I like to flow every debate I watch to make sure the burden of rejoinder is clearly identifiable, but I will not flow a dropped argument without being told. You should be flowing as well. If it is not CX, then I don't want you to spread. I don't mind speaking fast but I want to really hear your arguments and have time for you to persuade me.

Kindness and tone go a long way. If you are belittling someone else it does not help to prove your point. There is a difference between being assertive and flat-out demeaning.

In Congress, I am not a fan of rehash - I want to hear rebuttals and debate, not a new speech that doesn't address what the aff and neg speakers have brought to the chamber. I think it is completely appropriate to respond in your speeches to arguments by referencing the name of the representative/senator as long as you are tasteful. It helps me keep up with the round.

How you treat your PO and your attitude towards them also go into judging you as a competitor. If you have problems, you have every right to call a point of order, but being snide and hostile makes you look weak.

In IPDA, the resolution is paramount. You must show, using the weighing mechanism, how your case and arguments outweigh your opponents. In questioning, please refrain from dismissing each other or being overtly aggressive. Remember I am flowing but you have to direct my attention and give me a road map.

I have not judged CX in ages. But many moons ago, I was a CXer and I can flow. I don't perceive that I will be judging CX at any point.

As for Forensics events go - I was also a Forensics kid and have been a Theatre Director, Dancer and Interper for over 29 years. I am looking for solid real performances where the intent is routed in thought. I do not like when emotion is faked or pushed. Please perform from a place of honesty. All movement should be motivated and character driven. Variety and the ability to demonstrate clear distinct characters is essential. In OO, Extemp or Info - These are Speech events. Sometimes performers add more interp friendly content into their performances. This is where I am quite stern. There is a fine line between performing and speaking, please remember I enjoy the fact that these are SPEECH events. You are actually speaking to the audience, not performing for us. Remember that.

Hello, My Name is Brigido Cruz, I like for the competitor be clear and loud as I may miss something, just speak up a bit. But for the most part I prefer you use the format that is comfortable with you. Please introduce yourself before speeches. And NO RUDENESS PLEASE, Let's be respectful and have a good debate.

Hello! I was a local congressional debater in high school and am most familiar with that debate/speech event. However, I do have some knowledge about LD and PF. You don't have to speak too slowly, but please make sure you enunciate and be transparent with everything you want to say. Be nice to your peers, and have fun!

Congress

I will flow each speech throughout the round and add comments on every speech when possible. I do believe that Congress is both speech and debate, so I value a congressperson with elements of both in their speech. These speeches should be appropriate because they aren't repeating old information without bringing up anything new. Don't forget about rebutting and crystalization when it's needed. As for questions, don't as for the sake of asking. Questions are supposed to be something that brings something new to the debate.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

nathan.gong@utexas.edu

Hi everyone, I did LD in high school at Plano East and qualified for the TOC three times. I now go to UT Austin!

Email chains should be sent out before round starts and 1AC should be read at start time.

Please be nice - it's so awkward for me to sit through two high schoolers making snarky remarks at each other.

I don't care what you read. Be strategic/debate well and I will reward you with high speaker points. I loved reading body politics even though it's a troll argument.

samuel.juhl@dmschools.org

I am in my 4^th year of coaching speech at East High School in Des Moines. I competed as a student in LD in high school. I have judged every IE event and every debate event. I primarily view debate as an educational activity. If debate weren’t a place for students to develop speaking and argumentation skills, I think debate would have almost no value and I wouldn’t be spending my valuable time away from my small children coaching and judging debate. I’ve broken down my paradigm into sections so that you can skip to the portions of the paradigm that apply to you.

LD/PF

Because I primarily participate in debate for the educational value. I am a Truth>Tech judge but I want to explain what that does/doesn’t mean to me. Truth>Tech doesn’t mean that you don’t have to respond to your opponents’ factually spurious arguments. I’m still going to rely heavily on my flow to determine the outcome of the round. I think it is fundamentally unfair to insert my own arguments into a round though I will do it if a competitor is arguing something abhorrent ie: that it is morally good to kill children or something.

Truth>Tech does mean that unserious arguments do not require a response. Logical fallacies exist for a reason and modern debate is filled with logical fallacy abuse. If in LD, you use a non-topical nazi analysis to point to some problem with a moral framework I likely won’t take that argument as seriously as a resolution critique of the moral framework. Similarly, I don’t find many of slippery slope arguments that have 40 links to some colossal impact to be especially strong arguments either. This doesn’t mean that you can’t win with these arguments on my ballot it just means that I am going to be receptive to responses that point out the problems with slippery slope arguments or bringing everything back to the third Reich when we are debating public service or something.

