Speak slowly and clearly. Stay respectful. I encourage direct refutation. Quality > quantity. The number of arguments you have left standing is less important than how well you are able to convey them. Be kind and good luck.

Pronouns: she/her

TLDR: be ethical

I debated for Seven Lakes in TX for four years. Primarily Congress and Extemp, Public Forum and World Schools here and there.

Email if you have questions before/after round! corinaaniceto743@gmail.com

Overall:

1. Misgendering (especially if not corrected or done intentionally) is an automatic drop for me.

2. It's not as simple as it sounds running a case without implicit biases. Be considerate.

3. I check cards, do not use anything fake or reinterpreted.

4. Trigger warnings are important, but it is absolutely not an excuse to use extremely insensitive, descriptive rhetoric.

Extemp:

Please, answer the question. Your subpoints should directly support your response. Good sourcing is expected, entertaining speeches are given bonuses. Make sure to signpost and don't scream.

I welcome creative structures. Though, I can tell if your two point speech was only a result of being ill-prepared.

I appreciate sourcing even more. Academic sources are preferred: think government data, think tanks, books, etc. News organizations should fall shorter on the list.

CX should be a benefit to you, don't choke. Show me what you know.

Congress:

Rehash is the easiest way for me to drop your rankings. If you GENUINELY have new analysis to add, you should be good enough at reframing that it doesn't become rehash.

I appreciate solid sponsors/authors. Two stock arguments is not a sponsor.

Late round crystals should be well done, focus on weighing and not new arguments.

Clash is important, but wasting 20 seconds name dropping is not. You have 3 minutes, use them well.

If your side hasn't properly addressed a strong opposing arg, I will appreciate clashing it.

Don't ask questions that have zero relevance to the speech's content or anything overly vague during CX. I'm won't be impressed if you ask a million questions that lead the round nowhere. Don't be overly aggressive, I will down you for being disrespectful, ie. cutting the other person off.

Especially with precedence charts, I always use quality > quantity of speeches.

Presentation matters, do not have your eyes glued to a pad or google doc. Especially not printed sheets

PF:

I will vote off theory and Ks. I'm extremely progressive but I can tell when this is being abused. Just be respectful.

Weigh early, extending is important, analysis is just as important as your cards.

Roadmaps are appreciated.

Cross is important, make the most of it, but don't get overly aggressive

I weigh evidence quality.

Number your responses and collapse well.

Content warnings or exemptions through google forms are highly appreciated.

I will disclose if allowed.

Grace Baldwin (she/her)- Paradigm

quick info: The Woodlands High School 20' and UT Austin 23', debated policy for over a year, have limited debate experience in PF, LD, and Congress and other IEs. Have judged numerous tournaments in Parli, PF, LD and CX (and IEs).

Feel free to ask questions before the round starts about anything, including UT, college, etc.

my email is gracebaldwin29@outlook.com.

PLS PLS PLS use SPEECH DROP.

Name the doc or subject line "Tournament- Round #- 1AC/1NC etc"- "Lake Travis Round 2 1AC" for example

SPEAKING POINTS

I can and do give low point wins. Clarity is key. Signpost and just give me the order- stick to it. Please organize your speeches well, most people don't. Speed is NOT always better. Spreading will not automatically get you better speaking points. If you choose to spread, SLOW DOWN during your rebuttals or I simply will not flow.

I encourage funny tags and playing music during prep to lighten the mood :)

Lose speaks if you

1. go over time
2. make me keep track of your time
3. speak too quietly/i can't hear you
4. unclear enough that I have to yell clear
5. make bad puns or make me cringe
6. arrive late and you're not cross entered
7. don't give me an order

Public Forum

Heads up to people debating the great power conflict topic: I am an international relations major and senior at UT, and I have studied great power conflict. My research focus is on US-China relations and Chinese domestic security. As such, for this topic, do not BS your argument, I will not buy it . If you don't understand great power conflict, unipolarity and multipolarity, learn it and learn to debate it.

I have limited experience debating PF, but I have judged several tournaments in it. I'm a lot more generous in PF. Be clear.

