brandon.collier07@gmail.com for flashing / inquires

I go by "Kk", not the name on my Tabroom lol. I keep it there so Tabroom can keep track. If you call me by it I won't be mad or correct you, but I'd appreciate if you referred to me otherwise. Also, you don't have to call me judge, you can just use my name. I'm chill.

Pronouns: They/Them (please respect this lol)

Experience – 4yrs Speech & Debate -- 2 1/2 yrs CX & 1 1/2 yrs Congress/Extemp. 3yrs judging experience including UIL 5A+6A districs.

For LDers - I prefer traditional LD. Not Policy based LD. You can run policy based, but seeing as I was predominantly a Policy debater and predominantly a Policy judge, it will be under far more intense scrutiny than if judged by someone who had not done Policy.

Note - Most of this applies to solely CX, but you will get some value out of reading it as an LD, PF, Congress etc debater. Specifically 'Speaking Style', 'Quality vs. Quantity', 'CX (Questioning)', and 'Flashing'.

CX PARADIGM

Approach: Policymaker – This will explain itself more if you read my full paradigm, but essentially: I like advocating for some sort of policy. Affs with plans, negs with CPs, etc are all good in my book. Don’t expect to win just by running a Kritik.

Specific Issues:

Speaking Style –

You can speak fast if you prefer, but overt spreading (the gasping thing) is something I dislike. As long as you are clear and can make your point without me having to read along the entire speech, I’m fine with speed. Getting loud at points is fine, but I don’t like screaming just for the sake of screaming; use intonation and volume with a purpose.

I flow like someone who has never seen a sheet of paper, a pen, or any electronic device built in the last 30 years, so don't take me writing or not writing as a sign if you're speaking too fast. If I think you are unintelligible (or don't like your point), I'll most likely just stop typing, writing, everything and just sit and stare at you. It is up to you, as the debater, to debate with purpose and inherent value, and not try to overflow us or your opponents with arguments and speed.

I think you need to be able to make your point without being condescending as well – if you are rude, make snarky comments, etc. towards your opponents, your speaker points will be bombed, regardless if they call you out or not.

Please signpost and give roadmaps. Roadmaps can be off the clock before your speech.

Topicality –

As long as aff has some relation to the resolution I’m mostly unbothered by topicality. If it’s something actually specific or the aff is genuinely wildly nontopical, then run it. Running a generic T just to run one is lame; If you have to run generic arguments I’d prefer if you just didn’t run a generic T at all and ran something like a basic DA instead; it provides more substance for the round and gives me something to actually vote on.

For the neg – if you run T and say that you have no ground inside the round but are running multiple offs and/or almost any oncase with decent relevancy and links then that standard/voter will be heavily scrutinized. (If you believe you can make a strong case with it, go for it, but if not I’ll be side-eyeing it on my flow the entire round.)

Lastly, I believe your T shell must include standards and voters. I don’t care if you personally believe they aren’t necessary, if they aren’t included in a championship/varsity CX Topicality shell I will most likely not evaluate it. If they aren’t introduced in the same speech as the T shell but brought in later I will heavily scrutinize that as well.

Disadvantages –

Obviously, DAs are fine and you can basically do whatever with them. Be specific with links, UQ and everything of course. I prefer if you focus on urgent bodies (impacts that can have a realistic and tangible effect sooner rather than later) as opposed to big sticks (I’m looking at you, nuclear war). Of course, you can run a big stick impact, but my preference is on unique impacts. They make the clash more interesting. Make nuke/extinction work well and I will vote for it, though!

Counterplans –

I like CPs that are executed well. As long as you prove that your CP does it better and the aff has no way of perming it then it will be a large voting factor. CPs can be topical or nontopical – I only bring this up as some judges have an issue with it. State net benefits clearly, if any (and I prefer if there are).

Something else to note is that I’m okay with contradictory neg positions as long as you adequately explain them. If you run a CP that triggers the DA just like the aff, maybe don’t run it or have a way to avoid the DA.

Theory –

I like theory when it’s used in conjunction with what you’re already running. Only in extreme cases should you throw out all of your arguments and run with your theory arg.

On framework – Framework of the aff is what is inherently valued in the round unless neg runs a FW that they prove is better. FW should not simply state how to value the round, provide theory and research as to why your FW is important and relevant to your plant/the resolution. I love FW args if they are executed well by both parties.

Kritiks –

are an argument. If you run a generic kritik that can be applied to any affirmative, I probably won’t value it highly - use your links and uq please. If you run a kritik and there is no alternative or your alt is to ‘reject the aff’, I definitely will not value it highly.

Other Issues:

Conditionality –

I don’t care. If you make a good case for condo bad then I’ll listen to it, but I quite literally have zero preference. The only thing I will ever stand being called tabula rasa for.

Quality vs. Quantity –

Like most judges, I will value quality much higher than quantity. Don’t try to win just by overwhelming your opponents with 12 generic DAs. As an aside – if you think there is an abuse of evidence (cards are cut abusively, dates are wrong, etc etc) call it out as soon as you spot it in your speech and I will review it.

Kicking Args –

If you want to get rid of an argument, just say you’re kicking it. If you don’t address it, it is dropped and automatically flows to your opponents, making your life hard. Don’t run a time wasting argument just to kick it (generic T’s just to 'test the aff'). If you kick something in the 2NC, bring it up during your 1NR just as a note.

