. I am, on the other hand, well versed in traditional debate, anything with T’s, DA’s, and CP’s was my cup of tea. But also don’t feel like you need to adhere to my paradigm to the T, do what you do best and I’ll do my best to be right there with you in the round!

Evidence/Ethics Challenges: Not-so-good experiences are related to this, so please know exactly what you are calling someone out for and be ready to explicitly prove it. This is serious, not just for the team calling out someone else, but for the team that is getting called out. It gives them a moment to learn and understand if they truly didn’t know what was happening. Don’t clip or misrepresent evidence on purpose, that’s unethical and bad education/debate. I will take this challenge seriously, don’t use it as a route to a free win/clout.

Tech > Truth, unless an alternative framework is provided, but I hope if you are technically winning, you are also truthfully winning (but it doesn’t really affect my judging, just take it on face value: tech over truth).

I am a tab judge, but default policymaker unless told otherwise. Tell me how to view the round and how to vote in the round: write the ballot for me. Keep the debate organized, muddied rounds make everything more complicated than it should be for both me and your opponent(s), so signpost, slow down on tags, say “and” between cards, etc. I flow on paper, so speed is fine, but don’t overdo it. On a scale of 1-10, with one being incredibly slow, and 10 being extremely fast, I’ll rank at a 6/7 for speed. On analytic, theory, standard, or block debate (basically anything you don’t normally think to put in a speech doc), slow down a little to give me time to process the argument and flow too. But as a preference, just send me a speech doc with all of it in it, if you wish to do so. If you are worried about me keeping up with your speed, ask to give me a test run before the round, that way I can let you know.

I won’t evaluate a round-based off on CX, but I’ll definitely do my best to listen to it. I think the CX period sets up the upcoming speeches in some sense. Don’t talk over one another, don’t be rude, and don’t be condescending either.

Speaks: I did a number of speaking events and found lots of success with it. In policy debate, I hardly ever walked out of a room with under 28 in speaks, and always went for 30s (and I found a lot of success with that, with both speaker awards and even sometimes breaking merely because of high speaks). That doesn’t mean I want you to live and breathe being a perfect speaker, but I take importance in clarity of speech. I will evaluate speaks with as much rigor as I evaluate the actual debate part of the round. Although I won’t sit here and tell you debate is a communication event, learning and improving your speaking ability is what is most important in the real world, outside of debate, no matter what you are talking about.

Few more important general things:

1): explain the claim, warrant, and impact to every argument- this helps me evaluate a round as effectively as you want me to

2): be clear in your position, I debated a lot, but that doesn’t mean I know/understand every argument in existence: I’m confident in voting for politics DA’s and common T’s, CP’s, and K’s (ie. USFG T, States CP, and Cap K), but for something that is a nuanced case-specific DA, T, or CP, please explain.

3): a comparative analysis is important, that’s how I can weigh your argument

4): persuasion and passion matter too, it’s easier for me to vote for you if you are truly convincing me to do so because debating includes speaking as well

5): tell me how to vote in your rebuttal speeches especially, and tell me how and why you win

6): please mark your own cards, and send the doc if asked to do so

In-depth (Policy):

T’s-

I was a T debater (obviously read in tandem with other arguments), but T was always the easiest part of the debate round for me. As the aff, I would always jump at the opportunity to answer T and would sometimes solely talk about T in a rebuttal on the neg. I have full confidence in going for a T and winning the round, I’ve done it multiple times before, so because of that, I have full confidence in voting for a T in the 2NR. The same goes for a T against the K aff.

On the aff, I firmly believe T has 7-9 parts in its answer. I have watched teams take T as a joke and not answer it diligently and lose the round for something that can be answered effectively and efficiently. T should be answered with we meet, an answer to the violation, a counter definition, a counter standard for every standard provided, its own voters, and reasonability.

If you are going for T, it should be the only thing in the 2NR and be explained clearly without being unnecessarily repetitive.