CROSSFIRE Engage in active crossfire, don't bullzone a crossfire. Don't make it a CX either. Don't give speeches in crossfire either. Use it to clarify arguments. I consider crossfire in my decision if it is well or badly used. Don't go into tangents in crossfire and bring up arguments if they won't appear in the speeches at all. Give me a good grand crossfire. I do not like lopsided teams/one person carrying the team, so please ensure both members are engaging in the debate. I also admire mavericks.

ROLE OF THE JUDGE AND PERSPECTIVE: I generally view PF as mostly educational-- LD and CX are more of games to me-- so I sometimes default to truth. I'm not convinced I can vote on an issue if it is egregiously untrue, however if the opposition concedes, I reluctantly will vote but leave many comments in my RFD.

I haven't been in enough rounds in PF where debaters claim fiat, so I have no strong enough opinions- if you believe PF has fiat, tell me why. I default to role of the judge being to pick the best debater - like CX, I often think about who is winning the central issues- not who wins the most- or pushes a winning framework.

FORMAT/HOW I EVALUATE A ROUND: PF is a short format, exceptionally shorter than policy which I have experience in. As such, be mindful so introduce less arguments and contextualize the debate for me. PF doesn't have burdens, solvency, anything like that, however, I would like you to impact weigh for me.

If you decide to be fancy, especially if you are in VPF, and throw in a CP, DA, or anything like that, make sure it works !! I personally find PF to be too short of a format to manage and have full DAs in. If the link chain in your DA is bs, I will not buy it. Don't make a dumb midterms DA shell and expect me to vote on it. PFers- LD and CX people know midterms and politics DAs are bad- learn from them.

Please don't use theory, Ks, T, or anything else unless you're in varsity, thanks. I am a relatively blank slate when it comes to impact weighing in PF, so do not assume I will weigh util against structural violence or anything like that unless you articulate it. Everyone always under-focuses on impact weighing. If you have the same impacts, like climate change and extinction, weigh probability or magnitude- I can't do anything if you just repeat your impacts. Don't just say "extinction bad" or "our impact is bigger than theirs"- I am a person always interested in the WHY- basically WHY should I evaluate extinction in this round over structural violence.

WINNING THE DEBATE AND SPEAKING: Don't spread in PF unless you are in the upper echelons of varsity. emphasize tags please. Both speakers take into account your summary and final focuses. I pay most attention and consider both speeches heavily as I think the summaries are the most important in the round. You do NOT need to address everything they dump on you, but I need summaries to address two or three major voting issues. I prefer you address major voting issues over spending 10-20 seconds on every single argument. You will not win on just a card but the argument.

CX and LD

Pref order: Traditional, K, K aff and most theory, phil

Disclosure- I will NOT be disclosing for TFA state

SPREADING- I'm not a huge fan of spreading despite doing a lot of it in high school. It often makes debate difficult and not that much engaging. HOWEVER, do it if it is most comfortable to you, I will listen and flow, but you must send docs obv if you spread. Do NOT spread if your opponent is not spreading. Figure it out in advance. I will yell clear if I cannot understand you. Emphasize and slow down on tags please, thank you.

FRAMEWORK-I am a framework judge, I like it a lot. Like PF, but even more so in CX and LD, I am evaluating who is winning the framework. I don't see debate as merely who is winning singularly on contentions/advantages nor do I like to vote on a single CP or DA. I need a lens in how to view the round and particularly in LD, what I ought to value. I feel like there is too much judge intervention if I have to rely on just advantages or a CP to vote on as that ultimately comes down to a personal judgement on which I think is working more in the round, rather than the debater who has successfully framed it. Terminal impacts are important and I think sometimes the link chain doesn't get properly extended so remember that.

I mostly end up judging to what is left on the flow and what I can evaluate. I won't necessarily judge off this one minor point that goes conceded if the other team is winning the critical analysis. A properly extended and explained adv and impact goes a very very long way for me. Conceded arguments are not the end all be all if the warranting and impact isn't extended. Don't say, extend my first contention whose impact is extinction, and expect me to vote off of that. Clash well with the framework, give and extend a solid reasoning why yours is better. Often util vs SV frameworks are just "my framework is better bc mine takes into account more people" like okkkkk...