CX –

While I don’t flow CX, I do listen to what is being said. If you want something from CX to be evaluated when I score, say it in your speech. I only pay attention to CX if there is a miscommunication, abuse, or some sort of error.

In TFA, I don’t care if you do open CX or prompt or anything, just don’t overshadow your partner. If you want to be the sole speaker, do LD (which is basically CX at this point).

Flashing –

If you flash, please include me. My email is at the top of my paradigm.

Disclosing -

I do not disclose, please don’t ask. Tournaments don't like it and I don't like making the people that give me money angry.

Thanks for reading my long winded nonsense… Bring me a Red Bull during an IRL tournament and I'll cashapp you for it :D Currently on a caffeine purge! Thank you to those that have offered in the past lol

Last Updated – September 14th, 2023

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

Add me to the email chain: hunterfoster.debate@gmail.com

Salado High School 18-22 | University of Pittsburgh 23-? | he/him/his | call me “hunter” nothing else pls, anything else makes me feel sad and icky inside.

Hi! I'm Hunter. I debated for four years at Salado High School on the UIL, TFA, and National Circuit. I now study computer science and interactive design at the University of Pittsburgh.

Main Philosophy

I'm an offense/defense judge, so I am good with anything you want to read as long as you clash with the arguments being presented in the round. This means if you are just throwing out conflicting arguments without warranting why you are winning them it’s going to be very hard for me to evaluate the round. I will try and evaluate all arguments as fairly and equally as possible. I sway more on the side of tech vs truth, but that does not excuse you from being silly about it. I love a clean round so if it's messy, that will SIGNIFICANTLY affect your speaks. Most importantly, have fun.

Please warrant and extend arguments throughout the round, I will not be doing that work for you. I want you to write my ballot for me, absent that judge instruction, I will most likely be voting on something you don't want me to vote on, and no one likes that.

I don't really pay much attention to cross tbh, mostly because I see it as clarification, not a speech. If you make an important stance in cross just point that out in your speech.

I tend to make faces without knowing, so if you see me making a stank face, you're making silly arguments, sorry in advance.

Now for the Stuff we care about.

Quick cheat sheet:

Tech --x------ Truth

Voting for policy ----x----- Voting for the K

Will read ev without being told --x------ Tell me what to read

Infinite Condo --x-------- No condo

Reasonability --------x-- Competing Interps

Overviews -------x--- LBL

Fairness -----x----- Education

"Neg on presumption" x----------K affs that do nothing

"It's pre-fiat"----------x Actual arguments

Counter-interp + offense –x-------- Impact turn everything

Policy --x------ Phil

"Judge" ----------x “Hunter"

Pref shortcut -

Identity K's - 2

Other K's – 2/3

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

Phil - 3

K-Affs - 3

Tricks – 4

Trad - 3

DA's

DA’s are very strongly recommended. I love policy debate and would love to keep loving it. Please have a good internal link story. This means it needs to make sense !!! 3 cards usually don’t cut it on a DA, but it can for some. If your 1n doesn't make any sense I’ll most likely err aff on the link and internal link story; sorry not sorry. The less you need to explain on the thesis level, the more time you get to explain the link/internal link story, the better the 2nc is, the better way to my ballot.

Please, please, please do impact calc and link comparison.

Counterplans

Along with DA's counterplans are a great position and I love to see them. Competition is important, but not always required. I am a sucker for a good consult or adv CP. Please have NB to the CP, if I can’t figure out what that is by the end of the 1nc then your probs not going to be winning the CP. Judge kicking is silly, I'm not doing that work for you, if you don't think you're winning the perm debate then you probs aren't. Condo is good. Perf con is bad, but competing worlds is probs good. I’m not to picky about uncarded/multi plank CP’s as they can be strategic and great proof of strong critical thinking.

Perm debate is great way to engage the aff with the CP so please shoot out a few perms in front of me and see which one sticks. I don’t have a particular dissuasion to cheating perms and am willing to hear any kind of perm you say aloud.

Framework/Framing

The more I judge LD the more I realize how much I like FW debates. I think FW is a very important tool for you to win your impacts. For me to evaluate your offense you need to be winning some level of the framing debate. I think a lot of debaters forget this then get mad when I don’t vote for them.

I probs default Util but idk, I just work here.

Phil

LOL. I do not understand phil to the capacity to evaluate high level phil v phil debates. For these kinds of debates, a good overview is greatly appreciated. I am most familiar with Kant, Maslow, and Korsgaard (the usual).

Kritiks

I'm comfortable with K debate. Feel free to read them on aff or neg, but don't get silly with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. I love identity K debate (it provides great discourse that isn't talked about critically) but if you're reading an identity-based argument please be of that identity, if not I will be very skeptical of your argument.

I will NOT vote on nonblack afro-pess.

Framework is important, it isn't the end all be all of the round. I think it can be a very good tool for both aff and neg. I understand a fair share of most K’s except for pomo, so please explain what you’re alt does if you are using buzz words only 3 people know the meaning of.

Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are very important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to win the K for me. Impact and alt debates are often very muddy, if it is messy by the 2NR find out how to fix it.

Go crazy with the alt? Idc :) - just explain how it can overcome the links/solve.

When responding to identity K's be careful of what you say, it will probs be racist, homophobic, or ableist . If it makes me feel icky I just won’t evaluate it, sorry not sorry.

Topicality

Aff's being topical is probably important, and if T is argued correctly, I will vote on it. Please explain what your interpretation allows and why that is better than the other teams model. I default to competing interps.