Quality of definition matters, make sure your definition has the intent to define, is from a source contextual to the topic, and is specific to the topic at hand. It makes the debate more favorable for you and prevents an unnecessary time suck.

DA’s-

I loved PTX DA’s, and a majority of the neg rounds I have won were because of the PTX DA solely. Granted, DA’s as a whole can be and are a strategic argument in policy rounds. I am confident in voting for politics DA’s any day, given that you answered it or debated it properly. Aside from politics DA’s, I understand most DA’s pretty easy, but if it’s an incredibly nuanced DA, give a few sentences of explanation to make me and your opponents feel more comfortable in hearing it.

Case-specific links are always better to debate, but generics are perfectly fine and winnable too. Focus on the link debate, given that it inevitably shapes the winning status of the DA. That doesn’t mean ignore the uniqueness, as it is equally important. Explain internal links and show how the impact actually happens, not just because the cards say so in the tags. Say “DA outweighs the case” + your reasoning why, and on the aff say “Case outweighs the DA” + your reasoning why, it makes it easier for me to vote and more persuasive.

Turns case arguments give you an advantage in any round, given that you aren’t countering yourself and are reading them correctly. Turns case arguments don’t mean I automatically sign the ballot for the negative, but it’s a convincing argument.

Specific impact calculus is important to me in weighing your DA. Be as reasonable as possible and tell me why everything leads to nuclear war, not in a large-scale, not probable way, but in a specific scenario.

CP’s-

I am familiar with the common CPs, but tell me how the CP works, why it’s mutually exclusive, and how it solves the aff and avoids the DA, (talk about net benefits too). If there are multiple planks to the CP, explain the viability and importance of each one. For me to vote for the CP, if the aff doesn’t perm or give me a reason as to why the CP doesn’t solve, I’ll vote for it. Obviously, the perm debate is the most important with CP’s for me to decide who outweighs in argument. Feel free to give multiple perms, but unless the other team doesn’t attack any of the perms, consolidate in the rebuttal speeches to a perm.

I’ll kick the CP only if you tell me to. Unless told otherwise, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K’s-

Although I understand the fundamentals of this debate, I was not a K debater in high school. I occasionally debated K’s, primarily the Cap K. I am familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything besides that should be explained. I’ll try to catch on as quickly as possible as I have read K literature, I just never ran them in round aside from Cap and Neolib, although I have debated against them. K vs. Policy rounds are easier for me to judge because I have the most experience with these types of debates. K vs. K aff debates aren’t out of the blue for me, just not something I lived and breathed during my debate career.

If you are reading a K you think I might be unfamiliar with, I probably am, so explain the thesis of the criticism and how your K resolves the links presented. I vote on the K based on framework then the K proper. Don’t card dump or analytic/block dump in your speeches, be clear and efficient in your argument.

The link debate and alt debate frame how I view the K in the round. Tell me how the alt solves/happens, what the ballot does for the alt, and who engages with the alt. On the link debate, use resolution or case-specific links and tell me how each and every link actually interacts with the aff, not just saying “there are 8 links the aff doesn’t answer,” without being explicit about it.

Although I understand what floating PIKs are, I don’t quite fully understand how they function in a round just yet. So if floating PIKs are your thing, don’t pref me. I’m not a fan of them because I think they skew the debate and deck education/fairness in the round, but if you get away with it, I’ll vote for it.

Aff’s-

I love plan-based policy affs, as I am more familiar and understanding of how arguments interact with this type of aff. I read the EB5 aff on the immigration topic, Taiwan aff on the arms sales topic, Sentencing Guidelines and Secret Service on the CJR topic, and the Columbia River Treaty aff on the water topic (it’s obviously what I know best). I’m fine with K aff’s, but it comes down to the framework debate for me here. I have no problem voting for the neg on K Aff Bad T if the debate effectively leads me to do so. The framework debate is the debate I am most comfortable with here and is what I enjoyed the most. I’ll definitely need K aff’s to be explained more throughout the flow of the round and probably have them read at a slower speed. I am unfamiliar with performance affs completely, I haven’t interacted with one in a debate round for me to tell you to read one in front of me. I understand how they function, but I also do know they have a number of nuances to them too, so if you want to read performance, don’t pref me.

