Southlake Carroll '22, UTD '26

nehapaulina04@gmail.com (put me on the chain please! and reach out to me if you have any questions/concerns/literally anything)

Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 5 years, 3 in PF and 2 in worlds. In worlds, I did the ¼ and 3 and I won TFA state in 2021. In PF, I qualified for TFA state in my freshman and sophomore years and I broke at a few bid tournaments. I’ve been judging a mix of PF and WSD ever since I graduated. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Sanjay Shori, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala.

TLDR; tech > truth, down for anything that isn't offensive/exclusionary

My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and preferences can be overridden by good debating. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, the ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.

I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one.

Things that matter for both PF and Worlds: I couldn’t care less about what you wear or whether you sit or stand, please do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable. I would classify myself as tech > truth, but my threshold for tech decreases the more you forgo truth. In simpler terms, run whatever argument you want, but the more ridiculous it is, the more I’m willing to buy responses to that argument. Speaks: I think speaker points are a really dumb system so I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers but speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(. if you make a joke about/somehow make fun of anbu subramanian: for pfers, auto 30. for wsders, +1 speaker point

-PF-

It’s been a while since I’ve been involved in PF, so you’d probably best classify me as a flay judge. While I’m not up-to-date on the topic, I catch on to arguments pretty quickly. I can keep up with some speed but if you’re planning on going >200wpm, please send a doc!!

Substance: Love a good substance debate. No new frontlines to any responses from first rebuttal and no new defense in second summary. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Disads/offensive overviews are fine in first rebuttal but not second. No sticky defense. No new arguments (including weighing) in final focus.

Cross: I can’t even put into words how much I don’t care about cross. I’m not voting off anything in cross so if anything important was said, it needs to be in a speech. Please feel free to use cross for prep if you want (#abolishgrandcross), however if you choose to do it, whatever you say is binding.

Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF, but tbh I'm probably not a good judge for it. You can make “bUt tHiS iS pF" as a response but I won’t like it. If you're reading multiple off-case arguments please make it clear when you're going from one to the next.

Theory: I’m most familiar with basic theory shells such as disclosure, paraphrase, etc, but you would make my life 10x easier if you ran them in shell format. I default drop the debater (except on T where I default drop the argument), competing interps, and no RVIs, but if you can’t read and warrant paradigm issues you’re getting 20s. If you're planning on running a more complex shell then please slow down and overexplain it. Please clearly delineate between the different parts of the shell. I'm not up-to-date enough on current pf norms to have many set beliefs, but I do believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is usually bad. This is not to say you can't win against these shells with me as a judge, but it might be an uphill battle.

Kritiks: A lot of Ks in PF are bad. Your alt needs to solve. I have a very basic understanding of basic Ks so you should definitely really overexplain (especially high theory and non-T/performance Ks) and send me a doc. If you read a floating PIK in PF i’m dropping your speaks. ROTB is fine as long as you run it properly. Perfcons on both theory and Ks are very persuasive. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW like saying it’s violent will annoy me.

Everything else: run them at your own risk just please overexplain

Evidence and Prep: I expect all evidence to be sent cut w/ tags. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to send evidence after your opponent calls for it, I'll start docking your speaks. I will read all evidence sent on the chain, and will ask to see any other cards only if I am explicitly told to do so. please extend ev by author name/year AND what the card said! I try my best to write down all author names but if you're going too fast I won't be able to catch everything (hint: you can avoid this issue by sending a doc!). I don't like evidence debates but I understand they happen a lot in PF - indicts are fine but I would much rather hear defense. Flex prep is fine. I won't time your prep but I will not be lenient on any instances of obvious prep stealing.

-WSD-

Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.

Content: Like I mentioned earlier, I’m tech > truth, so feel free to run whatever argument you want as long as it’s well-warranted. This is a hot worlds take but I strongly believe and will die on the hill that principle arguments are outweighed by the practical 100% of the time. That being said I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument) and I'll evaluate them just like any other argument, but if you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal.

Strategy: This is the aspect of the debate I pay the most attention to since at the end of the day, I am a flow judge and whoever wins on the flow wins the round. I absolutely love seeing weighing, I think it’s a really important aspect of debate that a lot of WSDers ignore. If you win the weighing, and you win your link into the weighing, you win the round. Please be comparative to your opponent’s specific arguments instead of just repeating yours over and over. Worlds arguments are stock and repetitive 90% of the time, so I absolutely love seeing unique strats. I also love it when teams make a clear worlds comparison analysis. Please, for the love of god, resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over.

Style: Putting on a good performance may get you higher speaks, but it won’t win you the round. That being said, I do appreciate humor and seeing your personality in the speech, as long as you don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. The main way I award style points is by how organized and easy to flow your speeches are. I genuinely don’t understand why this activity is so bad at signposting, please tell me where you are on the flow or else I won’t know what to do with your argument.

Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means)

Hey! I debated Worlds pretty extensively at Greenhill (graduated in 2022) and am now an APDA and BP debater at Brown.

Four things for the round:

1. Speak at a good pace. Talking too fast is bad stylistically and strategically. I won’t hear your argument and you’ll sound rushed and panicked.
2. you need warrants!!! Why is an argument true, why does it have X impact, why does it weigh more? Don’t restate the same argument over and over, develop it in the round. I won’t do the work for you.
3. don’t be offensive. Be mindful of the arguments you run and the presence you have in the room. I will not want to vote for someone that yells at their opponents, yells at me about their opponents, says something rude or overly aggressive, or runs an argument that is offensive or discriminatory.
4. Also don't say your speech time "starts on your first word" because we all know that and its annoying (at least to me). just say how you want POIs and start your speech. If you still say this I will know you did not read my paradigm.........

School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None

Hired - yes

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas

College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate

Years Judging/Coaching - 4

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots

Check all that apply

_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments

Rounds judged in other events this year

xx_ PF

xx__ LD

xx__ Extemp/OO/Info

xx__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

Have you chaired a WS round before? yes

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.

How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

*updated 10/17/20*

Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

Now onto the stuff about me...

NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.

***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.

In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.

Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Intro: Hey there, I'm Sanjay. I debated for 4 years at Southlake Carroll in WSD and have 1.5 years of experience as a judge/coach. I've been speakers 1-4 throughout my time in WSD, so I am more than familiar with the ins-and-outs of the format and each speech.

Judging philosophy (personal take): I purely evaluate the material that is presented to me in the round, nothing more, nothing less. That being said, winning a round entirely depends on how you build and present your argument. While both sides may be inherently true, the side that uses their arguments to their best ability will ultimately win. This will depend on a number of factors, primarily how you justify its importance, how you weaponize it against the opposing side, how well you defend it from opposing arguments, how you characterize its terminal impacts, and MOST IMPORTANTLY..... how you weigh the arguments. Weighing is, in my opinion, the most powerful tool you have in a round that can very clearly tell me why I should vote for you. Prop/opp 3's, this is your time to shine.

If you want to look at other RFDs that I agree with, I suggest taking a close look at fellow Diet Coke and McDonald's enthusiast Neha Boyapati.

Case building/structure: Make sure your framework and substantives are clearly organized in order and thought. I have a soft spot for well-constructed cases so plz plz make sure they flow properly. Bonus points for in-case spikes and fleshed-out impact calc.

Speeches: Worlds is a mix of performative and argumentative speeches. Personally, I don't put much emphasis on the performative aspect, but I do like seeing your personality in speeches- be funny or sarcastic, dramatic or calm (your preference, but just keep it moderated). Same as case building, I like structured speeches since it makes it easier for me to listen, evaluate, and weigh your arguments. Make sure to signpost whenever you get to certain segments of your speech :)

Clash/Weighing: This is the bulk of where my decision will be made. I am a flow judge, so I care about the development and clash of arguments more than anything in the round. It is simply not enough to say "our argument is better" or "our argument is true-r." Unless you provide me with comparative analysis as to why your argument is better, I will not buy it on face-value. So, please please please make sure to weigh and provide me with some comparison of the prop/opp world: scale, timeframe, magnitude, briteline, prereq, solvency.

*Highest ground analysis is my all time favorite, so make sure to use it*

Other general stuff: Don't make the debate about the models- it becomes very messy and hard to evaluate. It's okay to talk at a fast pace if you have a lot of content, but don't spread. Utilize POIs (20s break between each). Be consistent with your strategy and narrative down the bench.

Feel free to reach out to me at sanjayshori03@gmail.com if you have any questions/concerns/anything. Have a nice day!

Marianne Smith- Parent Judge

Clear and concise speakers are appreciated. Don't go too fast and make sure I can understand/hear you.

Hi! I am Naz Soysal (she/her), and I debated in World Schools Debate through high school. I was a member of the USA Development Team and Team Texas during those years, and I now compete in APDA and BP for Yale.

Some thoughts on debate in general:

1. Be nice. Debate is not that deep (even though it may seem like it sometimes). Don't ruin a round/tournament for someone else who will remember your rudeness.

2. Clarity is core. What does this mean? Explain to me in the final speech what you are winning, what you are losing, and why what you are winning is more important than what you are losing (ie WEIGH). Don't just list weighing mechanisms; explain why your weighing is more important than their weighing too.

3. Rounds should narrow. I care most about arguments that have been talked about the entire round, not some random subsection of one contention made in the first speech and dropped until the last speech.

4. I tend to care less about evidence/statistics than the logical backing behind arguments. Obviously, I abide by what is the norm for the event: I care a whole lot more about evidence (and especially evidence ethics) in PF than I would in WSD.

