I use She/Her pronouns. I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school, as well as Congress and duo interpretation, briefly. I have a decent amount of experience judging speech. I now compete in CX at Trinity University.

Add me to the email chain if there is one: mmalvarado04@gmail.com

Debate & Speaks:

-You will get good speaks and do well if you have comprehensive, clear overviews at the top of every flow and present your arguments with consistent organization.

-Indicate that you are switching from on-case to off-case arguments etc.

-Spreading is fine

-tech > truth but you need to explain why your arguments matter otherwise I’ll have a hard time voting for them

- dropped arguments are presumed to be true but do yourself a favor and explain what the original warrant was anyway and why it's important

PF Specifics

-blank slate when it comes to impact weighing in PF, so do not assume I will weigh anything unless you articulate it and defend it. A lot of debates always under-focus on impact weighing

-If you have similar impacts, like climate change and extinction, weigh probability or magnitude because I can't do anything if you just repeat your impacts.

-Both speakers need to take into account your summary and final focus. I pay the 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 summaries should address two or three major voting issues. I prefer that you address major voting issues and prove why they are important over spending 10-20 seconds on every single argument of the round.

More Specific Args relevant to CX/ potentially LD

T-It’s probably jurisdictional but you’d be more persuasive if you made that argument. Fairness can be a voter but try to show proven abuse in-round, otherwise, I feel more comfortable evaluating it as an internal link to education. Predictability is also important.

Theory/Procedurals can be very useful and fun when utilized properly. They can also be incredibly annoying. Disclosure is important, provided aff isn’t breaking new. Vagueness can get dicey but if you tell me why specifically you’re being harmed I’ll be able to evaluate. Condo is annoying, but again, if you tell me why it’s harmful in-round I’ll evaluate it.

DA/CP-I tend to be a little suspicious of the link on politics DAs just because they need to be frequently updated, but that won’t affect my ballot unless Aff brings it up. I think CPs are great and the perm is usually pretty competitive.

K-I love a good K debate and have a working familiarity with Cap, Security, Militarization, and SetCol. If you run something different, that's fine, just make sure you have good overviews and explain the moving parts. Link and impact debate are critical for me. For aff, perms are very competitive.

Did pf for strake, qualified to toc 3 times, won tfa state in 2020

flay judge

Don't go too fast

Please try not to call for a lot of evidence

ask questions if you want to know specifics

Call me Akhil. Westwood '22

Important

1) If you plan on going fast, start at like 70% speed and ramp up from there. Slow down on tags and pls pls pls number your responses.

2) Don't assume I'm caught up on the meta of topics, explain acronyms and do the necessary work.

3) I care about rounds starting on time. Please come to rounds already preflowed and ready to begin. Flight 2s should ideally already have email chains set up with the Aff/Neg ready to be sent out.

4) I want to be on the email chain- akhilbhale@gmail.com

Send a compiled doc of cut cards that you will be reading BEFORE your speech. This means you should create an email chain and send your docs as attachments in the email, preferably not in the body. Sending a link to a Google Doc is a no-go; download the Google Doc as a Word document and attach it to the email instead.

Miscellaneous

I'm somewhat stubborn with speaks and will probably average around 28.5-29 . Receiving anything above necessitates a combination of good strategy, reading from cut cards (whenever evidence is first introduced), and disclosing broken positions.

Considering this is an evidence-based activity, good evidence, and its surrounding ethics matter to me. Cut and read good evidence.

Flex prep and tag-team crossfires are fine. Skip grand cross if everyone agrees too. Please don't steal prep, I will notice. Your pens should be down and your fingers off your computer if you're not prepping.

Every claim needs to be warranted the first time it's introduced for you to go for it later. I keep a pretty clean flow and will notice if there are incomplete or missing warrants.

The second rebuttal should frontline everything on the argument they go for and start the collapse debate. I care about good frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. There's a fine line between lazy frontlining and efficient frontlining. Defense IS NOT sticky but my threshold for first summary defense extensions is a lot lower if the 2nd rebuttal goes for everything on case.

Weighing [ :( ]. In the wise words of Evan Burkeen- "I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me." If you're going for a "link-in", I need a reason why your "link-in" outweighs their impact standalone.

I have a decent threshold for extensions. This encompasses everything- any offense, defense, or argument you want to be evaluated must have a coherent extension of it. This doesn't mean that it has to be super long or sophisticated, just present.

Link turns need to have uniqueness attached to it. For example, if the aff says HSR makes Democrats win the midterms, to link turn this the neg has to win that HSR makes Democrats lose AND that Democrats are winning the midterms now.

Read impact turns, they're fun. I don't need an extension of the link scenario.

Kicking turns by conceding no-links requires an explanation of why the no-link kicks out of the turn. Absent an explanation, the team reading the turn can go for it in the next speech.

I'm fine with some levels of sarcasm/pettiness/trolling- it's funny but don't be mean to novices.

I vote neg absent offense.

Theory

Most open to hearing disclosure and paraphrase theory but curious to see what other violations you can extrapolate. Personally think disclosure (open source) is good and paraphrasing is bad but obviously won't hack for these arguments.

Not voting on TW/CW/Opt-out theory.

Uninterested in hearing arguments about new or novice debaters not having to disclose/cut cards, don't compete in Varsity if that's the case. I default to competing interpretations, exact text of the interp and (no?) RVIs. The no RVIs debate has always been confusing to me and it really depends on the CI being read. I.e if the interp is "must read from cut cards" and the CI is "must read paraphrased cards", the CI team should obviously get to win if they win their interp. For other CIs that are not competitive, probably default to no RVIs.

Shells must be read after the first instance of the violation. There are no limits on this- you can read paraphrase theory in 1st summary if 2nd rebuttal is the first instance of paraphrased cards.

I will be very happy if you read Topicality with a good definition card and can articulate a context-specific violation.

Not a stickler for theory extensions, just allocate the time elsewhere and do the necessary work on the standard/weighing,

Kritiks

Probably not the best for Kritiks but have decent exposure to them. Pretty familiar with generics like Cap and Security but will do my best to understand/judge other literature. Please clearly delineate links to the Aff and explain the alt/rotb/rotj.

I'd rather you not spread through your prewritten extensions and instead engage with the line by line.

K affs- I probably err neg on T/Fw but I think an Aff strategy of impact turns against impacts like fairness, and a durable CI makes voting Aff substantially easier.