Theory-

If you have a legitimate reason to run theory, go for it. Don’t use it as a time suck, it makes the debate a drag. Having discussions about how a specific action detrimentally affects the debate space is a good thing. I’m fine with condo bad, especially if you are reading more than 3 counter-advocacies. My vote depends on the amount of in-round abuse happening. Be clear in interpretations and analysis.

Debate (in general):

Disclaimer: I have competed in World Schools Debate and Congress, but not PF or LD.

Practically everything in my policy paradigm applies here for PF/LD.

WSD-

I’ve had some experience in this event, but I only primarily competed in this my freshman year.

Style-

As an extemper myself, I’ll be focusing on the extemporaneous parts of this event more. Tone, persuasion, speed, and passion matter for you to maximize the number of points here. There’s no reason to spread in WSD or to be condescending or rude. Reading off of the paper does me nor you any good. Be personable and logical in your presentation.

Content-

Your analysis in tandem with your sources will determine your success in this area. Don’t source dump in your points, explain the viability of your argument, analyze the different parts of each point, provide credible definitions, and give specific/contextualized examples.

Strategy-

As any debate/speaking event goes, your strategical approach will take you far. Setting up your points effectively, asking POIs that help you, and explaining why you outweigh in your argument (why you win and they lose), give you the upper hand in the debate. Organization and logical approaches will help you take away as many points as possible.

POIs-

Ask as much as is necessary, don’t overdo it by interrupting your opponent every 15 seconds, but don’t let them talk uninterrupted for the full allotted speech time. Taking advantage of your opportunity will help you garner more points. Don’t ignore every POI, but you don’t have to answer every single one either. There is no reason to be rude in your POIs.

Congress-

Be mindful of your verbal and nonverbal language, be respectful, and have fun!

Speaking- Clarity comes above all for me, being clean and articulate in your arguments and general speaking will give me more reasons to rank you high.

Argumentation- I look for unique points of contention/support. Every argument you make should be evidentially true, sources only add to your credibility and persuasiveness.

Refutation- Don't degrade your fellow congresspeople's arguments, there is a way to refute the argument without targeting the individual or their abilities. Rebuttal the arguments and points the opposing side's representatives/senators make, and prove your viability.

Questioning- Ask questions, it establishes/maintains your presence in the room. As always, be respectful and polite when asking questions, there is no reason to be condescending or overpowering.

I hate rehash, please be as unique as possible in your argumentation…the round becomes a drag for everyone when everyone goes up and says the same thing for three hours.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

(I always looked for my judge’s paradigms for speech too because it helped me feel more comfortable with my judges and speaking, so if you are reading this, good luck!)

Note: Extemp was my primary focus during my junior and senior years. I was in state and large tournaments out rounds for FX and/or DX (TFA, UIL, NSDA), so I think I have a strong background and experience in it. I also coached extemp after I graduated.

I value analysis above all, I think the only way you prove your skills is with your knowledge of the topic. Don’t give me 7-9 sources and leave the speech at that, for every source, I look for a few sentences of analysis, that comes from you, as well. I’m not asking for you to tell me your opinion and political leaning, but dive deeper into the tagline of each source and tell what the background of “x’ issue, what the impact of that is, and how it affects “x” thing.

AGD’s and mini AGD’s make you more personable and charismatic. That doesn’t mean solely making jokes throughout the speech, but tell me something interesting, exciting, and/or surprising. Keeping my attention means I follow you through the speech and your other judges will likely feel the same way.