5. If the average reader of the New York Times wouldn't know what you're talking about, explain, explain, explain.

PF specifically:

1. I flow. I can't flow when you're speaking at lightning speed. You can speak above conversational speed, but if you see me stop flowing, you need to slow down– I am probably confused.

2. I've watched a few PF rounds with progressive arguments– generally, you can run them, but you need to explain things very clearly. Don't assume I know what an RVI is. Especially, don't be exclusionary– don't run theory on novices.

3. Please number mechs/responses and tell me where they are on the flow.

4. Add me to the email chain: naz.soysal@yale.edu

WS specifically:

1. I will gut-check your arguments. Please do not impact to nuclear war unless the debate is specifically about nuclear weapons.

2. I tend to have very little tolerance for language or style imported from PF/LD/Policy→ when judging a WSD round, if you use the word disad I will pretend to not know what it means. Style is a major factor in WSD– your speaker points will be docked.

3. Some judges have strong preferences on if you run a 3rd substantive or not in the second speech. I don’t really care, just be strategic. If you run one, make it matter in the round, else you’re just wasting speech time.

4. The big picture should be happening by 2nd opp at a minimum; line-by-line 3rd speeches are unstrategic. I don’t care how you condense the debate (questions, clashes, 2 worlds, etc.), but there should be a top-level structure.

5. If a principle is made properly, the argument will 100% outweigh the practical given the essence of a principled argument is that no matter the consequences, there are certain moral outcomes that matter more. Unfortunately, in 95% of debates I've seen or participated in, principles are made by putting a few buzzwords together and calling it a day. Again, be strategic. Make the argument properly or don't put it in at all– if your strength is practical arguments, then make practical arguments.

Above all, have fun!

Email Chain-- shishirwaghray@gmail.com

About Me: [Plano West '20]

Hello! I competed for Plano West for 4 years, mainly in LD on the TFA and national circuits. I also briefly did policy towards the latter half of my debate career. I strive to be as tabula rasa as possible in my judging philosophy. Below is my paradigm. Please ask me questions as you see fit.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Quick Prefs:

Policy (Plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, etc.) - 1

T & Theory - 1 or 2

K/K Affs - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4/Strike

*Note: I am familiar with all of these arguments-- this scale simply reflects my personal preferences. Feel free to run what you want...I'll keep up. Ideally I would be a 1 for all of these, but it's merely a personal preference.

____________________________________________________________________________________

**LD/CX Paradigm**

General Stuff-

-Tech > Truth: good strategy, great engagement with the flow, extension of warrants/offense, and line-by-lining go a long way towards making me vote for you.

-Weighing: Do it well and do it frequently. Have weighing mechanisms that make sense within the context of the round. Generally, this is what separates some of the really good debates observed throughout my career vs the really poor ones. Good evaluative mechanisms are also appreciated.

-Warrants: Be sure to provide clear and concise warrants as to why something is true and why I should be voting off of it. Extend warrants through all speeches and towards the back-half of the round.

-Signposting: it's really important that you say where you are on the flow throughout the round.

-Strategic Collapsing: Again, quality over quantity of arguments here. Rather than trying to win off every single argument, pick the few that are the most strategic in round and go for those. Additionally, tell me why those are the most important and why I should vote off of them.

-Framework: Whether this is an ROB, traditional V/C, or something else, good framework debate is something I enjoy.

-I generally tend to vote off of substantive offense...this is the best way to get to my ballot

Speed:

Spreading is generally fine with me, but make sure that if you're going to spread, that it is clear. I'll say "clear" once before I start docking speaker points. You might want to slow down a little on analytics, taglines, theory interps, and plan texts just to make sure I don't miss anything.

Framing:

-Doesn't really matter what this will be, whether it is a value/criterion, ROB, or something else. It should be well explained and extended in the 1AR/2NR. Additionally, your weighing mechanisms should be clearly delineated and filtered through the lens of a framework if you're running a stock case, critical position, or ideally most LARP positions.

Post-Round: I will end up disclosing my decision at the end of the round, and am open to any questions/concerns about the RFD. Contrary to what other judges think, I believe that post-rounding is good as it keeps judges accountable and makes them justify the decision.

Case Structures-

*In general, run whatever you want--I'll vote on most things as long as the debate is done well*

Policy/LARP: I really like this debate style, and it is what I have read upwards of 80% of the time throughout my own debate career. With that being said, there are a couple pointers. Try to be creative here as there is so much topic ground for you to cover. I'd like to see good comparison of evidence/internal warrants of cards in rounds as well as good weighing. These make for interesting debates.

- Creative and nuanced econ, politics, or geopolitical scenarios will be rewarded with good speaks. Nuanced means something other than the same extinction scenario or surface level political analysis.