Theory

Theory is cool and a very good argument when it is warranted. I enjoy watching a good theory debate. I default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise.

RVI’s are ok, have a counter interp, prove why their model is not good. 1AR theory is also ok, but for the love of god please don't use it as a gotcha moment to dodge actual substance in the round.

Tricks

If you want to read these I don’t mind, I will be very skep of unexplained arguments. But if you debate these well, I will vote on it.

Policy v Policy

Love, prefer this type of debate the most. Make sure to do good impact weighing and impact calc towards the end of the round, it’s much appreciated. Be smart and logical about things. I will reward good strategy.

Idk why I have to say this, but a DA with a SV fw is not good strategy. If you want to have a trad debate, please do it, but don’t be mad when you lose to 30 second util fw.

Please do not be discouraged from reading other arguments, even though I hack for policy debates, I love to have fun!!

K v Policy

I enjoy watching/judging these debates more than I do having them. Please make sure to do good impact calc and weighing. Like I said before FW is good, specific links are great. Make sure to compare worlds.

K v K

This is where my knowledge starts to fall apart, and you'll have to do a lot of weighing the two worlds for me. I have not seen enough of these debates in my career to evaluate them right, so I would default to this kind of debate if it’s the last-ditch effort to win my ballot.

(This excludes K v Cap)

Speaks

I think that at the end of the day debate is an educational event, so I will give you speaks on how well you communicate to me and your opponents. That means be strategic and make good args. Speed is fine, I will yell "clear" if you are going to fast for me. I don't care about profanities unless it is used at or about your opponents. I do think how well you sound does play a factor in your speaks, so I would like to hear a more polished side of your speech.

I will start at 28.5 and work up or down

Point Breakdown

29.5 – 30: I enjoyed the round. You should be in deep elims/win the tournament.

29 – 29.4: This round was great but a bit messy, you should probs break.

28.5 – 29: This round was alright and average. You should go even.

28 – 28.4: This round was very messy; you were making silly mistakes and I was frustrated.

27-28: You should probs go back to JV.

25: You got an auto loss and are being reported to tab.

Few More things

1] Feel free to post round if you don't think I made the right decision, I won’t take offense. I think post rounding can be a good way for both of us to learn. I am human and will make wrong decisions just like you :)

2] Please add me to the chain, I like to look through cards to give the best decision I can give you. Keep the email formatted as: "Tournament --- Round x --- School v School". Also send a word doc, I don't like PDF's.

3] I'm not the greatest at flowing, if you're going to go full speed on analytics, please send them in a doc.

4] Please explain why a drop matters in the round, don’t just flail your hands and throw a big fit about a drop and then move on. I don’t care that they dropped extinction outweighs, tell me WHY that drop warrants a ballot.

5] Feel free to be silly in round, after round 5-6, I will have judged 10 policy rounds with the same DA impacts, I will reward fun debates.

pronouns : she/her/any, email: isabellasgandara@gmail.com (i usually prefer fileshare in NSDA Campus when possible)

I debated for 4 years in CX, primarily as a policymaker debater with a specific focus on structural violence. If no other frameworks are given during the round, I will default to this paradigm: affirmative wins if they prove the aff world is better than the neg's, and the opposite for negative.

I highly prefer evaluating frameworks given by the debaters in rounds, however, and want to be as close to tabula rasa as possible in that respect. Laying out a logical and convincing reason to vote aff or neg, and then linking your case impacts/method/etc to that is an important part of your rebuttals, so please do as much work for your judge in that respect.

Quick Notes --

** I won't accept dehumanizing or hateful rhetoric, including racism, transphobia, sexism, ableism, or anything else discriminatory. Saying something blatantly hateful will lead to you being downvoted. Consistent misgendering of your opponent after multiple corrections falls under this same rule.

I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. Insulting your opponent's intelligence/knowledge/abilities will cause me to drop speaks.

T --

I really liked T when I was in debate and I think good debates where the interpretation or counterinterpretation provides a meaningful definition of the topic are great. Therefore, I really like T *when it is used purposefully*. Between competing intepretations, standards are the most important. Feel free to get creative here and explain why I should prefer your interpretation and how that fits into debate as a whole- it's an opportunity to advance a certain model of debate, and your interpretation along with standards and voters can help support it.

If your definition is fairly arbitrary (i.e. "substantially"), I would likely feel comfortable voting on reasonability.

DAs --

Naturally I am fine with DAs and they can be really useful in any negative strategy. A major issue I see is that link chains, especially in ultra-generic 1NC shells, are sometimes really shoddy and rely on a lot of jumps in logic to be true. The more specific your evidence is to the link chain (i.e. impact threshold, timeframe), the better your DA will be able to withstand attacks. Link specificity always > generic links.

CPs --

Unless you argue otherwise, I will default to the aff if the CP provides no clear net benefit. I really love CPs, and I love when they are used in combination with DAs. There is a lot of potential for you to make links to DAs to the plan, the perm, or even the CP, especially apart from impact debate.

On perm debate, make sure the perm is actually clear instead of just saying perm do both. Perm debates are really great when either side can provide evidence about what it would look like.

Ks / K Affs --

I was never much of a K debater in high school, but I have since gotten familiar with some literature. Probably not the best idea to run high-level Ks in front of me, especially if you don't want to explain the basic terminology.