Clarity in your speaking style is the most important. When you are asked to form an answer to a contentious question, keeping the speech organized will make it easier for you to give and for me to follow. I suggest following a specific structure in every speech, and in prep just fill in the blanks to each part of the outline, that way you always become a clearer, stronger extemper. I will do my best to write as many critiques as possible on your ballot, there are always things to improve in every speech. Read those critiques and try to implement some into your next speeches, you’ll level up every time.

Speech/Interp:

Note: I did informative and oratory religiously throughout high school.

Info/OO-

Most of my extemp paradigm applies here. Be clear in your speaking style, be personable, and make your speech impactful. As any event in speech and debate goes, there’s always meant to be a moral, a story told, or an issue addressed, keep that in mind for your speeches. Although I take full entertainment in a speech about magicians, tell me why your topic/issue affects everyone, why it matters that I listen to this speech- basically, leave a resounding impact on me after your speech, it makes me more inclined to give you a higher rank. In terms of boards, I will not dock you for your quality of boards, your boards only add to your speech. Don’t rely solely on the boards, but instead interact with them.

Interp-

I was never an interper, but I am an incredibly techy judge. Your voices, emotions, binder movements (if applicable), physical movements, facial expressions, and attitude will determine how I rank you. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote you up because your blocking is good, it’s just cumulative. Don’t take it personally if I’m not crying during your performance, I’m not a crier, but I promise your piece will be impactful to me.

If there needs to be a trigger warning, please be mindful of others’ experiences and mention one. If you are questioning whether or not there should be, just put one in case.

Eric Lanning

I've been involved in policy debate for 15+ years as a debater and coach on the national circuit, including at the highest levels at the Tournament of Champions and National Debate Tournament.

I do my best to evaluate arguments based off what's said in the debate, but like anyone else I bring some preconceived notions about the activity and world that create "default" positions. I'll do my best to detail these below. I am very expressive and communicative and often provide "instant" feedback in the form of non-verbal expressions.

In general you should feel free to make whatever arguments you'd like! Debate is for the debaters and I will do my best to adapt to you.

I think the best debates are between two well researched opponents, and that predictable limits on the topic are important for in depth debate. I don't think that means the affirmative must necessarily defend "implementation by the federal government". I often find framework debates stale and difficult to resolve.

I am often quite skeptical of negative strategies that focus on multiple conditional counterplans or process counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive . I wish more affirmatives would object to the proliferation of 2-3 conditional advocacies and strongly believe that "rejecting the team, not the argument" is the appropriate remedy.

Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate.

While I will often ask to see a card document - I tend to default to the explanation/spin of debaters in the round. IE its very important for you to explain and compare evidence!

DEb8 don’t H8.

Quick run down: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and have fun. No one wants to spend their Saturday feeling bad about themselves.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed just please slow down on tags, authors, and analytics.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. A long overview explaining the K would be helpful, but if you feel that you can do a good explanation in the line by line with a shorter overview, then im good with that too.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

My email is ferry4554@gmail.com for the email chain.

I’ve judged Big Questions at Nationals in 2022 & 2023. I’ve also judged events on the Austin circuit, specifically WS, DX and PF.

A few things to note about my judging style:

Watch the spreading, please speak clearly. I must be able to understand your arguments, speaking too quickly and or slurring will make flowing your argument difficult. I cannot stress this enough clarity of points and counter points are very important to me.

Give clear argumentation, your argument should flow across the debate. You must be clear in your warranting. When giving counter plans, be concise and consistent.

Most importantly, please be respectful and show courtesy to your fellow competitors. Disrespectful / discourteous behavior will be factored into the decision and will most likely result in a loss.

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

Hello everyone! My name is KJ (he/him), I competed all 4 years of high school and now go to Texas State University.

I am primarily an IE person. I competed in every IE event including OO, Info, and Extemp. I as well competed in World Schools a bit too. I was a 4x state qualifier, state finalist, 5x state semi finalist, 2x NIETOC semifinalist, and a 3x NSDA qualifier. I was as well an All-State and All-American competitor with over 2200 NSDA points. What I am looking for is understanding of the piece. How well thought out it is and how much effort you have noticeably put into it goes a LONG way.