THEORY- Okay, so I've come to the conclusion that I don't like theory debates. I have been in numerous theory debates and I find them all dreadfully boring. Fundamentally, I think the vast majority of theory debates require too much judge intervention in determining the winner on my end, as there's significantly less critical analysis I'm able to look at and evaluate and more often than not I just defer to case. For example: debates I've been in where people run spreading or specific vs generic resolution affs or disclosure theory. Most often the theory is super generic and I default that you have to prove ill intent - or else why are we wasting a debate discussing theory and not issues? I can vote on theory, I just very much do not want to. Also, if you decide to read theory, especially those long bolded shells- you know what I'm talking about that have 8 points- SLOW DOWN or else YOU HURT MY BRAIN AND I WON'T VOTE FOR YOU. I default to education most often in theory particularly at a place like TFA state.

CPs and DAs-analytical DAs are always better, politics and midterms DAs are almost always bad, generic CPs make me cry and make sure you articulate a good perm thanks.

PICS- pics are fine lol

ROLE OF THE JUDGE-Considering I wax in and out of PF and LD as a judge, more often than not I defer to truth, particularly if it is a policy resolution, unless I am told otherwise. However, if the opposition doesn't say much or push back substantially, then I am more than willing to vote on something stupid. I don't see the judge to be an arbiter of truth but more so a decipher of who is telling a better story or framing their arguments more effectively. I will only buy bs if you bs well enough essentially.

Ks- I ran into many Ks and am familiar with some literature. I ran a K or two during my time in high school. However, don't veer too much off topic. If we're having a discussion on US-China trade, don't plunge into a hole on afro-pessimism performance. I like performance myself and ran into many cap Ks. If you are going to use one, make it a good one. If you run a K Aff, give me a good reason why you're doing it. I'm not a solid traditionalist when it comes to debate but I much prefer an interesting debate about policy and morality. Generic links are meh and while you can win, case specifics are better. I am familiar to a degree with abolition, pess, cap, foucault, setter colonialism, fem, epistemology, ableism, etc. However, considering I mostly judge PF and LD, I would generally strike me if you are running a K that I didn't list, or you should definitely spend more time explaining it thanks. Like framework, I need a good warranting for the alt.

Value, Criterion- establish them early and debate them. I'll accept Affs if neg doesn't have anything substantial.

T- I don't weigh T heavily unless it dominates the debate and I personally find T more often than not distracting as there is rarely ever good clash to come out of it.

Tricks- not a fan, don't do it (or if that's your thing strike me pllsssss)

CX- I like a good CX, and I pay attention. A poorly used CX can reflect badly on whoever is asking. Don't use it for repetition unless for clarification. Don't ask irrelevant questions either. I think CX is pretty binding.

Organization- stick to your roadmap. While I'm ADHD and understand the tendency to move around a lot, it's annoying on the flow when you move around. Use prep time to organize your thoughts. Most people don't organize their speeches well, pls organize yours well thanks.

Debate performance itself is somewhat important to me, but your arguments matter more. I personally really like framework debates and good impact weighing. I very much judge on how the debate ends rather than how it begins.

Make my RFD easy.

SPEECH AND IES

Give me a good and clear roadmap. For novices, if you need a moment to think, better to pause and regroup rather than spitting out something. Calm, cool, and collected.

I like jokes but in good taste.

Organize your thoughts. Give clear evidence.

I know what the "Speakers Triangle" is. Do it, but if you don't do it, I probably will not notice.

Keep the tone conversational or formal.

Keep a steady pace. Go in depth. You don't have to teach me something but you do have to engage me. The best speakers can make the dullest topic engaging.

Use relevant evidence. Evidence for evidence's sake I notice.

Other:

Just because you know all the debate lingo doesn't make you a great debater. I was out of debate and came back in long enough to find that just dumping debate language on top of me IS NOT an argument. Be clear. Thanks.

I have mild ADHD, so if you see me messing with my hair, tapping my foot, or flicking my pen, don't worry, I am listening.