This is still kinda incomplete and I'll add more things as I remember but if you have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email (it should be hyperlinked above).

General Shi:
1) I am tab

2) Extend everything and frontline damning offense.

3) I evaluate and appreciate frameworks

4) I am 50 50 on sticky defense depending on the argument made

5) If your gonna go fast, send speech doc ( I don't care about the cut cards on there if u don't ready any).

6) I do TKO's.

7) If you are getting nuked in a round, and would like to end the round early, you can forfeit the round (prior to grand cross) and I'll give you the L but give you double 30's.

8) Tag Team CX is allowed, I think it's a good thing.

Weighing:
1) Make sure I get COMPARATIVE weighing and you do the work for me. I will not intervene
2) Warrant your weighing (aka. tell me why your high probability impact matters more than the opponents' scope weighing)

Speaks Boost Stuff:
1) Speak clearly, especially since we are online. I will add a speaker point if you have Brent Faiyaz or Drake playing in the background during the constructive
2) You can say whatever (aka. accidentally cussing). I won't really care unless its explicitly racist, ableist, homophobic, etc.
3) If the debate round is legit interesting -- auto 30s for both sides

Evidence

I'll never call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and nobody called it out. I think that's stupid and interventionist. I'll even evaluate evidence I literally know you wrote, if you're not called out on it. I don't care. I have a low threshold, however, for BS evidence if it's called out.

Theory Stuff

1) I think I am the wrong type of judge to read incredibly phil-rooted arguments or otherwise hyper-technical arguments that would be considered wildly outside of the realm of PF. This is not to say that you can't read theory, framing arguments or other technical arguments adapted to PF, but please be cognizant of this if you pick up my ballot, and explain your collapse better.
2) Make it interesting

I am honored to be judging your rounds and look forward to what you all have prepared!!

I have experience on every major circuit in the country in various events. I specialized in extemp, congress, and world schools, but I have experience in and an understanding of every event.

Speech and Debate are the antithesis of complacency, and I expect competitors to represent that by challenging and changing content and arguments throughout the year. Do not get comfortable with the normal. Challenge and change the status quo, and that starts with creativity.

TLDR: Tech>Truth but I have a much lower threshold for blatantly wrong statements.

If you have any questions or advice, simply ask me after the round or email me here: achivakula@gmail.com

LD/CX: I am largely tech over argument, excluding certain situations. I am not opposed to any kritiques or technical arguments, but I am going to weigh and vote off of the arguments and the warrants you provide. I am a strong believer that complicated or convoluted arguments that are conveyed poorly are far worse than a simple arguments conveyed convincingly and strongly. I'm fairly well-read on philosophy, but if you are going to attempt arguments of that vein, you best be prepared to utilize that argument in a rational and pragmatic way.

PF: I want to hear strategic and planned responses that actually signpost where and what the judge and opponents need to pay attention to. Way too many PF rounds become messy, and both sides misconstruing arguments in good or bad faith. If you provide rational impact calculus and extend the right arguments, it will be reflected in my ballot.

Congress: I have spent most of my debate career in congress and extemp, so I know what fluff is and what is real. I do NOT take kindly to excessive theatrics, a lack of clash, and a lack of real content. I also know when your speech is nothing but "rhetoric" versus actual points. I need to see proactive and unique points, especially creativity and risks. As for the PO, I need to see you stand out. All PO's are not created equal, and if you can have a hold over your chamber while being a charming or dynamic competitor, I will thank you and vote you highly. Take risks, don't let this event homogenize into people doing the same thing over and over again.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Performance and presentation matter, and they absolutely will reflect positively on your ranking. However, I see extemp as a mix between speaking and debate. I want to see the content, the link chain, the impact, and the warrants. Tell me why your topic matters, its effects past the direct "what the eye can see", and compare it. Use the skills of persuasion and informing and give me an argument. If you can do that and communicate your point effectively, you are absolutely going to rank highly with me.

World Schools: I absolutely give merit to the content and the arguments here. However, this event gives the opportunity to branch out and address arguments from a much more holistic and broader perspective. Take control of that opportunity. I give a lot of leeway here, but in the end this is world schools. All arguments are fair game for me.

Interp/OO/Info: I follow most of the standard paradigms and norms of the event, and view these events as more so to cater to your preferences than mine. Show me what you got!

I'm a fourth. Debated CX at Winston Churchill. I did policy for two years and LD for two years.

Please add me to the email chain; my email is davism0503@gmail.com

You can run anything as long as you can explain it. Don't expect me to know every acronym or specifics about any lit

T- I default competing interps. I don't evaluate RVIs

CP/DA- Love to see it. Don't stress as long as you have a clear story as to whats going on.

K debates- assume I haven't read the lit. the NR should be clear in terms of what needs to be evaluated.

theory- frivolous theory debates are a waste of time- don't do it.

phil- didn't run it in high school. Don't like it now.

FW- I evaluate it like normal.

General- Don't be rude. Your speaker points will reflect your behavior if this is a problem and I will really not want to vote for you.

if you have any more questions you can just ask me :)

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

She/Her/Hers

About Me

Hello,

I, Lily Erickson, am currently attending The University of Oklahoma majoring in Astrophysics.

I am a Seven Lakes High School Alumni.

I have competed with the Seven Lakes Speech and Debate team. Therefore, I do obtain a concrete understanding of each individual event.

Online Tournament

• Do not start until I say so, please. I want to make sure that we are technologically good before starting.

• Please mute yourself if you are not speaking

• Try to have as much background noise eliminated as you can.

• I will do my best to keep track of the chats.

• If you have a question ask me prior to the round starting by unmuting yourself.

• Please include me in email chains @ selinlily@gmail.com

Judging

• My Facial Expressions- During Rounds, I do my best to keep a neutral "serious" face, however, I am an expressive person, therefore, if you are ever wondering how you are doing just look at me.

• I do not appreciate and will not tolerate disrespect toward myself or others. So, speak with respect and dignity.

• I appreciate people who are “ready” and “organized”. I don’t want time wasted.

• Confidence is everything.

• I usually make my decisions based on content, however, if the content weighs almost the same I will take into consideration delivery to make my decision.

Timing

• You may keep track of your own time. I advise you do so because in the midst of judging I forget to time.

• Please stop when your time is done. This shows me that you actually prepared prior to the round and including details that are necessary.

• If there is a situation, usually during crossfire, where I notice that a team has taken up a majority of the time I will allow extra time for the other team to get their questions in. Try not to be the team that takes up all the time.