Also, be clear about the impact of your K, and what the alt does. It's up to either side how to weigh the impacts, but it gets messy when one side is talking about fiat and the other is talking about impacts in round. Like I said, I am a policymaker by default, so be sure to give me an ROB to explain how and why I should vote outside of that paradigm.

I like Ks the best when they provide a meaningful and specific criticism of the affirmative/resolution, and can elaborate what that means for the debate. You don't always have to win alt solvency to win the K flow.

When running a K be sure to explain the method, especially if you are going for an in-round/a priori method.

K affs are cool when they provide a meaningful critique of the resolution and interact with framework in a way that is consistent with the thesis. I think K affs are most vulnerable to the fairness/education voters on FW, so you will need to have good answers to this when running a K aff.

Framework + Theory --

Like with T, I love FW and T because they let you lay out what you think debate should be and why. You can tell me how to prioritize arguments, which ones to reject, or why to vote down the other team. There is a lot of freedom here so feel free to put them out there, as long as you can argue against your opponents and prove what impact it has and why (theory should probably be run if your opponent has already been abusive or if the possibility of abuse is particularly high).

I am generally tech > truth so if your opponents bring up an argument about procedure that doesn't favor you, make sure to answer it, and tell me why I should reject it.

Case --

I think case arguments can go largely ignored in policy-centric rounds, except for impact calc + framing. I love when case issues are included in the debate, because it creates a mix of offense and defense that I much prefer to straight offense. Solvency is a big thing for me; often, it's hard to decide on alone, but it can really go a long way to helping your case.

Misc.

I don't really like conditional negs where the arguments are all over the place. I also don't like when the 1NC has about 7 off case only for most of them to be dropped by the 2NR because the neg is going for whatever their opponent drops. These often overlap, so please make sure your negative case is clear, substantive, and (mostly) cohesive. I am not against dropping arguments, and I'm never going to automatically vote you down for doing that, but it is usually obvious when it is a core part of your neg strat, and I will probably rule that it's unfair if it's brought up.

I'm going to vote, to the best of my ability, solely on what is presented to me in the 2AR and 2NR. I will flow the whole round and try to include constructive feedback from the whole debate, and I will base my speaker points/rankings off the debate as a whole, too. But I cannot vote on an argument that was extended into the 2AC and never brought up again.

-- Under this same vein, if you tell me to drop your opponent's argument because they didn't extend something/they didn't bring it up in the rebuttal, I'll probably do just that.

-- Also, please extend your evidence into as many speeches as you can. It makes the debate a lot messier if cards only pop up every other speech, and I will usually defer to the team that points out that your evidence wasn't extended in the speech before.

Speed is mostly fine, I'll follow along and I want evidence to read along to what you have. I won't intervene into the evidence unless the debate comes down to a single card that has been contested without good response from either side.

I love clash, and I love when debaters tell me why to prefer their card on an issue. I don't need an appeal to authority, I usually prefer you to look at the warrants of evidence or the link chain of an argument and tell me why you think their evidence shouldn't be considered, and why yours should.

I am a retired coach. I have judged LOTS of rounds in all formats. I consider myself traditional in my approach to all events. I have provided my paradigm for speech and debate events here.

Public Speaking Events

All speeches should have well structured introductions, fully developed body, and satisfaction for your audience thru your conclusion. Sources are key to your speech, you should use a variety of appropriate sources. I expect that your speech will include the "why do I care" - What draws your audience to want to learn more from what you have to say. In extemp, I expect you to answer the specific question you were given. I evaluate all non-verbal communication in your presentation. I accept all perspectives on all topics; however, I expect that your are aware of your audience and avoid language or statements that may be offensive.

Interp Events

First and foremost, pieces should be appropriate for the venue. While I understand that some pieces may contain some sexual innuendo, I will reject innuendo that is not a part of the original script or that is added for the "shock value" rather than the development of the performance. Your introduction should be more than telling me the storyline that you are presenting. There is a reason you chose this piece, a topic you want to discuss. Share that in your intro. Give me believable characters that I can empathize with. Be sure there is an identifiable difference in your characters.

In all debate rounds

Don’t depend on email chains or flashing briefs to include an argument in the round. If it is not spoken during your speeches, it is not in the round. I prefer a more communicative speed of delivery, especially when using online competition. I can keep up but, I think the idea of trying to spread your opponent out of the round is not in the realm of what debate should be. I would rather hear a good clash on the arguments presented.

In PF

I believe PF should be a debate with class. Interactions between opponents should be cordial. Crossfire should be used to obtain information NOT to belittle your opponent. You can not ignore your opponent's arguments and expect to win. Evidence and common sense are key.

In LD

I feel that LD should be philosophy based. Even if the topic is policy-oriented, the selection of a policy is always based on values. Therefore, you should be prepared to debate your value and criterion to support your view on the topic. If you can't support your view, how can I accept your position?

A Kritik on the topic is not an acceptable position. You have been given a topic to debate and that is what I expect to hear. If all you offer is the Kritik, you have not upheld your burden and will lose the round. Running a Kritik on the topic in addition to case arguments is a huge contradiction in your case.

If you want me to view the round from your viewpoint, you must provide voters in your final speech.

In Congress

This is a congressional debate. I expect that you do more than read a prepared speech. There should be responses to previous speeches. You need to be active in the chamber. Questions are an essential part of the process. With that being said, don't ask questions that do not seek to expand information. That is a waste of the chamber's time and takes time away from those with solid questions. Provide sources to the house to substantiate your points.