IE's

- Needs to be clean, concise, and have a deeper meaning as to why you're telling the story, interp is acting with a purpose

- Be proud of what you're performing! and have fun with it!

- Characterization is key, I want to see real peoples stories that I am actually able to connect to

- I want to know what's going on! Don't just throw us into the middle of everything, give us some exposition, who are you? Where are you? What is going on?

OO, Info, Extemp, WS

- Are you just telling me the facts? Or are you engaging with the information and the topic you've chosen and presenting it in an effective way?

- Charisma is KEY, you wrote this speech, be proud of it!

- How well thought out is your argument or topic?

- Are you speaking fluidly and confidently or are you using filler words and swaying nervously?

- Make sure that you're applying the facts that you give to the grand scheme of things, what are the implications?

Like I said earlier, I was always more of an interp person. However, I do know all of the rules and the ins and outs of debate! I may not be as adept as I am with speech but I know my way around. Essentially just treat me as a lay judge who knows a lot about the subject.

Debate

• Well thought out arguments will go a long way, the more you put into a speech the more you will get out of it, and trust me when I say that we as judges notice how much effort you put into it
• How well do you structure your speech? How well does it flow?
• How do you respond to questions and how do you interact in the round?
• Don't just tell me what you are going to do but also HOW you are going to accomplish it and WHY
• Add me to the email chain plz - kjamarino@gmail.com
• As far as flowing goes, I'm not a stickler for it during cross so don't worry about it
• I can follow spreading but if you'd like to have mercy on my soul and not that would be awesome
• I'm not a huge theory argument person, so if I feel you're twisting the resolution in a way that it most likely wasn't intended as may not work if its too far out there

All of these are just my personal opinions regarding judging, please do not change your speech or performance based on trying to get my 1. So long as you have fun, enjoy what you're doing, and you are proud of the work you've presented, that is all I ask.

Email: kjamarino@gmail.com

I debated varsity LD throughout High School and will be familiar with most anything that comes up in an LD round. As long as you can justify it in round and it isn't blatantly harmful/problematic, any cases and arguments are fine. Unless the rules of a particular tournament prohibit it, I prefer to be included in email chains. I'm generally fine with spreading, but I might not be able to understand the fastest spreaders- keep it intelligible and slow down a bit for important points and taglines. 

Hi, all!

I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.

Debate Events

I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.

LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.

I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.

WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.

I’ll evaluate the round in whatever framework you place me in, and I’m fine with judging whatever form of argumentation you feel like presenting. However, I strongly prefer that you make that framework explicit — tell me what to vote on and why.

I want a balance between evidence/cards and analysis, especially later in the round.

Stylistically, I’m fine with speed as long as taglines and analysis are clear. If there is a clarity issue (not just speed but diction, volume, etc.), I won’t call clear or put down my pen; I'll continue attempting to flow and what doesn’t make it onto the flow won’t be evaluated — it’s your responsibility to make sure that I can understand you. **NOTE: in an online format, I’m much more lenient about speech clarity — if I can’t understand you due to mic issues, etc. I’ll let you know in the chat. I'll follow the TFA guidelines for tech time (10 minutes of tech time) for most rounds. Beyond this time, we will start running prep.**

I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, delineation between arguments, etc.

Add me to the email chain — my email is colbymenefee@utexas.edu. Also feel free to email me if you have any questions about your ballot, the round, etc. Do not email me paradigm questions before the round — I’m glad to discuss my paradigm further and answer specific questions in-round, where your opponent can also hear my answers.

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. THIS IS A REMINDER TO INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. IF I SEE YOU FUMBLING WITH YOUR COMPUTER 10 SECONDS AFTER YOU STOP PREP, I'M STARTING PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting old and grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best final speeches start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes HORRIBLE clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* a good thing)

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including docs) email me at apulcine23@gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me.