Delivery

• Speed- As someone who speaks fast, I do not have a problem with speed. HOWEVER, speed can not compromise the quality of language. For instance, speak clearly, don’t mumble words, and try not to stutter. If it's an online tournament, take into consideration that your words could glitch or don’t come across to me clearly and if that happens, sorry but that’s on you.

• Tone- You should and I want you to utilize vocal variations I know you can be passionate about your arguments but DO NOT YELL! We will hear you perfectly fine! Do not be aggressive either.

• Speaking with control and clarity is the biggest thing! This really shows me you know what you are talking about.

• Evidence- Make your cards efficient. Don’t overload one card to where you are reading that one card for a long time.

• Clearly state contentions and sources etc.

Crossfire

• Please allow your opponent time to answer the question.

• Crossfire is a time to ask questions not a time to argue/ correct your opponent on the information.

• Don’t talk over each other.

In conclusion, my biggest thing as a judge is respect, time efficiency, confidence, and ORGANIZATION!!!

Other than that, I want you each and every one of you to enjoy, have fun, and learn from this experience.

I used to have a really long paradigm but honestly I don't even know if that's that helpful so here are some key things, ask me questions in round if you want to know about specifics:

- Don't be mean to each other (or me), please. Literally this is fun we should all be having fun!

- Don't just give me blippy one liners; every argument should have a clear warrant

- Please give me some kind of ballot story. I don't want to have to do any weighing or any work for y'all at the end of the round. I generally prefer final speeches to have some kind of crystalizing.

- I would prefer y'all go a little slower because I haven't been judging a ton since COVID started. However, you don't have to be at like, a conversational pace. Just slow down on taglines. Also, if we're doing email chains, speed isn't as much of a problem for cases.

- For LD, I'm generally a better K judge than a techy policy judge. I love critical theory; I read a bunch of it. I'm writing my senior thesis about queer/disabled utopian thought and its relationship to HIV/AIDS.

- For PF, I'm open to whatever fun experimental, progressive args you want to run. I don't think the event needs to stick to some model of what "correct" PF looks like--read Ks, theory, do performances, etc, have fun with it.

For email chains: glasscockbrett@gmail.com

-Please go slow I can't keep up and I cant flow off docs so please go slow I need time to process and understand the complexities of the round

-I don't flow traditionally I take note of the big picture and who has presented more persuasively

Delivery

Prefer debaters to use a moderate rate of speech, to enable comprehension of content.

UT '26

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

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

Before the round

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

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

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

In round

• tech > truth.

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

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

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

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

• Defense isn’t sticky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• don’t be abusive/disrespectful with progressive arguments

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

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

WSD Paradigm

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

bsas '22

qualified for toc

tech>truth

allenliang2020@gmail.com

Note for Churchill: idk the topic, explain it well

(i'm kinda out of touch so i might be a little slow so i may have you repeat stuff in speech, if you want me to catch everything just send the docs for constructive/rebuttal and i'll flow everything i missed during cross -> anything said in cross must be brought up in speech to count)

if you have any specifics, i'll tell you in person

PF basics:

1. extend everything you want to go for in summary/ff or else it's crossed off the flow
2. COLLAPSE before FF or your arguments prolly won't be fleshed out
3. sticky defense isnt real
4. if your argument isnt backlined, it's terminal unless the other team fails to extend the frontline
5. give comparative weighing, dont just say we outweigh on magnitude and not compare, give reasons to prefer your weighing mechanism and give warrants to why you outweigh
6. win off whatever you want, turns, AD/DA, contention, independent voter
7. no DAs/ADs in 2nd rebuttal it's kinda abusive towards 1st summary lol
8. need doc if you're gonna spread(>1000 words in doc/4 mins)
9. preferably i just get the doc in general actually cause i'm washed up and retired
10. explicitly say to concede defense to get out of turns(but warrant it or else i might not buy it)
11. take advantage of dropped arguments
12. your speaks will be fine
13. run theory at your own risk, run Ks at an even higher risk
14. if the debate is super close, i will call for cards only if there was a clear back/forth between 2 cards and there is no resolve
15. have fun

I am a parent and lay judge.

Please don't speak too fast. I will try to listen to every arguments.

Please weigh your in summary and final focus.

I will vote for whoever is more persuasive.

Be nice and good luck!

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

Policy: TFA State Update: (Ask me questions! This is an important tournament, I really do not like how hostile some judges can be to debaters. Y'all deserve to be able to ask whatever you want before the round).

Really important: You have got to slow down a bit for me. If you are not clear, you are doing yourself a disservice. The clearer you are, the faster you can go in front of me. The less clear you are means the more you should slow down.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the 2nr/2ar, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 20 seconds of the 2nr/2ar. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last rebuttal.

I have not judged much on this topic. So start slower and work your way up to full speed. If I cannot understand you I will say clear.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar. Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Public Forum

Update a la Churchill on the Kritik- I am down like Charlie Brown for the kritik in PF (understatement). However, if you introduce the K in rebuttal I will be willing to evaluate theory args in response.

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum this year. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): I like these debates. Reading a framework IE structural violence or explaining via an observation how the debate should be framed is helpful because it clarifies for me how to evaluate the debate. I like this in debates, it makes things easier for me. If you are reading a framework be sure to extend it in every speech and use it as a lens to explain your impacts in the debate/weigh your impacts against your opponents.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: This is silly. Disclosure theory is silly. Do not read it in front of me. Do not read any theory arguments in front of me. I will not vote on them. With that being said arguing that your opponents are not fitting within the bounds of the resolution is a good argument to make if it applies. If you make this argument and have warrants and impacts do not be afraid to go for it in final focus.

Non-traditional stuff: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. That being said avoid jargon. You can make a lot of creative arguments in this event, do so while avoiding weird debate jargon. No this does not contradict the "theory" section above. I will weigh claims about someone not fitting within the bounds of the resolution vs explanations about why a team is satisfying the burden of the resolution. Whoever does the better debating will win this question in the debate.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

GBX 2023

- send constructive and rebuttal docs with cards to both emails before you read them

- set up the chain BEFORE you come into round

- I have done a considerable amount of topic research

- I think open source is a good norm

Westwood '22

Coach for Westwood

Email for email chains (I want to be on it)/questions/anything really: amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com AND westwoodpfdocs@gmail.com

I will flow every speech and be focused on the round. I love the activity and know how much time you put in - you deserve a judge that pays attention and that cares. Go as fast as you want but be clear. More often than not you don't need to read 4 contentions or go as fast are you're going - quality is way more important than quality.