In CX

I encourage traditional debate in terms of format. That means I do not like open cx. With that being said, I accept progressive style arguments. I will listen to your arguments, but I expect you to provide warrants and logical analysis. If you are the opponent, don’t assume I will reject an argument on face, you must respond if you want to win the argument.

I DO vote on STOCK ISSUES. So Affirmative teams should be prepared to meet those standards.

Negative teams, please don’t throw out a dozen arguments only to drop the ones that don’t stick. If you bring the argument into the round plan to carry it thru to the end.

Label your arguments before you start reading your briefs!

I believe it is essential that you weigh the impacts of your argument in the round.

Former HS Policy and NDT debater.

But, it has been a long time....

- Tabula rasa, if that is still a thing. Open to all lines of argumentation, but please tell me why I should care.

- Very rusty flowing, but should be able to keep up. Most important is that you speak clearly to help me follow your speech.

- Have fun, but please be respectful. Debate is not an excuse to be rude.

**TFA -due to tabroom crashes during ballot submission, if you have any follow up questions I will be holding on to my flows for a week and can be reached at sparker112015@gmail.com for any clarification on ballot decisions**

I prioritize arguments that are well-reasoned and supported by evidence, while also valuing a passionate and engaging performance style in debates. My approach is non-biased and inclusive, welcoming diverse viewpoints and innovative arguments from all sides. Respectful and inclusive discourse is key, where every participant feels empowered to express themselves freely. Demonstrating passion and conviction in your arguments is essential, regardless of the perspective you're advocating for. Let's make this debate both intellectually stimulating and emotionally compelling.

I, myself, am a former policy debater of 6 years, I have taught middle school policy debate with the St. Louis Urban Debate League, and perviously judged LD, CX, Public Forum, Worlds, Prose and Interp.

1. Policy-Oriented: I prefer debaters who focus on concrete policy proposals and impacts. I value in-depth analysis of real-world consequences and evidence-based arguments.

2. Philosophy: I enjoy debates that delve deeply into moral and philosophical principles. I appreciate debaters who can engage with complex ideas and thinkers, and who can apply them effectively to them. I'm deeply interested in the philosophical ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, emphasizing the tension between individual freedom and societal constraints. Additionally, I'm drawn to the thought-provoking social commentary of George Orwell and the critical insights of Michel Foucault into power dynamics and societal control.

3. Progressive/Critical: I encourage debaters to challenge traditional frameworks and interrogate power structures. I value creativity, critical thinking, and the ability to deconstruct underlying assumptions. If a debater is able, to logistically and factually support, weighing the harms of the debate space and challenging that exact framework it is built on, is an immensely impressive feat.

4. Speed-Friendly: I encourage, and, I am comfortable with debaters spreading (speaking rapidly) as long as they maintain clarity. Prioritizing substance over style is key but appreciate I debaters who can effectively utilize speed.

utd 26'

email: rahulpenumetcha10@gmail.com

NDT x2

Top Level -

The debate should be up to the debaters and I will not intervene - any of my opinions discussed below will not affect my decision-making process if any argument in the debate is made over them.

A lot of this philosophy (and my beliefs in debate) will echo austin kiihnl, kevin hirn, and julian habermann's philosophies'.

There is almost always a risk of any argument, its a question of how the debaters do calc as to which risk matters more

I will vote on any argument that I disagree with or is not true if the argument is won at a technical level (doesn't apply to non-negotiables)

"Evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly"

"I have a fairly strong preference for organized, technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it a lot harder than you'd like for me to adjudicate the debate." (From Austin)

Notes:

-Analytics need to be used more (esp vs less truthful args)

-I won't judge kick unless told to

-I don't lean a certain way on cp theory but 2ac blippiness means the neg block has a low threshold to meet. I'm better than most for theory to make it into the 1AR but still, every cp theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg

-We meet on T is a yes/no question - generally T debates are my favorite when done well.

-“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.” (From Julian)

-I've spent a decent amount of time reading critical literature with the most time spent on Calvin Warren, Frank Wilderson, Christina Shrape, Arthur Kroker, and Douglas Kellner in that order. This means my threshold for your explanation might inevitably be higher, however aff specific contextualization and the explanation of the theory of power on the line by line should overcome any gap in understanding.

-I have a sweet spot for impact turn debates.

-My evaluation of K affs vs FW is best for the aff when there is either a firm impact turn strategy with some metric to evaluate aff case offense or a counter interp that focuses on establishing an inroads to 2nr offense while solving external impacts. I'm better for the negative when the strategy is either hard right fairness and providing a metric to view aff offense through or a strategy that revolves around clash/fairness and establishing ways FW can solve aff offense via a TVA/SSD. If it matters I've been on the neg side of these debates slightly more than the aff.

Non-negotiables

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or misgender.

CX is binding

I will not vote on anything that did not happen in the round because that is not what a judge ought to do.

If the debate can be made safer, accessible etc. Please let me know.

Director of Debate

Dulles High School 2022 - Present

Westside High School 2017 - 2022

Magnolia High School 2016-2017

Summer Debate Institutes

Lab Leader - Texas Debate Collective 2020 - Present

Admin - National Symposium for Debate 2022

Lab Leader - Houston Urban Debate League 2019 - 2021

Emails

All Rounds: esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy Rounds: dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD Rounds: dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TL;DR

Tech > Truth. I'll reward deep content knowledge, organization, clarity of explanation, depth of explanation, judge instruction, efficient file sharing, and flowing. Other than that, do your thing and do it well. Read the full thing to get a sense of how I understand what it means to debate well. Non-Policy event specific thoughts are at the bottom.