I am an international relations student and well versed in geopolitics, US and Texas politics, and current events. Assume I have a baseline or great amount of knowledge about your topic unless it is completely niche.

flex prep is fine, open CX/cross is fine. keep your own prep and speech times, thank you. I don't care where you sit so long as I can hear you.

Give a trigger warning if you need to. I am warning any speakers and debaters to strike me preemptively if your case/speech/performance includes an abundance of discussion or trivalization of r*pe or SA.

If one might construe what you are saying as racist, misogynistic, ableist, etc. , I do not condone that and will mark you down for it.

In regards to abuse and fairness- I only take it into consideration if you break my paradigm or bring it up during a round.

hi! i'm aarushi (she/her) and i did ld (mainly larp) at centennial.

- email: aarushib374@gmail.com

- go at about 70% if you're going to spread and slow down on interps and analytics

- time yourself and record a local copy of your speeches

- give content warnings and don't spread if your opponent asks not to

larp - i'm most confident with judging these debates. i love cp/da's and plan affs are ok. evidence quality matters so please have recent evidence (ideally from that week). if you're gonna perm, clearly explain the net benefit of the perm.

k's - i'm most familiar with setcol, fem, and cap k's. any k's other than those need to be explained really really really well otherwise i'm not going to understand them. you need to have a framing mechanism and have an alt that would solve the impacts. you should have links to the ac and not just to the topic.

phil, tricks- not very familiar with these, def not the judge for these debates

theory - theory is fine as long as it's relevant (plz no friv otherwise i'll lean the other way). weigh between standards so i know which is more important and what to vote on. i will default drop the debater, competing interps, and no rvi's.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

hi! I'm looking forward to judging and getting more involved with participating in tournaments from the judging perspective rather than the competitor one. I'll go into a little bit about myself and my experience in Speech and Debate and then my specific preferences whenever it comes to all of the events that I may judge! I competed in Speech and Debate all four years of high school and primarily focused on speech and interpretation events, however, there was a lengthy period of time that I participated in policy debate. In policy debate I broke to outrounds at Harvard and mainly competed in the TFA and UIL circuits. In speech/interpretation events I mostly competed into Domestic Extemp and Humorous Interpretation on both the national and TFA circuits- breaking to outrounds at tournaments like the Longhorn Classic, TFA State, UC Berkeley, Harvard, and the NIETOC. Here are my specific preferences when it comes to judging debate rounds:

Debate-

Policy: I'm a tab judge, so I really don't care what you run and I will vote on whatever arguments are made during the round. I really enjoy listening to k arguments but please please don't just say a bunch of random stuff, make sure that there is actually a connection to the topic. Topicality is the main thing that I really am not the biggest fan of, but I love k affs and theory a lot because they provide a lot of meta debate. In regards to the flow, I think that I'm pretty good at it, but I don't think that extremely fast spreading is good for debate even if you're getting more information in-- it almost defeats the purpose in my opinion. The job of the affirmative is to propose a plan or advocacy that either proves the topic or frames why rejecting it is important is better than the status quo/neg cp or alt. The job of the neg is to prove the status quo/cp or alt is better than the affirmative advocacy or plan. This applies to theory and T in the sense that if you prove how they access the topic or utilize an argument is worse for the debate space going forward, it still weighs.

LD: I'm pretty cool with any type of argument that could be run in LD debate and I don't really have any preferences. Speed is fine just make sure that you still complete cards and are at least somewhat comprehendible. I don't really care about being on an email chain if the tournament is in person, however, I'd like to be on one for an asynchronous tournament if one is made. If any evidence is called into question, I'll ask to see it at the end of the round to determine its validity. My email is elicraddockk@gmail.com

PF: I think that it is extremely important that PF stays as a simple event that anyone can be able to easily follow and understand. With that in mind, I would like it if arguments were kept simple and speed at a normal, or slightly quicker, speed in order to stay true to PF's purpose. Putting me on an email chain shouldn't be necessary. If any evidence is called into question, I'll ask to see it at the end of the round to determine its validity.