Speaks are a function of strategy (good collapsing, weighing, going for dropped turns and doing it well, etc) and practices (disclosure, cut cards, etc). I do not care what you wear. Speaks will range from 28 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.

I will research most, if not all, of the topics. So, you can assume I have background knowledge, but if you're reading something super specific explain it and your acronyms.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

If you want a short version - I agree with Akhil Bhale.

Non-negotiables:

- No prep stealing (it's quite obvious)

- Have the cut card for any piece of evidence that you read easily accessible (bare minimum), if your going to send links to large PDFs please strike me.

- I am uninterested in listening to and will not vote for arguments that endorse self-harm or suicide. Spark and other hypothetical impact turns are fine.

- Do not use racist/sexist/misogynistic rhetoric.

- I will "flow" cross-examination and it is binding (it exists for a reason). I hate it when teams don't understand their own arguments and this is the time to make it obvious. Probably won't be a voting issue but could be made into one.

"Preferables" (your speaks will automatically improve but I won't hold it against you unless convinced otherwise by theory etc.) :

- Disclose previously broken positions on the wiki (personally think new Affs/Negs are good but that is a debate to be had)

- Read from cut cards

- Send constructive and rebuttal docs with all the cards before your speech. I will never call for specific evidence after the round. If I think the evidence will decide or influence my decision I will go to speech docs to read it, if it isn't there too bad. Sending evidence after the round is just a way for debaters to send new evidence they didn't read, highlight evidence, cut parts out - I don't want to deal with that. TLDR: It helps both you and the debate if you send docs. I am a sucker for good evidence. If you have some really good evidence make sure I know about it - call it out by name. Again not an excuse for not debating - don't hide behind your evidence.

- Pre-flow before the round.

General:

- Tech > Truth (to an extent) - if an argument is dropped it is considered true but still has to be an argument for you to win on it (ie. it must be extended with uniqueness/link/internal link/impact), new implications or cross applications justify new responses to the specific implication. If you blow up a 2-second rebuttal blip - my threshold for responses won't be very high. More stuff on progressive arguments later.

- Read whatever you want to read - do your own thing. More on specific progressive arguments later.

- Open CX is fine (both people can speak/explain during cross-examination). Flex prep is fine and often good (ask questions during your prep time).

- 2nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline everything on the argument you're going for. Efficiency will be rewarded with good speaks. Defense is not sticky. Most "weighing" is new responses more on that later - at the latest 1st final but that's probably way too late and justifies 2nd final responses which isn't good for you anyway. 0 risk is a thing, but most defense will be evaluated on a probabilistic scale. 1st summary is the last time, I will flow new arguments. (There is a distinction between new arguments and new weighing - be careful.)

- Most substantive questions will be revealed on a probabilistic scale - comparative risk of the arguments. In 99% of debates, both sides will win some offense so comparative weighing and impact calculus can and often decides rounds. Procedural arguments often have to be evaluated on a yes/no basis (does the AFF violate the interp, RVIs or no RVIs, etc.)

- Turns. I love them but they are often done terribly. 99% of link turns need uniqueness to be offensive (ie. If the AFF tells me there is no negotiation in the status quo, and the NEG goes for a link turn about how the AFF makes negotiation worse, I have no idea what the impact to negative negotiation is.) Impact turns are also often interesting debates - if the link is contested (I hope it isn't if you're going for an impact turn) or if your opponents go for a different argument, then extend it clearly. If both teams seem to agree to the link and it just becomes an impact debate, I don't really care about link extensions too much. There are only 2 types of turns. Link turns and impact turns. New DAs and ADVs are often labeled as turns but you won't fool me and don't try - more on that later.

- Weighing. Also something I love but is often done wrong. There are three weighing mechanisms: probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a subset of those three (ie. scope is a subset of magnitude) or isn't a weighing mechanism (ie. clarity of the strength of the link or whatever people like to say.) Unless convinced otherwise (which is easily possible), link weighing/debating > impact weighing. I often find that nuclear war outweighs climate change or poverty outweighs death is irrelevant with good link weighing. I will give examples of link weighing below: at the latest these arguments need to be introduced by 1st summary. Probability link weighing are no-link arguments or "mitigatory defense." Stuff like "it is hard for terrorists to get BMDs because of monetary and technical constraints" is definitely link defense and needs to be in 1st summary at the latest. Probability is a function of how much defense you win on an argument, I will not arbitrarily assign probabilities (ie. say climate change is more probable than nuclear war) - you have to explain to me why that is the case which often is just link defense. Timeframe link weighing can be great. Arguments like the NATO bank at the earliest even if created won't get funding for years etc. Magnitude link weighing is really good and often underused (ie. "scope of solvency"). Solving bitcoin emissions won't solve climate change writ large etc. That being said, I can be convinced that impact weighing comes before link weighing. Arguments like extinction first and Bostrom and viable and can also be good. I hope everyone knows what impact weighing is so not going to go too in-depth on that. Last note - turns case is really, really good and also really, really underutilized in PF. Conflict probably ends negotiations, climate change probably makes war more likely, economic growth probably resolves underlying conditions for crime, etc. These types of arguments can really help you frame a round and establish why your came case comes first. Impact weighing and turns case can come by 1st final by the latest.

- Try or die can be convincing if done well. It is often a great strategy if you are going for an extinction impact and the NEG has conceded uniqueness. This is not an excuse for not frontlining - 0 risk is a thing. Timeframe is a really good weighing mechanism in try or die/extinction first debates and can often implicate probablity.

- Framing debates are also really interesting - extinction first etc. Framing arguments are not a substitute for link debate but a supplement. If you win policy paralysis and the other team wins a very large risk of their extinction scenario, the other team has probably won the round.

"Substance":

- Quality > quantity. Not too many interesting thoughts here. Good weighing and link debating wins rounds - avoiding clash, being shifty, and dumping blips doesn't.

- Empirics aren't arguments but can help your position combined with warrants. If you have good empirics that are specific to the mechanism of the resolution/your argument you're probably in a good spot.

- I could care less about quantified impacts. They are often random predictions by conspiracy theorists or terrible models. Even worse, debater math. I would much rather your impact be economic growth than some math you did with different studies and percentages. Extinction is an impact, recession is an impact, etc - I do not care about your 900 million card.