1.) Plans: Must have a clear representation of what the world looks like and good solvency mechanisms. Absent explicit framing, I default to a basic util/policymaking FW. Having good warrants and weighing mechanisms are crucial here.

2.) CP/PIC: I prefer case specific CPs over generic ones. Must include solvency evidence and net benefits. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory. I won't "judge kick" the CP for you.

• I enjoy some of the more arcane CPs such as Agent, Conditions, Process, Delay, Consult, and Conditions, but be prepared to win the theory debate on these.

• CPs with just the text and no evidence underneath are a waste of time. Condo is fine, but be prepared to win theory, and >3 condo is probably abusive.

• Perms are a test of competition. I'd rather see one well warranted perm than 8 blippy perms.

3.) DA: Uniqueness evidence, good link chain, and tangible impacts are crucial to a good DA. 1 card DAs, Bad link chains or outlandish impacts are unlikely to get my ballot.

• Politics DAs are probably my favorite, given that they have good links, tangible impacts, and substantive/nuanced knowledge of the politics. This does not mean reading some generic garbage from openev, but rather having an understanding of the political process. I keep up with politics quite a bit, and can tell if your link chains/impacts are nonsensical.

Kritiks: While I primarily read policy style arguments, I've admittedly had decent experience with Ks as well. I'm decently familiar with most of the commonly read authors including Baudrillard, Wilderson, Warren, Deleuze & Guattari,, Tuck & Yang, etc.

-High Theory & PoMo > IDPol > Generics (e.g. Cap, Security, etc.)

-Things I HATE: Backfile K Debate, Vague/generic links to the aff, unclear explanation of what the alt looks like, unclear explanation of the lit ("buzzword, buzzword, buzzword..." won't cut it!) overly long/scripted overviews, unwarranted independent voters.

-Things I want to see: Clear Link, Specific/tangible explanation of Alt, ROB provided as an overarching portion of the K. I like seeing good K debates with in-depth knowledge of the literature at hand.

-I like seeing good K debates. I think understanding your critical position and clearly being able to articulate it separates good debaters from unskilled hacks.

-Do most of the work on the line-by-line instead of having really long and scripted overview.

-I enjoy good methods debates in response to most critical positions.

-I'll evaluate K Tricks such as root cause, can't weigh case, V2L, floating PIKs (must be set up in the neg block or the 1NC for LD), etc.

T/Theory:

Defaults: Competing Interps/No RVI/Education > Fairness/T > Theory/Meta Theory > Theory.

-In general, there needs to be a clear procedural abuse for me to vote off theory. Otherwise, I'll end up making theory a wash and voting off substance. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory as I think it detracts from more substantive debates, and my threshold for responses on a friv shell is a lot lower than a normal one.

-On Topicality: I'm hard pressed to grant an RVI here, more so than I am on other shells.

-I think disclosure is a good norm and am inclined to buy disclosure theory. With that being said, I'm far more sympathetic to small schools as I think they're at a strategic disadvantage to big school prepouts and the like.

-No default on DTD vs. DTA... I think that is for you to articulate to me which one I should go forward with.

-Reasonability is a question of the aff's counter-interp, not whether the aff is "reasonably topical"

K Affs: Go for it, although you should have good justifications for your model of debate, and why debating that specific aff in a certain round is good.

-I prefer affirmatives that are creatively topical or tangentially related to the resolution rather than straight up nontopical.

-If you're going to run a performance, you should have good justifications for what the specific performance accomplishes not just within debate in general, but also that round in particular.

-In K Aff v. TFW debates, I ideologically side with T Framework (probably around 60/40). This doesn't mean that all clash debates will lead me voting in this direction, and I don't let my personal preferences cloud my judgement of the round, but you should be prepared to answer this well and have good justifications for why your model of debate as well as your aff (performative or otherwise) is good.

Phil/Tricks: I'll evaluate these, but I'm not the best judge for these types of debates, given that I didn't really compete in or evaluate these types of debates most frequently. That's not to say that you can't run these, but just that you'll probably have to slow down a little, over-explain, and that I might not give the most coherent RFD at the end.

Traditional/Lay Stuff: Not much to say here. I’ll evaluate it. Just make sure to have a V/C (LD) and weigh stuff I guess. If you can do progressive debate though, I’d much rather listen to that.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Speaker Points/Misc.-

26-30-- 26= Poor | 30=exceptional. Most average debaters will fall around 28-28.4 speaks. Unclear speaking will result in docked speaker points.

*On rare occasions, you might receive a 25 for a couple reasons.

1.) Being unnecessarily rude to your opponent. This includes being overly aggressive or hostile to novices if you're an experienced debater.

2.) If you ask me to give you 30 speaks.

Stuff I Won't Vote On:

-Evaluate after [X] speech.

-Things that happened outside of the round.

-Unwarranted independent voter blips.