Speaks: To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize is PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed slow down on analytics if I dont have them. Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card. I'll give more leeway on this if what you're reading is in the doc but if not please slow down.

Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

LD: for larp / k everything above applies. Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect. Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit.I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T.

Clements '22 | UT '26

4 years of PF, state and nats quals, etc etc.

put me on the chain: krastogi4444@gmail.com

TLDR: do what you want, have fun, be respectful. im pretty flow

any form of bigotry is entirely unacceptable and will immediately result in an L25.

PF

Case

• pretty straightforward do what you want
• send case with cards before you speak
• framing should be read here

Rebuttal

• anything not responded to here is considered conceded
• please send docs, especially if you're spreading or reading new offs

Summary

• by far the most important speech
• if you haven't started weighing already, definitely start doing it now
• any voters in final must be in summary. if it's not here i dont care about it
• extensions are more than just "extend x card/author/arg" i need claim-uniqueness-warrant-link-impact
• defense is NOT sticky now that speeches are 3 minutes. that means defense must be re-extended in every speech that follows any offense

Final Focus

• like above, if its not in summary, i dont care if its in the final. if its in the final but wasn't in summary, i don't care
• please mirror summary in both content and order
• weighing should have started earlier; the only new weighing i'll evaluate in FF is meta-weighing, which requires warranting as to why i should prefer one mech over another. it is NOT just yelling mechanisms at me

Extra

• cross is binding so long as you bring it up in a speech
• speed is fine as long as i have a doc. however, i will only flow if the speech is comprehensible; i will say clear once and if it doesn't get clearer i probably wont flow how you want.
• i will not look at any evidence unless i am explicitly told to do so. poor evidence ethics will tank speaks but will not lose a round, unless that argument is made
• i don't have much experience with progressive argumentation but i am happy to evaluate it. keep in mind i may not evaluate it how you want me to, so probably not a great idea to read 7 off
• be nice to novices, you can beat them without being rude and condescending
• i'll evaluate TKOs. If at any point in the round (post constructives) you think the opponent has NO routes to the ballot, the round will immediately end and you get a W30. However, if I think the opponent has any route to the ballot, you get an L25. High risk, high reward.

WSD

• I try to appoint speaks as fairly as possible according to each category. However, if you are losing every argument, you will not win a round just because you had a better strategy. Thus, I will retroactively adjust points as necessary.
• the first speech should have definitions, framing, burdens, a worlds comparison, and the first two substantives. It's fine if you don't have each part, but you cannot bring them up in subsequent speeches (other than substantives)
• the second speech should respond to the first and introduce the third substantive. again, you don't need a third sub, but you can't bring it up any later
• each speech should progress argumentation. i dont want to be hearing the same things in the reply as i heard in the one.
• i have only seen a handful of teams actually weigh. it needs to start at the latest in the three. you need to do more than just tell me what your impact is; compare it to the opponents' and tell me why yours is better using some mechanism
• if you want me to vote on argument, it needs to be in the 2, 3, and reply. if its missing in any of them, i will not evaluate it

• I used to have a longer paradigm but it was deleted. feel free to ask if you have any questions

Background: I’m a second-year Journalism major at the University of Texas at Austin. I did 2 years of Congress and 2 years of PF at Vista Ridge High School.

PF

Argumentation

• 2nd rebuttal should be frontlining

• Extensions, extensions, extensions

• Weigh as early as you have time for and make sure that it’s comparative. I want clear warranting as to why I should vote for one impact over the other, not just name-dropping random weighing mechanisms

• I won’t vote on theory unless there’s an actual reasonable violation in round, so no disclosure, paraphrasing, etc

• I will vote for substance over any theory or progressive argument. Treat me like a lay judge when it comes to any progressive arguments