- Kicking case in reading a new DA/ADV in 2nd rebuttal is a bad idea. You essentially just wasted half of the debate. I will have a very low threshold for responses and encourage theory. This is different from reading 4 minutes of turns (ie. kicking case and just going for prolif good). I am perfectly fine with that, in fact, that would be quite fun.

Below are some thoughts on progressive argumentation. Don't read these arguments to win rounds - it's quite obvious. You disclose for the first time and read disclosure theory, change from full text to open source for 1 tournament to meet your interp, etc. I will still vote for it if you win but your speaks won't be great. Also, don't read progressive arguments just to beat novices - I will give you the worst speaks I possibly can.

Theory:

- I have mixed feelings on disclosing broken interps - could be convinced either way. In general, meta-theory is interesting and under-used.

- Topicality is also interesting. Define words in the resolution. Intent to define and evidence quality is extremely important. Unlike most theory debate, precision, your interpretation, and the evidence matter a lot more to me than the limits/ground debate.

- While I will not "hack" against these arguments be aware it is an uphill battle if you are defending paraphrasing good or disclosure bad. If you win your CI and everything on the flow of course I will still vote for you. If it is a close-round, you know which way I am probably going to vote.

- I default to competing interpretations, no RVIs, spirit of the interp, and drop the debater. I can easily be convinced otherwise. If paradigm issues are dropped/agreed upon they do not need to be extended in every speech. If the debate devolves to just theory under competing interps - I am voting for the better model of debate, I could not care that you won no RVIs (personally, no RVIs doesn't mean you can't win on a counter-interp in my mind)

- Reasonability is a good tool against mis-disclosure (open-source versus full text etc) and frivolous shells. You should still read a counter interp - but explain why the marginal differences in your models of debate are outweighed by substance crowd out etc.

- Read your shell the speech after the violation (if they paraphrase in 2nd rebuttal - feel free to read paraphrasing theory in 1st summary.) Theory after that is fairly late and really hard to have good clash, thus probably will result in intervention but if you think its necessary read it (bad language etc.)

- For some reason, small school counter-interps are quite popular and I get why (I read them myself a few times.) However, I am inclined to believe that arbitrary entry limits are just that arbitrary. Also, a lot of small schools are in big prep groups with a lot of resources, or just don't have a lot of people competing etc.

- Theory is unaccessible is a terrible argument - there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to any other argument.

- Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K's:

- "Substantive Ks" like Cap K or Security K are great but probably will just be evaluated as DAs or impact turns. Reading it as a K is often just an excuse to get out of the uniqueness debate, and when your alternative is just rejection, I don't think that gets you very far.

- Non-topical positions are also fine - I am familiar with most of the stuff people read in PF, but if you're reading high-theory or something confusing - slow down and explain it. I won't vote for something I can't explain back to you. This is my one exception to disclosing new Affs/Negs. I strongly believe non-topical positions should be disclosed before the debate to allow for clash.

- I slightly lean towards T/FW against K affs/negs probably because K debate in PF isn't done very well - but can easily be convinced otherwise. K teams should go for impact turns, weigh the K against the shell, and have a good CI that mitigates the limits offense. Do not read a K based on research about x argument and discourse and then make a prepouts bad argument on theory - that doesn't make too much sense. Weighing is really important in these rounds and I find that the theory teams get away with some stuff too easily (answer stuff like fairness is key to participation which comes before your method.)

- I am also down for a method v method debate, or PIKs etc. Conditionality is probably good against a new K aff/neg (ie. fine with T/FW combined with a PIK etc)

- Long pre-written overviews are not as useful as line-by-line and specific weighing.

- Also, please have an actual method. If you say "vote for me because I pointed this out," you probably won't get my ballot.

- Paraphrased Ks are a big no. Non-negotiable.

If you got this far, thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions feel free to email me whenever. I will always disclose unless the tournament explicitly tells me not to. Postrounding is good if it is constructive and educational - but this time, I will have already submitted my ballot and will not be able to change it. Feel free to email me questions after the round as well.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

Contact info: Please put me on the email chain katherineamihaly@gmail.com and feel free to contact me for questions, comments, and advice.

Don't Have Much Time, How Will I Judge You? Read or perform whatever you want to, everything is okay.

For Policy/CX:

Here is how I favor arguments (1 being super comfortable and 5 being not comfortable).

• Topicality (T): 1 – I default to reasonability unless told otherwise.
• Disadvantages (DAs): 1
• Counterplans (CPs): 1
• Kritiks (Ks): 1
• Theory: 2
• Speed/spreading: 1
• Wipeout/Shoe Spec/Memes: 1

For PF:

Here is how I favor arguments (1 being super comfortable and 5 being not comfortable).

• Topicality (T): 1 – I default to reasonability unless told otherwise.
• Traditional: 1
• Disadvantages (DAs): 1
• Counterplans (CPs): 1
• Kritiks (Ks): 1
• Theory: 2
• Speed/spreading: 1
• Wipeout/Shoe Spec/Memes: 1

For LD:

Here is how I favor arguments (1 being super comfortable and 5 being not comfortable).

• Topicality (T): 1 – I default to reasonability unless told otherwise.
• Disadvantages (DAs): 1
• Counterplans (CPs): 1
• Kritiks (Ks): 1
• Theory: 2
• Speed/spreading: 1
• Wipeout/Shoe Spec/Memes: 1
• Traditional: 1

For Congress:

Here is how I favor arguments (1 being super comfortable and 5 being not comfortable).

• Theory: 2
• Progressive: 1
• Traditional: 1
• Amendments: 1
• Speed: 1

For Prose/Poetry/OO/DI/HI/Duo/Duet:

Here is how I evaluate your performance, and how much each thing makes up my ballot.

• Acting (expressions, movement, voice acting): 50%
• Content (topic, conclusions): 15%
• Presentation (wording, style, grammar/syntax, format): 35%

For World Schools:

Here is how I favor arguments (1 being super comfortable and 5 being not comfortable).