General Thoughts

I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges frequently (over 100 rounds in the 22-23 season). I debated for a small rural high school and read exclusively policy style arguments; however, I have since coached students who go for the K on both sides and every other kind of argument under the sun. I am probably fine for whatever you want to do. Although most of my experience competing, judging, and coaching is in Policy and LD, I have worked with debaters across all formats. My preference is for national circuit style debate, but I have worked with a number of traditional debaters and judge traditional rounds quite frequently. I believe that debate can be one of the single most transformative activities for high schoolers who engage deeply in the processes of research, argument refinement, skill development, and content mastery that it requires to be done well. As such, I am committed to the educational integrity of the activity. This has a few different implications for you, regardless of format:

• Safety, inclusion, and access are my first priorities because students can’t get the benefits of the activity if they feel unsafe, unwelcome, or lack access to the materials they need to be successful. For you, this means to be cognizant of your words/actions and their effects on other people, especially those coming from social locations different from your own. Assume less, listen more.

Respect people’s pronoun preferences, honor requests for accommodation, and be kind to novices and those less experienced than you. Don’t bully or harass people, don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist. If something is happening and I’m not picking up on it, please bring it to my attention either verbally or via email. If I am part of the problem, please let me know so that I can do better.

Recording your speeches is fine. You must get consent from everyone in the room to record the whole round. It would also be polite to offer to send your opponents a copy of the recording if they consent. If you record others sans consent and I find out, you will be reported to the tabroom.

Content/Trigger warnings should be read if you suspect a position might be triggering to someone, and you should be ready to read something else if your opponents or I say we are not comfortable with the position being read. If an observer objects, they are free to leave, but we have to be there.

I will not be evaluating arguments about people’s character or their conduct outside of the round we are in and the prior disclosure period. Any significant issue of safety or comfort that impacts your ability to engage with someone is not something that a ballot can resolve. That needs to be taken to the tabroom.

If you debate for an under-resourced program and would like some materials to help you improve, let me know and I’ll send you some of the resources I make sure my students have access to.

• The rigor of academic debate is the main reason it has such a large and long lasting impact on people’s lives. I will reward displays of it with generous speaker points and will tend towards being punitive with regards to practices that compromise the rigor of the activity.

The two teams on the pairing are the only entities taking part in the debate. Coaches, teammates, random spectators, and AI chatbots are not to be assisting once the door closes. Chatbots shouldn’t be used before the door closes either. If I find that academic dishonesty of this variety has occurred, I will go to tab and lobby for you to be disqualified.

You should do your own research, reading, card cutting, and block writing. Using open evidence, the wiki, or published briefs is fine as a starting point, but that hardly constitutes research. Similarly, it is fine if some of your blocks are written by a coach or more veteran teammates, but overreliance on things cut/written by other people is detrimental to your learning and development. This will put a cap on your speaker points. I will bump speaker points for quality work that is obviously your own.

When cutting cards, make sure not to clip or power tag. For those who don’t know, clipping entails cutting around parts of cards that are inconvenient for your argument, not cutting at paragraph breaks, reading more or less than what is highlighted, and failing to mark cards if you decide to move on. Power tagging is simply when the tagline you have written does not represent what the body of the card says. Evidence ethics challenges are limited to claims that evidence is fabricated in whole or in part, so you should be confident that you are correct before staking the round on it. In the event of a challenge, you win if you are right and you lose if you are wrong.

Citation drives research, which is the source of argument innovation over the course of a topic. Complete citations contain the following information: The author’s complete name (you only need to read the last name), the date of publication (read month and day if the evidence is from this year, just the year if it is from a previous year), a list of author qualifications, the title of the source, the name of the publishing entity, a url to the text if applicable, and an indicator of who cut the evidence.

Generally speaking, I am pro disclosure since having time to read, think, and strategize tends to improve the quality of engagement from both sides exponentially, which in turn results in debates that are more educational for the participants and, incidentally, more enjoyable for me to judge. This is my default position; it doesn’t mean you can’t get me to vote against disclosure. I freely acknowledge the validity of objections regarding student safety and competitive equity.

Recording audio of your speeches, later transcribing and editing them, is a good habit to help you notice issues with clarity, efficiency, and explanation. It can also be a part of your block writing process. The final product might be super specific, but it does not take that much time to convert the specific speech to a generic block that you can use in future debates.

Prep time exists for a reason. You should not be typing or strategizing with your partner if there is not a timer running, be that yours or your opponents’. Stealing prep is cheating.

Take notes during feedback, preferably in a word or google doc. It’s a good habit to be in, as some judges don’t write much, memory is pretty faulty, and it helps create the impression that you care about improving and are actively listening to what judges are telling you. I would also suggest labeling and saving your flows.

Ask questions with redos and file updates in mind. I welcome all questions; however, understand that once the ballot is submitted I can do nothing to change it. Aggressive post-rounding of me or another judge on a panel is futile and immature. I would suggest that you choose to focus on growth and improvement rather than burning bridges with people.

• Debate is a skill focused activity that necessitates a degree of technical mastery. As such, I tend towards tech over truth, but I think that paradigm is overly simplistic. In reality, truth is constitutive of tech, meaning that arguments more germain to my understanding of the world will inevitably require less work to get me on board with. I do my best to check my preconceptions at the door, but the idea of a truly tabula rasa judge is a farce.