• It’s really up to you, but I prefer line-by-line in summary and voters in FF

• Definitely frame the round and WEIGH in summary

• I’m listening during cross but won’t vote on anything

Evidence/Speed

• Add me to the chain: raiyanshaik22@gmail.com

• Don’t just ask for multiple pieces of evidence for the purpose of prep

• I’m generally ok with speed as long as you’re speaking clearly, but if you’re going to spread send me a doc

• Be respectful. I will lower your speaks if you’re rude or excessively aggressive during CX

I will immediately vote you down if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Congress

• Do not just give multiple sponsorship speeches in a row. After the first speech, your speeches should be interacting with the arguments before

• do not repeat arguments from prior speeches unless you're specifically adding something new to the conversation and acknowledging that you're doing so

• If you’re giving one of the last speeches of the round, crystallization is preferred

• Clear cited evidence

She/Her

Email: annemarie.smith2003@gmail.com

UT Austin 2026 | Shawnee Mission South 2022

*Glenbrooks: I don't have extensive topic knowledge this year (didn't work at camp last summer)- just make sure to explain acronyms; I'd appreciate a little more explanation with generics than other judges who've judged more on this topic*

General Stuff

• I'm primarily a policy oriented judge
• Don't steal prep and try to be quick about sending the doc
• Email chain is best
• Wiki/Disclosure is good
• Be organized with your flow
• Slow down in the rebuttals

DA

• Existential impacts are fine, but I think that the aff can and should make a probability push
• Case turns and outweighs is good

CP

• Affs should always read a perm, but you don't have to go for it
• Perms you go for should be functionally and textually competitive, but it's up to you to make that argument
• Internal net benefits are fun and good
• I like theory on CPs (50 state fiat, process CPs, etc.), but it probably won't write the ballot
• Tell me to judge kick things

T

• I'm not the best judge for a high-level T debate.
• With that being said, if a team is obviously not T, and that's the best argument to go for, go for it.

FW

• I think you should read it and it's a good strategy for K affs in front of me
• You should not make arguments that K affs don't belong in debate; I think it's more persuasive to read DAs on the T flow or argue that debate isn't a healthy space to discuss specific issues

K (Neg)

• Read them, but make sure to explain anything that's uncommon
• A good alt explanation when compared to the aff plan is convincing- especially in the rebuttals
• The aff gets to weigh the plan

K (Aff)

• I have no experience reading K affs and some experience answering them, but I'm normally just taking FW (on the negative)
• I can flow, but probably require more judge instruction when it comes to the rebuttals
• The aff should probably have some relation to the resolution; if it doesn't, I think there should be an explanation as to why

Condo/Theory

• I dislike evaluating theory debates
• I default that you should get to kick positions, but there is such thing as too many off case positions (9+?)
• I think that 6+ off- case positions justifies condo in the 2AR, but if it were impacted out I would vote for it either way

LD

• 3 years of high school LD experience
• I did very traditional LD in high school
• I still think my policy experience makes me able to evaluate mostly all types of LD (just be sure to explain anything odd)
• Please don't do tricks. I will not like them or understand them
• You're welcome to read DAs, CPs, and Ks- explain anything that isn't common

I believe debate is a unique opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, open-mindedness, and sharpen articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, I believe judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thinking ability as well. Its far more important to me that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any  argument (with the exception of a few clearly, morally outrageous positions i.e. racism good, genocide good, things like that) as long as you can tell me why you win it. It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events. 

I debated policy in high school, and policy and parliamentary in college. I have judged tournaments for the last two years in CX, LD, PF, and Extemp,  and contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools in those areas as well. 

I believe debate is a unique opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, open-mindedness, and sharpen articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, I believe judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thinking ability as well. Its far more important to me that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any  argument (with the exception of a few clearly, morally outrageous positions i.e. racism good, genocide good, things like that) as long as you can tell me why you win it. It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events. 

I debated policy in high school, and policy and parliamentary in college. I have judged tournaments for the last two years in CX, LD, PF, and Extemp,  and contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools in those areas as well.