• Speed/Debate Language: 3
• Counter-mechanisms: 1
• Topicality: 1

I’m not sure what else would be helpful to know, email me or ask questions.

bsas '22
flow judge, toc qual, tech>truth
pikuaja@gmail.com
would like to be on any email chain

if you have specific questions or anything else, please ask before round

focus on clarity

structural violence impacts are pretty viable for me

PF: Competed mainly in PF so pretty familiar with how it works but have not competed in a couple of years

1. extend everything you are going for super clearly, will vote on pretty much anything if justified well
2. make sure to collapse and be clear with your arguments
3. voting for probability over scale unless given good reason to
4. comparative weighing is preferred
5. send docs if spreading
6. no new stuff in FF
7. extend dropped arguments, especially, don't just say it was dropped
8. pretty generous with speaks
9. +0.5 speaks if you make a pokemon reference

Please be quick calling for cards and setting up email chains. You waste time and slow the tournament down when it takes super long in between speeches to show evidence.

Overall, use critical thinking skills and your own analysis to persuade me. Don't read straight through your evidence and count on me to understand everything; do the intellectual footwork for me. Weigh throughout the round. Framing is encouraged. Speed is discouraged. I'mokay with open cross if circuit rules and both teams are.

Read my written comments on the ballot! I give useful, constructivefeedback.

Disads: Try to make these arguments persuasive and reasonably believable. Sure, you might chain the impact to include nuclear war, but if it isn't likely, it's less important to me.

Counterplans: Please read the plan text slowly and thoroughly explain why it would solve better than the affirmative . The counterplan text should not be a paragraph long. Use your own words in the speech to signal that you actually know what you are advocating for.

Topicality: Please go very slowly on these arguments, because I want to write down every part of the shell. If I don't understand every part of the shell, it's difficult for me to feel comfortable voting on it.

Kritiks:Only run these if you can explain every part of the shell in simple terms, especially what the alternative would tangibly look like. Provide authentic analysis in your own words on the kritik's substance so I can understand better.

Theory: Make sure it's an important enough of a violation to warrant the theory. This should not be kicked prematurely.

Conditionality: I get irritated when more than 2 off-case arguments are conditional because I feel like it turns the debate into a "see who can cover everything the fastest" match instead of a "use evidence and logic to prove why you're right" match. I also think multiple worlds theory is argumentatively lazy.

Disclosure: I do not vote off of disclosure theory. Good teams should be able to use their topic education and research as well as their argumentative and persuasive skills to engage in and refute cases that they've never seen before. Disclosure undermines critical thinking and creativity.

TFA LD:Avoided frivolous definition arguments. Off-case arguments are great.

Congress:Please don't just tell me how a bill won't solve the problem, argue against general purpose of the bill.Use evidence and clash with other people in the room.

background:

el campo high school - policy, congress, extemp, and worlds (state medalist, outrounds @ nats)

southeastern ok state - LD, parli, PF, IPDA, extemp (state champion, state runner up, 2x national top speaker & 2x national quarterfinalist)

texas state - LD, parli, ipda (3x state champion, 2x state runner up, 4x state top speaker, national top speaker)

misc:

email chains are cool but so is speechdrop

hannahmn99@gmail.com

pls unhighlight your evidence -> i'm colorblind and if i can't read it, i'm not flowing it

tell me like a really funny joke to show me that you read my paradigm (which doesn't happen enough) -> i'll add points to your speaker points

if online, i'll also add no more than 0.5 to your speaks if you see and acknowledge my cats :)

i do not care what you call me but PLEASE stop calling me judge -i think this creates a really weird dynamic and it makes debaters uncomfortable

pls don't have an attitude with me, it's really annoying and you'll get the minimum speaks for it (you also might get the L). if i know your coach, i'll probably let them know what happened, as well.

i love this activity and i want you to, as well. if there's anything i can do before the round to make the teams more comfy, pls let me know, even if that means we need to have a private convo beforehand. i will do it for you

policy:

i'll listen to most policy args but here's some specific info

1) don't be a racist, sexist, etc. -> idc i'll vote you down as a punishment

2) i love Ks and K affs, but don't run them if you don't really understand the lit or the argument behind them

3) i'm down for the multiple links on the K (even analytic links) but pls collapse in the rebuttals and give me a solid story

4) make sure you have all parts for all of your args -> if you're missing solvency in the 1ac, i'll vote neg on presumption and vice versa (tech over truth)

5) cp's are cool as long as they're mutually exclusive and also non-t

6) impact calcs should happen starting with the rebuttals

7) i HATE having to vote on args that are just dropped. make sure you tell me why this dropped or conceded arg is important in context to the round

8) to win t on the neg, you have to prove abuse and not just expect me to judge on potential abuse (this is def up for debate and if you win the theory for it, i'll give it to you)

8.5) hot take i literally do not care if your aff is non-topical as long as you can defend that this is a good idea and has some net benefit

9) I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue

10) literally do not lie in any aspect of the round.

11) overall -> i try and adapt to the debater so pls make it as easy for me as possible

ld:

1) not too big of a fan of this switch to policy in ld, but i'll listen to it. if this is you, read my policy paradigm

2) if you decide on traditional ld, aff must have a v/c

3) no clash = the other side gets a W on presumption

4) i'll vote you down every single time if you lose f/w (don't be shocked)

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

For PF, keep it as the event was intended, which is less CX and more general debate. Speed should allow even a novice debate participant to keep up, but does not need to be as slow as a general speaking event. Make sure that you stay civil, as debate in general is intended to make sure that you are learning civil discourse and not just how to argue with someone.

I debated for four years in Texas in PF and briefly in LD. I have a solid knowledge of critical arguments and theory. I currently compete for the Texas Speech Team in Extemp and all the Public Address Events.

My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward.

- Impact calculus is important to me, I want to see a clear weighing of both worlds, especially in the summary. With impacts, I prefer you give me clear material impacts on people, rather than just saying things like nuke war. Contextualize your impacts!

- I like clean, straight down the flow debate with a lot of clash. Sign-post during speeches.

- Not the biggest fan of card-debate. Use that time to make arguments rather than harp over minor things in cards!

- Make extensions that clearly tell me what exactly I'm supposed to extend, not just dropping a card name.

- If you introduce a new argument in the Summary, I won't evaluate it. Stick to extending already established offense/defense.

- I'm good with speed (just enunciate as much as you can) and pretty much all types of critical arguments.

- Be conscious of your positionality and how you treat others in round. Rounds can get intense but at the end of the day, debate should be a space that is safe and empowering for everyone involved.

In extemp, I value unified analysis, a solid demonstration of background/historical knowledge on the question, and confidence in delivery. Using substantial and diverse sourcing (so like in international speeches, don't only cite Western outlets) in each point while weaving in the analysis is a marker of a good speech for me.