Extemps: I like a very structured speech that is very formulaic. I will rarely give someone the 1 if they don't follow a standard extemp speech format. In extemp I also think that it is very important that you are not speaking at your judges and that it feels more like a conversation rather than a complete presentation. Humor works great whenever you try and establish that personable connection and you will definitely get bonus points if you're funny or have references to pop culture. Also ensure that you are using 5-7 sources within your speech, 4 is okay, however, more than 4 really cements that you know what you're talking about. Additionally, for me in particular, you don't have to have a day associated with your dates if you prefer to keep it to "the New York Times notes within January 2022"- year and month is cool w me. Try to be as fluent as possible, but if there are a couple of stumbles that more than likely won't play into my decision if your content is really strong. Also, try to stick to the exact wording of the question as much as possible, but if you're a word or two off that's okay!

Interp-

This is just a general note, but I will absolutely not tolerate anyone taking pieces from another person. If I can google your piece on youtube and it is extremely similar to a preexisting one, I will rank you last in the round immediately. Interp is literally short for interpretation and it is supposed to be your own interpretation of a piece of literature, not another's interpretation.

DI: I never did DI, however, I did end up watching countless rounds of it, so I have a fairly decent idea of what distinguishes good DIs. I personally prefer a more subtle take towards DI, however, ones with a louder, more powerful climax can still be better whenever it comes to rankings. I look for unique characterization and distinction and I try to see if there is some sort of discernable growth or degrowth in the progression of the story. I think that it is also important that your DI is unique to yourself. Unique topics or piece selections will get bonus points! I really enjoy listening to all kinds of stories whenever it comes to DI and I will try my best to equally evaluate all pieces even if I cannot personally relate to the topic.

HI: I love HI so much!! The three pieces that I competed with in high school for HI were Dear Evan Hansen, 10 Things I Hate About You, and Gossip Girl. I really appreciate HIs that have a super unique sense to them. This can manifest itself through taking a popular piece of media or literature and adding your own unique twist to it or just choosing something completely unexpected as your lit. Whenever it comes to HI, I genuinely value actual humor over tech because I think that's what distinguishes a good HI. Humor is extremely subjective, however, even if I don't find whatever you're doing funny, if you're creating a personable connection through the humor that YOU enjoy then you will still be ranked highly. In regards to preliminary rounds of locals/larger tournaments I'll probably vote in favor of tech, however, if you are not funny or if you don't seem to be enjoying your piece in outrounds I will rank you down- you need to be funny or at least be trying to convey the type of humor you like or else you shouldn't be doing HI. Additionally, please please please be a good sport and laugh at other competitors even if you personally don't find it funny. Being polite towards other people is another part of competition and if you are rude or disrespectful during round to other people I will drop you immediately.

PO/PRO: Same comments whenever it comes to DI and HI. For Poetry, I like there to be an appropriate mix of literature that crafts a unique story that takes into account different perspectives. This is the same thing with Prose. I like super interesting and engaging blocking as well as long as it doesn't take away from the important of the story.

Please let me know if you have any questions before or after round!!:)

∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨

UIL: I know UIL is supposed to be more "traditional," but you're welcome to be as techy as you want as long as you're sharing cases!

Shortcuts

1 - Policy/K

2 - Trad

3 - Phil

4 - Theory/T

Strike - Tricks

Tech > Truth

Fairness = Education

Spreading = Bad, Speed = Good

I prefer Speech Drop or NSDA File Share, but my email is larsoncrank@gmail.com

----------

Background

Klein Collins '22

Texas '26 (History & Government)

I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event, LD was always my favorite and the event that I participated in most frequently. I'm self-taught and because of this I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I was a 3x qual for TFA State and NSDA Academic All-American for anyone who cares about my "qualifications."

Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as other power house schools. If you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings involved in debate, please reach out! I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.

----------

Logistics

In regards to the shortcuts listed above, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of debate. I think as a judge I'm obligated to not allow my own biases related to debating techniques impact the RFD. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want and I will adapt as I see accordingly.

I flow by ear, but I still want access to your case. Not only does this prevent confusion if there's discrepancy during the round, but I think it's ultimately a good practice to share your case with everyone in the room.

Please give a roadmap before your speech AND signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss any figures you put out. The clearer you are with the tags, the better!