While I prefer fast debates over slow debates, I enjoy debates I can understand even more. If you are not capable of spreading clearly, then don’t do it at all. Slow down for taglines and parts of cards you wish to emphasize. Raise your volume when something is important. If you are not doing speaking drills for at least 15 minutes every day, you are not working to improve or maintain what is, realistically, the easiest skill to practice. If you spread, be ready to honor a request for accommodation.

All arguments should make a claim, support that claim with evidence and/or reasoning, and explain the implication of that argument for the debate. They should be organized in a line by line fashion, meaning “they say . . . we say . . . that matters because . . .” or an equivalent organizational schema. Compare arguments/evidence and weigh as you go down each flow sheet. If the affirmative team introduces a position, the negative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. When the negative team introduces a position, the affirmative team sets the order for line by line on that flow. Any overview that summarizes an argument should be kept short, and should include weighing and judge instruction, especially as we get deeper into the debate. Get to the line by line and do the work of debating there. Affirmative teams should start on the case page (T first is an exception), and negative teams should start with the off case positions they are extending, then go to the case (unless presumption or an impact turn is what they go for in the 2NR). Neither side should jump around and go back to a page they have already moved on from.

Most errors get made because debaters don’t flow or are not proficient at flowing. This should be one of your most practiced skills, as you can’t do line by line effectively or make intelligent decisions if you don’t have an accurate record of what happened in each speech. Flow every single speech of every single debate you are in or that you observe in order to practice. I am generally of the opinion that it is better for competitors to flow on paper rather than on your laptop.

Housekeeping tasks should be done at the beginning of CX/speeches. This means that questions about independent reasons to affirm/negate, CP/alt status, etc. go first in CX, counterplans get kicked and no link arguments get conceded at the top of speeches.

Don’t just answer the previous speech, anticipate and shut down the arguments that will be in the next speech using lots of judge directed language. The 2NR should be focused on beating their best 2AR options, and the 2AR should be focused on narrating the debate back to me and beating the 2NRs ballot story. The earlier you can start the process of judge instruction, the better off you are.

Aff and Neg Case Debating Thoughts

Affirmative teams must identify a harm or set of harms that is being caused by some aspect of the status quo. They must also propose some method of addressing those harms. If you can’t articulate how you’ve met those two burdens clearly and succinctly, you probably lose on presumption. I don’t particularly care if you prefer policy/law, philosophy, or critical theory as the part of the library you research from, nor do I care if you read a plan or poetry. I do, however, think that the topic should have some effect on the research and writing you are doing when crafting your case. If every aspect of the aff is generic and not specific to the area of controversy that we voted to have debates over, I will likely be voting neg as you have clearly not thought hard about the way that your particular literature base engages the topic and topicality/FW answers will be bad. If you are not extending the case from the 1AC to the 2AR, you will likely lose (exception for going all in on theory, for which I have a pretty high threshold).

Case is the core of the debate. The role of the negative is to disprove A.) the truth claims of the 1AC and B.) the desirability of the plan text/broader 1AC scholarship. It is way harder to do B if you have neglected A by not making offensive and defensive arguments on case targeting different aspects of the aff. Don’t just spend time at the impact level. Don’t just make cross applications of off case positions. Read cards, contest link and internal link claims, contest claims of solvency, etc. You need to think about how these case cards interact with other off case positions. I’ve written a shocking number of aff ballots in debates where someone goes for a security K in the 2NR without extending carded link, internal link, or impact defense on case, and they end up losing the debate because the 2AR gets to wax poetic about how good and true their China reps are given the conceded empirics. If it interacts with the case page, you probably need to have case cards that help the argument make sense. There are no instances where the 1NC can afford to ignore the case page. There are a few instances where you can afford to not extend case in the 2NR, but those are few and far between.

Topicality Thoughts

I default to competing interpretations, as I think choices should have to be justified. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not the specific aff, arguing that it is sufficiently predictable, limiting, etc. to mitigate the impacts of the shell, and that losing the round would be disproportionate punishment, even if there is some marginal benefit to the negative interpretation. Interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Framework Thoughts

I’m of the opinion that both sides should defend a model of debate that they believe to be desirable. The social structures and dynamics that define competitive debate are fair game for criticism; however, I think the fact that you’ve voluntarily chosen to come to a tournament probably concedes that there is some benefit to doing the activity as it is currently instantiated, so tell me what your vision of the activity is and why you think it’s worth it to show up to tournaments, not just why your opponents’ model is bad. Both sides should start with a caselist of affs that would be topical under their interpretation and the various possibilities for negative testing their interpretation would permit.

For T USFG vs K affs, a limits standard with an skills impact, switch side debate net better/read it on the negative solves their offense, and an example of a topical version of the aff is most persuasive to me. If you prefer to go for fairness, that’s fine, just be aware that I understand myself as an educator first and a referee second, which does implicate how I end up thinking about close debates.

For K frameworks vs policy affs, I am unsure why we are making this section of debate more confusing and self-serving than it needs to be. They want me to look at just the plan and its consequences, you want me to look at the 1AC holistically. Other questions are either secondary to this core controversy about the evaluative terms of the debate or are irrelevant altogether. KvK debates have a tendency to be less clean cut at the framework level, so just be sure you are being clear about the model you think is good and explain how the debates your model would value relate to the debates they think matter.