For Duet, I don't want to see any unnecessary PDA.

Did Policy and PF for 4 years. Comfortable with any argument, be innovative!

If you can ever "that's what she said" me, you get 30 speaks, if you do that to your opponents more than 3 times, 30 speaks and I presume for you. That would be based.

I want all speech docs where evidence is read to be on the chain. (all constructive speeches 1AC/1NC 2AC/2NC. That's rebuttal for you kids). If you don't have ev for the 2AC/2NC well ummmmm ya. I won't look at it but it is for evidence exchange purposes. srikartirumala@gmail.com.Add both to the chain!

Don't ask me to verify I'm there before every speech. I want to flow, not keep unmuting. Just assume I'm always ready.

Philosophy:

I am a fairly tab judge who operates solely on an offense/defense paradigm. Tech>truth to the fullest. I will do no work for you as that's your job (so I won't even implicate defense for you as terminal). You do you -- don't change how you debate for me. I will adapt to your style (unless your style does not hit the basics like extensions, comparative weighing etc.)

Do not

1. Any -isms. Just be a good person it's not hard. For the people who read "racism is a democratic value kick people off social media" this is you!

2. Bad ev. You will not win a round trying to fake ev in front of me if it is called out. For me faking or misrepresenting ev is as good as cheating and all your opponents need to say is "it's a voter for education/fairness/legit anything". And I'll hack. But you need the prove the evidence is actually bad IN ROUND. Ie - it's not enough to say "It's faked" U must say "It is faked because of X reason -- that's cheating and it's a voter for fairness/education".

I do not like

1. Paraphrasing

2. "Discourse" as solvency. I'm sick of it and probably will insta delete your "K" from the flow. Have a real alt / well thought out method.

3. No speech Docs.

4. "Probability weighing". This is just reading empirics, anything else is just a link mitigation or a no link argument and ways smooth brained teams with bad rebuttals can sneak new defense into summary @Sarvesh babu looking at you.

5. Claiming any progressive stuff isn't "public in public forum" I will laugh at you during RFD whilst playing Laughing to the bank. If you're in varsity, you should be prepared to deal with all the arguments no matter what.

This part is stolen from THE beach

***If you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, I will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory or K/theory or K excludes me because I don't know how to debate it" response. In fact, I will give you the lowest speaker points the tournament reasonably permits-- you're perpetuating horrible norms in this activity. Do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation. ***

As an aside to this ^, if you a reason why theory/ K is bad, I won't automatically intervene but your speaks are GONE and I will legit buy "bruh what the heck is this it allows for bad norms" and then strike it off my flow. This is one of the worst takes I've ever heard, and I'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity who are afraid of anyone that isn't a cishet white male doing well in the activity propagate. I also will not buy any "people don't know how to disclose or access wikis" it's just blatantly untrue and disrespectful to small school debaters. It's not a response -- it's just you not knowing how to interact. this is the one spot I feel 0 shame in intervening, I will laugh at you while I do it and play Laughing To The Bank by Chief Keef while I read the decision.

I like these

1. Theory (but not stupid and friv)
2. Kritical args (But actually with solvency not DiScOuRsE)
3. Framing / Meta Weighing
4. I errheavily towardsparaphrasing being bad, speech docs being good, and disclosure being good, and will evaluate procedurals based on that.
5. Lots of explanation on what's happening in the flow (I won't do any work, if you don't tell me why it's important or what to do with it it's nothing)

Why do I care so much about good ev?

I've had teams straight fake ev against me and it hurts. As a researcher the skills you get from research in debate is unparalleled to other activities. Faking evidence is akin to cheating, and this is a competitive activity. There's y'alls little procedural.

Strike me if you

1. Fake evidence / do not cut your cards (you know who you are)

2. Think I'm going to buy your "persuasive appeal" BS, speaks are a construct and don't matter in a W/L

3. You are going to run problematic arguments, I won't deal with them. I don't like to intervene on the flow, but I will in these cases. I might even physically stop the round depending on how bad it is.

Arguments:

1-5. 5 means I love

LARP: 5

Go crazy, idc. I mostly LARPed in HS

Framework: 4.5

- not much to say, I read fw in HS a lot. I never really did LD, so if I'm in judging it, please explain phil? I'm actually really confused and bad at phil debate. Tbh, if i'm judging you and you are going to read phil, please just treat me as a lay judge (just on the fw, u can spread or do w/e later).

T/Theory: 5

- If I believe theory is frivolous, I might not give you good speaks. Make sure it's accessible. I used to read theory like crazy in HS. I am 100% fine if you read it in shell or paragraph form, that's your choice.

- I completely tab on most theory args unless it's p obvious it's friv against K or against a novice. I'mma hold you to a high burden when it comes to extensions in these cases. I tend to err towards paraphrase bad and disclosure good but I will not hack at all. I've read both paragraph theory and shell in HS so I'm ok with w/e u are. If you are in Policy./LD where there are a billion different AFFs, I think disclosure is definitely a good norm. If you are in Policy/LD I expect better. if you paraphrase in any event ur speaks are gone.

Dude, Condo is Dispo don't try and cap otherwise.

K : 4

- I started reading more Kritical arguments my senior year, this being said, any argument can be explained properly. I tend to err towards K over T, but I'll be tab. High theory is fine dumb it down. If I'm confused over the K, it means ur OV or your extension wasn't good enough or explained well, and I'll probably vote on something cleaner.

- Note, I rarely read K in policy, I was more of a LARPER, but I will probably understand most of what you are saying if you bother to try to explain it to me. This means get rid of a lotta the K-specific jargon "e.g. state of exception". I'll understand some of the stuff i'm familiar with but still be careful. In policy / LD though you need to really explain the K. I’m going to be lost if ur just spreading cards. The 1NR/2NC needs to have REALLY good OV extension that REALLY explains your theory.

- I am fairly familiar with most K lit. I read Set Col, Sec, Orientalism, Imperialism, Neolib, Biopolitics/Biopower, but I'll buy k about anything just PLEASE don't just spread ur usually jargony OV. Very familiar with most IR terms / list

This is my hot take, I don't like identity AFFs that much in PF. Trust me, I am VERY VERY HAPPY to vote them up, and often do, just know I don't really like how it's being done in PF where I can't tell WHAT SOLVENCY IS! If you do it right I'll enjoy it.