When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is entirely destructive for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I'm a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points. I've started flowing again on paper more frequently as opposed to using my computer, so this may be another reason to slow down at least for tags and line-by-line.

I expect to see clash over framing! You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be evaluating under. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason! If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare evidence with which in turn makes producing a good RFD difficult. Not to mention, I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame offensive position.

I'm going to default tech before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD and evaluate only what is said during round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it wins in a tech debate!

I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think in this situation. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).

I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into it. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.

I don't keep time. Time yourselves!

I don't flow CX. However, when it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.

----------

Trad

As mentioned above, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career. Although it is a simple strategy, I think it can be just as effective as any of the more "progressive" styles. Case debate is something I’m fully capable of evaluating. This is a random thought, but as I've become more experienced with the other forms of debate, I've developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."

Tell me when something is non-unique! I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position!

I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, an amazing strategy to shoot for is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.

Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how scary they may seem!

----------

Policy

If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."

I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever conclusive impact you are trying to get me to see! Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. ADVs are cool too, but I figured that was implied from my stance on DAs.

CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept (and strongly encourage) Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.

----------

K

I'm familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.

Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative

K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.

While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought. Although, if you’re going to run a K but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all some time and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.

Familiar: Cap, Set Colonial, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess

---------

T

I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little (if anything) to do with the resolution at hand.

Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.

----------

Phil

Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms you probably don’t understand it that well.

I'm familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner! Somewhat related, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.

Empirics > Analytics (in most cases)

Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism

----------

Theory

I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.

I can firmly say that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.

STOP SAYING DTD!

I will NOT vote off Disclosure Theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto-down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. As someone who debated for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the loop and/or involved with collective wikis.

----------

Tricks

I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.

----------

PF

All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter as much like FW).

My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact(s) of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than your opponent's.

Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros and the least amount of cons is most likely going to get the W.

parent judge truth > tech - pls send case in file share better for me to follow along

dont be racist transphobic homophobic etc thx

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

4 years PF experience

For PF:

Anything on the ballot should be in Final Focus.

I consider myself to be a pretty technical judge. It is helpful when debaters go for fewer arguments and give clear link stories. My preference is that the second rebuttal responds to the first rebuttal and that new arguments are not brought up after first summary. CX is for the debaters, but it can be used as an opportunity to bolster speaker points. Paraphrase evidence is fine as long as it is not misconstrued. I will call for the evidence if you ask me to.

Feel free to talk to before round if you have questions.

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

I debated at Lake Travis High School (2016-2020) and competed in LD, PF, and Policy, but I mainly did LD. Please add me to the email chain, my email is vivian.mcdonald789@gmail.com

Short

You can run whatever you want in front of me, I don't care. However, if the the debate space becomes toxic or harmful in some way against either party then I will auto down the aggressor, tank speaks, or both. Debate should NOT be a cite for toxic, dehumanizing, or any other problematic forum. That being said, don't be mean and you'll be fine. Im chill with any form of K, LARP, or Lay stuff. If you read dense phil, most likely I will not know what it is so be slower or do extra explaining. You can always ask in round if I know a specific type of lit, imma be honest. Please give me a clear story to the ballot (weighing, layering, framework, etc.).

Speed

Im chill with any speed as long as you are clear. I spread decently fast in high school so I'm used to spreading. If you aren't clear I will say clear as many times as needed. Please slow down on important texts, such as; interps, rob, alts, plans advocacy, etc. Additionally please be loud, I'm a little hard of hearing on my left side. It doesn't affect my ability with speed, just make sure if you are on my left (your right) that you are extra loud. Additionally I flow by ear not by the doc, if something is in the doc but not said in the round I wont evaluate it. This is debate it has to be said out loud to factor into the decision.

Ks

Im chill with any type of k you read, but just for efficiency I will be using neg k names and stuff. If you have a K aff or read 1AR k I'm chill with that, its just easier for me to type for the neg k names.

This was what I primarily ran in high school, and thus I am most familiar and comfortable with this debate. With that being said, I will NOT hack for a K, and I have a good basis of a lot of k lit so make sure you know the lit before you read a K in front of me. I am much more familiar with identity Ks than I am with high theory, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N, even if you know that I know the lit prior to the round. You need to explain what the alt does and please answer the perms by saying more than just a link is a da to the perm.

