***Updated for 7Lakes***

Please just call me by my name :)

Questions and email chain: asad.ahmed0987@gmail.com << try sending the docs/setting up speechdrop when round starts

Short overview

Did LD for 3 years, qualled, and currently the assistant coach for Kempner HS

Run whatever you want as long as you explain it well

Send analytics if you're going to spread thru them

Be funny - its hard for both the competitors and judges to do back2back rounds so make it interesting

Conflicts: Hastings, Kempner, SFA, Elkins AS

Debate

(This goes for all events primarily LD and Pol)

Signpost: PLS - i have downed debaters so many times bc they "think they won" and didnt signpost - if I am lost on the flow and if u see me not typing - well good luck bc i didnt flow it

Argumentation: analytics is better than spreading random cards - however u do u - my opinion? it is easier to say "no nuke war bc of MAD (mutually assured destruction)" than it is to spread random cards in the R's - warranted analytics >> cards -- HOWEVER this is just my opinion i dont default to anything nor do i have a preference of truth over tech and vise versa - you tell me what to do in the rd plain and simple

FWK: Super important with K deb8's and opposing args - its HOW you win the rd NOT why you won the rd

Speaks: I base speaks on strats and args - i believe this is a debate event not speech so i dont care if u stand/sit or have fluency breaks - literally had someone eat in the rd b4 - i honestly could care less - debate is tiring and i get it - do whatever u want - however if you are rude to your opponent, especially if they're novices i will give u 25 speaks - ie 4+ off against a novice

Weigh: Pls weigh - if u dont then dont be mad abt the ballot

Ballot/Post round - if u are a competitor i will always disclose and give verbal RFD's - if u have questions, feel free to ask - if there is an issue with the decision i made then grab ur coach first then we can talk abt it - i dont wanna hear 3nr's and 3'ars without your coach present

LD/POL

Short

(1) K's

(1) LARP

(1/2) Shells

(4) Phil

(5) Trix/Strike

K'S

- I mainly ran nonT islamo and haunto my senior year - i love a good k deb8

- most familiar w/ cap, set col, haunto, islamo, afropess, biop/foucalt, queerness, ableism <<<< however run whatever u want

- I will not do the work for you - you have to do that

- judge instruction/access to ballot is super important

- Psycho k's annoy me - run at your own risk and run it well

Shells

- I primarily ran friv or meta towards my senior year

- These debates get rlly messy - i tend to dislike that - line by line is best

- I dont default anything - you tell me what to do

- Pls make sure the shell has weight to it - especially for TVK or TVT deb8's

- shells must have an interp, violation, standards, voters, and implication <<<< if it doesnt then dont even bother pls i dont want lazy shell work

Larp

- my grandma who barely speaks english can judge LARP

- pls weigh

- cp's need to be competitive

Phil/Trix

- probably the worst judge for this- my brain hurts trying to comprehend these deb8's

- strike

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

Email for chains: chrisbrannen(at)gmail. com (Put the @ where the (at) is)

Teacher in Goose Creek CISD

I’ve been an educator for 15 years and coached Debate for 8 years.

On Policy:

* On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round.

* On Kritiks: I don't like kritiks much, but I recognize they are a thing and that even the actual government uses the reasoning present as a justification for some policy decisions. Personally, I find K logic to be circular and uncompelling. If you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it but I probably won't enjoy it much. :(

* On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you

*On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.

* On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.

* On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

* On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being mean after the round. I'll even go tell on them to their coach if they were really bad. :)

* On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.

* On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

* On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.

* If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On LD:

# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

# On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell.

# On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.

# On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP.

# On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

# On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

# On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)

# On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

# If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On PF:

% I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

% On Speed: I'm good on speed, but PF is about communication. Don't be too obnoxiously fast. If you're going faster than Ben Shapiro, you're going too fast. Also, I’m kind of deaf so yell.

% I like frameworks. If you don't give me a framework in the constructive, I will default to reasonability.

% On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

% On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

% You have to do the order of the speeches and crossfire the traditional way. Don't negotiate to change the times or skip the grand crossfire.

% Use the final focus to tell me why you won. Crystallize the round for me.

On Congress:

! On Structure: Speeches that have solid structure make me glad. Intro/Thesis/Transition/Body/Transition/Conclusion.

! On Clash: DEBATE!!! It is Congressional DEBATE! DEBATE! Clash with your opposition!

! On Decorum: But be nice about it.

! On Argumentation: I don't like or expect the same speech 4 or 5 times in a round. The flow ought to grow. Call out the names of other reps and agree and/or clash with them! I start giving lower scores for speeches where I just hear the same thing. Bring something new! (CLASH, baby, CLASH!!!)

Judge Lorain Clawson
She/Her or They/Them
Freshman at Davidson College

Hello, good people!

A few things to know about me

1.) I debated all four years of high school! I mostly competed in Policy Debate (my main category all four years), but I also dabbled in Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate. I am best versed in Policy and like to keep my realm there.

2.) I also was a speech kid for three years in high school! I often double entered at tournaments and enjoy some good POI.

3.) I struggle with speed-- in any form of debate. I can handle it, but I willrequire you to send me your files via an email chain this way. If not, I will only flow what I hear. If you don't have clear tag lines... Then please work on making them!

Things I won't tolerate
This is the most important section of my paradigm, so please read it!

1.) I will not tolerate racially motivated statements at any time. If you read evidence that is racially motivated, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team racist for reading off evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

2.) I will not tolerate sexist or misogynistic actions or statements made by the participant. If your evidence has these connotations, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team sexist or misogynistic for reading off charged evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

3.) I will not tolerate cuss words being used in my rooms. I understand that you are a high schooler and I am a college kid, but we will not be using this language. It is not conducive with a semi-professional environment and I do not see it as a way of adding to an argument in any way. Do not use profanity. If you do, I will deduct points from your speaker points.

4.) You will not talk over one another in a debate. If you need to cut someone else in cross, please do so politely and with grace. Most importantly, if you are in a partnered debate, do not correct or interrupt your partner in way that is disrespectful. I will dock points if this persists throughout the round.

Policy Debate Judging Paradigm

Judge Type: Policy-Maker and/or Tabula Rasa.
- You drop an argument, you lose the argument. This includes your case!
- If you are extremely disrespectful in rounds, you will lose and be reported to tab.

Evaluating Topicality: Traditional; Needs Standards, Violation, and Impact of it. I see Topicality as a vital part of Policy Debate, but it is also a time-suck. Extratopicality arguments are normally a wash for me.

Evaluating Inherency: I believe in Structural and Attitudinal Inherency. Either way, you need an inherent barrier for me to buy your plan. Validity arguments are welcomed for Attitudinal Inherency.

Evaluating Solvency: I weigh solvency very heavily. I have seen teams win on Solvency and will vote accordingly. Remember that Magnitude and Time-Frame should be discussed when Solvency is brought up.

Evaluating DAs: Outline your Link, Brink, Impact, and Uniqueness. I accept Generic DAs, but have UQ arguments ready to go on both sides.

Evaluating CPs: Your CP must be nontopical, it must be competitive, and avoid the DAs. I will largely compare in policy making-mode, but feel free to expand CPs to include more if you want.

Evaluating Ks: Tell me what type of a K it is, the Links of the K, and why I should buy the K over an argument or plan. Please only run a K if you know what you are getting into. Outline your K with detail so that everyone understands. Do not use buzzwords and expect people to know what they mean.

Rebuttals: I will not accept new evidence in rebuttals. Please use these to summarize your round and make final, quick arguments. Remember to flow your case through these as well. Use this time to overview the round!

***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.