Plans/CP : 5

- IN ANY EVENT These are perfectly ok in my mind, I will buy a good plan bad theory tho. All u have to prove is that the plan potentially could be viable, some sort of implementation or actor and I think the theory doesn't apply. I am fine if u just tell me a counter plan to the AFF/Neg, and defend that it's good. Rules are meant to be broken if they are bad so a response to a CP can't be "NsDa RuLeS sAy No CP" give me a reason why I should uphold that norm.

• I prolly think process CPs are another method of doing the plan.
• I think infinite condo on CPs are bad

DA: 5

- All good,weigh them!

Trix: 3

If you want me to vote neg on presumption/AFF risk of solvency/1st speaking team -- warrant out why, don't just yell this. Aka IL how how the trick applies to your presumption, lot of people, miss this. Don't j be like "EMPIRICUS 2 BC *Breath* fehhfuiewhfewhfewfhewewh. Ok next trick"

I think especially in PF this is a bad strat but in LD / Policy I guess I get it a bit more.

I started keeping tally of how many times I voted for Trix: IIIIIIII

Speed: 4

- PF spread fine, I am cool with full policy spread, just make tags distinct from cards ("AND", Slow down). If you aren't sure how distinct your tags are from cards, just speech doc. Also make sure the opponent can understand, or speaks might be hurt. I will call clear twice, then I will give up. People ask what I can flow, I can probably flow up to 300 wpm without a speech doc with card names.

- I will probably not need to use your doc, make your tags really clear, and if ur not clear when spreading I will clear you. if I clear your thrice, your are capped at a 27.

Performance/Non T AFFs : 4

You need to make the ROTB very clear and win it. also PLEASE READ A LINK! Why is the ballot needed? What is my role as the judge? Also like how does ur case link into the ROTB? Make it very clear. Honestly I tend to err K > T so this might be a good strat, but make sure you are ready to win the AFF. Also please tell me why your method is uniquely key.

• If you are hitting a non T aff it isn't enough to tell me the rules are something I must maintain, I say screw the rules unless u tell me why the rules are good.
• Tbh if there isn't a CLEAR method / solvency you're capped at a 26

Presumption:

- Absent presumption warrants given in speech, I default to whoever lost the coinflip.

TKOS: 2

- saves us all time. Typical rules apply, if there's a path to the ballot, you L20, if none, W30. I won't stop round ever -- but if you're right I'll be like ok and stop flowing. Don't really like tho there's always a chance u drop the ball but if u call one go for it. DO NOT LIKE THESE but I'll consider the following

1. A procedural on no speech docs is a TKO vs a team that does not disclose or a team that spreads random paraphrased stuff -- if it's dropped

2. Bad evidence is a TKO -- treat this similar to an NSDA challenge if the ev is crap call it out I won't like it

3. No cut cards is a TKO if it's conceded.

4. Problematic language is a TKO. This includes repeated misgendering or anything of that form. I don't understand why some judges DON'T make this a TKO?

5. Any IVI on a team that says "prefiat offense is bad" is basically a TKO, I won't stop round but lol I'm not going to flow responses to it.

6. Bad haircuts is a TKO. I don't wanna look at your receding hairline. My kids know what I'm talking about. (obviously a joke)

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

PF

Argumentation

• 2nd rebuttal should be frontlining

• Extensions, extensions, extensions

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

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

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

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

• Definitely frame the round and WEIGH in summary

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

Evidence/Speed

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

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

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

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

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

Congress

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

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

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

• Clear cited evidence

I have experience in PF, Parli, Extempt, and Duo/ longtime judge (mainly PF)

Things to consider at the start of the round:

1. Make sure to clearly state your contentions
2. Speaking fast is okay but do not spread
3. Remember I am flowing please make it easy to follow along throughout the round
4. Make sure your flow is ready before the round
5. Delivery matters!!

Things to consider during the round:

1. Keep up with your own prep time
2. Make sure you utilize your time wisely. Make sure you use all of your time and are refuting as well as rebuilding your case.
3. Please do not spend multiple speeches arguing over one source.
4. Make sure you are extending arguments.
5. My ballot will go to the team that does the best weighing and impacting in the round. You have to be clear as to why you are winning the round. If you do not call something out or respond, I cannot make the argument for you. Remember to actually debate the resolution don't get lost in the round.
6. Be mindful of what you say in the round. The words you use and the arguments you make have implications. Please consider that throughout the round.
7. Do not wait to FF to say that the other team dropped all of your contentions.
8. Do not ask for a source in question for something that is common knowledge. I do count logical arguments and responses.

If doing an email chain please add me - gabri3ll30422@gmail.com

If you have any other questions feel free to ask!

I am a parent judge. Please speak at a conversational pace and be clear.

I am a parent judge. Please speak at a conversational pace and be clear.

add me to the email chain pls: gabrielasvaldez@gmail.com

Winston Churchill High School '20 UT '24

In high school, I primarily read K’s so I’m a better judge for k v. k and policy v. k debates. policy v. policy debates are great if that's what you do best!

Tell me how I should evaluate arguments/impacts

K v. K - These debates can get messy so make sure you have aff specific links. If you're going to go for the perm, explain why your two theories are compatible.

Policy v. K - Aff specific links are good and give you a much better chance of winning the debate. I’m familiar with some different K literature but make sure your arguments are clear and theories are well explained. The framework debate is extremely important, don’t forget about it.

K aff v. FW/T - Explain why your interp/counter interp is the best for debate. I have/will vote on FW/T.

Policy v. Policy - I engaged in these types of debates the least in high school but I know how to evaluate them. If this is what you're most comfortable with go for it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD Specific

I did policy in high school so I'm not super familiar with LD tricks/uncommon theory arguments. I've judged LD for the past few years on and off but I'm not the best for these types of arguments! Besides this, all the stuff above applies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

don’t make arguments/comments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

do what you do best

have fun

Hello Great Debaters!

Here are some notes when debating in front of me:

• If this is PF, you will win or lose as a Team, so be confident in your partner.
• Exhibit a stoic demeanor in your approach and command the room with your thoughtful argument.
• I’m a past singer, so tone, inflection, articulation, and breaths matter.
• I’m also an engineer, so I like a good process flow from when you walk in to when you finish your last statement.

Other than that, convince me the entire time.

*Is there always a bonus? Well, I like when speeches flow are done in a melodic authoritative tone.

Please send your literature here: anje.watkins@gmail.com

Sarabel Weiss

Lake Travis High School '22, Texas A&M '26

You can email me at sarabel@gigem.com