If you kick the K, please give a warrant aside from its condo we can kick. I need an explanation of a link, this could either be why the topic is bad, the opponents performance in the round is bad, or the action of the aff is bad, etc., really I don't care what the link is just please have a link and explain it. A link of omission is a link, please still explain it, I know a lot of people that just say they don't mention it and move on, tell me why not mentioning it matters.

You need to answer perms in some way, a conceded perm is damning.

On the ROB debate, please explain the offense and how it links back. Additionally don't just randomly drop the ROB and dont explain why, espically if this is the main framing mech. Either say what new framing you are going under or extend, even if you are winning the whole k debate without a clear extension of the ROB there is no framing mech and thus no reason (unless other articulated) as to why the k matters in the context of the ballot.

Alt solvency needs to be explained clearly by the end of the 2n. Whether it is a method, mindset shift, or a physical action it needs to be explained clearly. I need to know what the world of the k looks like and thus how the offense garnered by the alt actually works in round.

Answer any root cause claims or prereq args on a K. Just because it is a K doesn't mean that the argument itself is immune to any other root cause or prereq args. I have seen one to many really good k debaters lose rounds for dropping a gov is prereq arg or the aff is a prereq to implement the k so make sure these are answered.

I love performance K's. Make the space yours and do whatever you want.

T/Theory

Defaults: Reasonability, Drop the Debater, No RVIs, Education

I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on but if there is no work or weighing this is what I will default to first, if you don't like any of these then please make an argument. Please do contextualized work on the analysis of the standards and voters. If you don't tell me why the abuse story is relevant or properly respond to your opponents, I wont do the work for you. For me as a judge if the analysis isn't done well or even if it is skipped it is easy for T/Theory to be a wash for me. In rounds I've recently judged, a lot of debaters extend the shell but din't answer the args of the opponent made on the shell proper. Make sure the shell is more than just base extensions, if there is no warrented answer outside of the extension I'll err on the opponents side or it could be a wash depending on how the round breaks down.

My threshold for disclosure theory is really high, I don't by it in general be forewarned. The work has to be done really well, I'll still evaluate it but it is super easy for me to by a reasonability claim on this. Same thing goes for friv theory shells.

DAs

They be chillin. I think good substance debate is always dope, but with that being said please provide a clear link story. If the strat is winning off just the DA, you need to give me a ballot story and tell me what the impact is, please don't just extend the card and move on.

CPs

Im chill with PICs, but please warrant out how they are different than the aff.

You need to answer perms, a conceded perm is damning. By the end of the 2N I need a clear an extension of the CP Text, the net benefits, and solvency advocate. Please tell me why the CP is competitive with the aff, and why it does the advocacy better. If not explicitly stated in cx I presume all cps are condo so if kicked, just say it at the top of the flow.

Phil

I have an average grasp on phil, meaning I have a decent understanding of Kant, Hobbes, and Butler. If you plan on doing very heavy phil or something that is not very common, please do extra explaining. If you aren't sure if what you want to read would fall under this, please ask me, or default to extra explaining. If you spread through long jargon heavy tag lines at top speed, I will likely not catch all the nuances and/or be confused on what the card does. Don't read phil just to be tricky, if you cant explain your framework to a fifth grader its too tricky. If your framework defends morally reprehensible things and you defend those things I will vote you down, and your speaks will suffer.

Tricks

I will evaluate them but my threshold for the ballot is higher. IF the sole way you plan on winning the round is by spikes and tricks, PLEASE heavily warrant them out. Spend more than just 5 seconds extending it and say why dropping the spike causes the W. Additionally, if the spike has to do with any prefiat/k/phil implications weigh them against said arg and make the path to the ballot really clear. If its just a quick extension and moved on I probably wont vote on it, time needs to be spent on spikes.