Kritik Thoughts

You should have done a lot of reading on the thesis of your kritik so you actually know what you are talking about. That said, over reliance on jargon isn’t a flex. Instead, explain big concepts simply and use lots of examples to illustrate your link and alternative arguments. Links should be specific to the aff/topic you are criticizing. Illustrate the link by quoting your opponents and/or their evidence.

Disadvantage and Counterplan Thoughts

In an ideal world, disadvantages would be intrinsic to the action of the plan. Explain the link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides. Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for a counterplan. I'm agnostic on judge kick.

LD Thoughts

Everything mentioned above applies to LD. I'd prefer not to be subjected to tricks or frivolous theory debates.

A philosophy framework should have a clearly articulated relationship to the relevant impacts for the round. I would suggest slowing down to ensure I don't miss key steps in your syllogism. I'm fine for one or two substantive tricks like skep triggers and paradoxes here, provided they make sense in the context of your framework.

I'm agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs in the context of this event.

PF Thoughts

This event exists with the explicit purpose of preserving lay debate, so pretend that this is a short policy round, and I am a lay judge who knows how to flow. If you want to do progressive debate things, come to policy. We would love to have you.

Cards are good. Paraphrasing is bad. If we are sending out speech docs with carded evidence before speeches, I will be a happy camper and likely bump speaks.

"Flowing through ink" is not a thing. You have to attend to responses if you want to extend something. Additionally, defense is not "sticky". You have to extend it if you want me to consider it.

I understand PF to be advantage vs disadvantage debate, with the resolution functioning in place of the plan in policy debate.

Topicality doesn't make a ton of sense in PF considering that the aff doesn't default to speaking first and the negative isn't tasked with upholding the resolution. Just do the thing traditional debaters used to do and define your terms at the top of the speech to parametrize the debate.

Counterplans are allowed at TFA sanctioned tournaments. They are banned only at NSDA sanctioned tournaments.

If you are considering reading a kritik in front of me, you don't have enough time to do the requisite amount of explanation and contextualization for me to feel like you have a shot at winning. Come to policy and read all the Ks you want.

WSD Thoughts

This event suffers from inconsistency of argument from speech to speech. Introduce your arguments in you first speech, and start answering your opponents' arguments as soon as you are able. Arguments and answers must then be extended in each successive speech in which you'd like for it to be up for consideration.

Congress Thoughts

After a few speeches of floor debate and cross examination on a given bill, you should not be reading speeches word for word. Clash with arguments presented by people on the other side of the issue and extend arguments made by representatives you agree with.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Kinkaid ’21. Four years of policy debate as the 2a/1n.

I am not debating in college. I am extremely out of practice. I have not judged this year at all. UT will be my first tournament.

Please put me on the email chain if there is one and send the 1ac before the round starts: alison.jzhang@gmail.com

Please ask questions before round if you have them. I’m probably forgetting something.

TLDR

• Tech over truth. I try to be as least interventionist as I can and only care about what is on my flow when making decisions. Good debating overcomes any of my predispositions. That said, if I can’t explain it during my RFD I’m not voting for it.

• Doline by lineandjudge instruction. Clash is good. The top of the 2nr and 2ar should write my ballot.

• Quality is more important than quantity. Reading fewer, complete off case arguments is infinitely preferable to reading 12 off without an internal link or an impact. I give the 2ac a lot of leeway in answering incomplete 1nc arguments. Evidence quality matters.

• Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.I flow on paper. I won't backflow your speeches off the doc, so if its not clear it won't be on my flow.

• New 1ar arguments need justification. I will do my best to protect the 2nr from new 2ar arguments.

• Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Do not misgender your opponents.

• Effective line by line, smart arguments, and clear speaking gets you high points. Asking for high points gets you low points.

• Be nicer and have fun! Respect your partner and your opponents and make it seem like you actually want to be here

Topicality

• Default to competing interps, but affs can win reasonability
• Plan text in a vacuum is a bad standard.
• Predictability and debatability are both important, debating decides which one outweighs
• Impact calc matters

Kritiks

• have very basic knowledge and understanding Ks like gender, cap, setcol, biopolitics, antiblackness. Please don’t make me judge postmodern Ks I cannot understand or be prepared to explain them vigorously
• Framework decides how I filter offense. Have a clear idea of aff and neg offense under your model. Can be persuaded either way on whether or not the aff gets to weigh the consequences of the plan and whether the neg gets links to reps/justifications.
• I have a high standard for both aff and neg explanation in K debates. Do not just yell buzzwords at me.

Counterplans

• Condo is good within reason. Will definitely vote for condo bad if it is egregious
• Not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counter plans, like consult, reg neg, delay, or any other procedural counter plan that results in the aff
• Multi-actor international fiat is probably bad, 50 states fiat is probably good
• Smart permutations are persuasive and win counterplan debates

Disads

• Please do impact calc.
• The internal link matters

K affs / Framework

• No ideological predispositions either way. Very high bar for explanation and line by line on both sides of these debates.
• Fairness is an impact, but you still have to explain it properly. No preference between fairness and clash/skills.
• Line by line is important. Specificity is crucial -- Reading your generic blocks is not persuasive if they are not contextualized to the aff.
• A TVA is not necessary but it is very persuasive defense when applied properly
• Impact calc and judge instruction wins and loses these debates
• K v K debates require clear explanation from both teams. Not super experienced in KvK so walk me through it clearly. Can go either way on whether K affs get a perm.