Framing

Im chill with any type. I did a lot of role of the ballot and value criterion debate. Honestly I'm chill with whatever you do bro, have fun make the round fun for you. The only stipulation is that i need you to warrant back your offense to the framework, whatever it may be. Please answer opposing framework, or say that you concede to theirs. If not stated otherwise I default to ROB over Value/Standard and ROJ over ROB.

Layering

Yeah I know most people don't have a section for this, but basically this is just me asking you to please layer, especially if it is a T/Theory vs K debate. My presets if no layering is done is K, T, Theory, Framing, Substance. I also default to Prefiat over Postfiat offense.

Speaks

I do speaks based on the whole of the round. Things that factor in are strategic decisions and how far I think the way you debated in the round will get you in the tournament. If you are rude, aggressive, say something morally repugnant, demeaning to your opponent, etc., I will tank your speaks. Additionally I will say clear or loud however many times as needed and it will not effect speaks; however, I flow by ear and not doc. This means if you are unclear and I cant understand what you are saying I wont flow it so it wont be in the decision even if a doc is sent.

Other things

Please give trigger/content warnings if you read something that is potentially triggering.

I will auto down if you are blatantly mean, egregiously rude, and/or say/do anything explicitly exclusionary.

If not stated anywhere else I default to presumption on the aff.

If anything here didn't make since please ask me questions before round, but please ask specific questions, not just what is your paradigm.

That being said, you do you, Im chill with whatever. Have fun learn some things, and good luck with debate/life in general.

PF

I am cool with tag teaming cross, flex prep, and skipping grand cross as long as both opponents are chill with it. You can read T/Theory or K's in PF but I will hold them to the same standard as I would for LD in both reading and responding. That being said if you read a progressive arg in PF to be tricky and do not know how to run said arg yourself, your speaks will suffer. Additionally, since PF doesn't have fiat, the K link has to be explained in a way that doesn't rely on fiat since it does not exist in PF. If the link isn't explained clearly with this in mind I will by almost any no link arg, keep this in mind when writing/running k's in this event. My threshold for T/Theory in PF is also super high. If your opponent is obviously new to the event and disclosure theory, it is easy for me to by any/all reasonability claims.

Speech

I usually don't judge these, however, if I am your judge in a speech event the things I care about most is the analysis. If it is FX, DX, or OO the analysis is the most important part of the speech and where a majority of your rank comes from. If the analysis is unclear on the implication or solution your rank will suffer. Additionally for extemp specifically make sure the sub points tie back to the answer clearly and that the analysis done supports the answer you chose.

For extemp, I am looking for familiarity with the topic, confidence while speaking. I appreciate when students tie in what they’re talking about to big picture issues etc.

I'm Gerson Oviedo Soto, a 20-year-old college student from Lima University and I've been interested/involved in judging Speech and Debate since I started my career as a debater (2 years and a half ago) and specially focused on BP and WSDC tournaments to provide all the feedback I can to school students in strategy, style and to remain motivated to continue participating in these wonderful sports that give us a unique opportunity to raise our voices around all the world, to all the circuits, even the LatAm circuit which I come from.

What I'm looking for in a debate:

Under any condition I'll let students attack or discriminate others and I'll reach to an equity officer as soon as possible, it's truly important to maintain the order and respect all the time, we all can win a debate and continue the discussion free of anger, with no reason to attack the person instead of the argument. Equity is important to learn, not to punish, no one should ever fear to talk to the Equity team, so in case someone has to approach to Equity or talk to them, is not to penalize your behavior, but instead to improve it and avoid it as well.

I am very unwilling to accept or believe in an argument that contains misogynistic, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or any other kind of premises that threaten the integrity of people's protected identity or attributes. For me, such arguments tend to be very unpersuasive.

Speaking fast is okay, but please ensure that it does not reach to the point of being completely unintelligible, not because I'm going to give you an automatic loss, but instead I'm going to be uncapable of taking notes and that means nuances or some explanations might be missed.

Style is considered important, although I do believe that the most valuable part of an speech is the argument and its content, so for me the style is not a criteria to define a winning team/speaker, I take style as an implicit benefit to demonstrate an argument.

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time, so I can prioritize taking notes.

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.

I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)

Specifics

CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Flush out your ideas.)

LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.

Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.

Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.

Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.