I expect you to fully articulate your arguments. Don’t just tell me that your first contention turns their second contention tell me why your first contention turns their second contention. Similarly, don’t just make the claim that some behavior is bad for debate, tell me why the behavior is bad for debate. A claim isn’t an argument and won’t really get acknowledged as one on my flow.

I realize that this is debate and not speech and so I don't decide debate rounds on speaking skills but rather the argumentation. However, an argument rendered incomprehensible because of the rate of a person’s speaking is the same as an argument not made on my ballot. I will not read a speech doc unless the document is an accommodation to allow someone to participate in debate. Debate, be definition, is an oral activity and I think that reading speech documents invites the judge to understand arguments that have been ineffectively articulated in round and is a form of judge intervention.

Unless a tournament tells me not to, I will always disclose, and I almost always tell the losing competitor(s) what they could do to have won my ballot in the round. I will sometimes provide feedback about how I would have argued for or against a point but unless those arguments were made by students in the round, they won’t affect my ballot.

Congressional debate

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a student’s movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you, but yelling is also inappropriate.

Your speech should bring up new information. If your points have already been made in round, then don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystallization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.

This is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech, I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponent’s logic.

If you are speaking in the negation, please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.

While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violating chamber rules will be more highly ranked.

For PO’s: I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and precedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parliamentarian I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking POs at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However, I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.

Speech

I consider your decision of what piece to perform one of the many decisions that I will evaluate in round. If your piece is problematic in its portrayal of people with mental illnesses or you are depicting an act/event I don't think is appropriate that will affect your final rank. I am tired of judging rounds in which students mine traumatic events that happen to real people in the real world to win a high school speech contest and that fatigue will start being reflected in the final ranks I assign after speech rounds.

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I don’t judge visual aids in informative speaking. If the visual aid detracts from your speech, it will hurt your score. If the visual aid enhances your speech, it will help your score. If you have no visual aid but deliver a stellar speech I will give you a high rank.

Finally, I place a high emphasis on actually answering the prompt in USX, IX and Spontaneous Speaking. Try to make sure you answer the question you’ve been asked and aren’t doing something adjacent to it. I will rank people who do not actually answer the question at the bottom of the chamber.

I am a parent volunteer judge. This is the first time that I serve as a judge for the Public Form debates, but I have always been an avid reader of current news and column articles on the various political and social issues that are the topics of PF debates. I am an evidence-based judge and I can handle moderate speed, but not fast speed. I am looking forward to working with other judges and participants in the upcoming events.

hi my name is sasha (clark 23' plano west 25') and i fw debate on the low

qualifications:

extemp toc champ 24' | asu champ 24' | toc 23'24'25' | tfa, glen, emory finals

however that means i've based my paradigm off of the people that i've debated with, and the people i've been privy to sharing this space with. i largely grab ideas and word for word sections of my paradigm from:

RYAN CHANG, NAVID SHEYBANI, DAVID HUSTON, ANGEL RIBO, SKANDA GOPIKANNAN, ESHAAN CHACHAD, VIVIAN HO, HOLDEN BUKOWSKY, ARI DAVIDSON, REGGIE CHAPMAN, NEAL WHITE, MAIMUNA ILYAS, ROSHAN SHIVNANER, DAVID & AVA CUI, PLAYBOI CARTI, AMRITA SHYAM, ESTHER "bearuh" JESS, SAHITH REDDY, ARRMAN? KAPOOR?

for email chain: sasha.morel.2007@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, but all arguments need a coherent warrant and impact. Read what you are comfortable going for! I'm better for some debates than others, but this is ultimately your round to learn and have fun. I consider myself flex, so I'm equally good for everything but not amazing.

TLDR

1. Be good people. Racism, homophobia, etc. will get you dropped. Be respectful before, during, and after the debate to the people around you (something you should do anyways) and don't cheat with evidence.

2. If you are clear, I can handle any speed. I will only judge based off of what I get down, so if you're unintelligible, that's on you. Above all, make sure your opponent is fine with it.

3. Not doing any work for you. Extend things yourself, explain your arguments to me, and read your rehighlights. Let me know if I should take a look at specific pieces of evidence, what layer I should think about first, what arguments I should reject for what reason, etc.

4. Disclose properly. Breaking new is fine, but everything else should be done at least 30 minutes before the round. I'm probably never voting on New Affs Bad.

PREF SHEET

1. K

2. Policy

3. Theory

4. T/Tricks

5. Phil (bro plz strike)

argument specifics (the numbers/letters DO NOT mean anything that's just for navigation)

note: this goes for both sides (e.g., kritik means k negs and -affs)

1. phil - hold my hand for anything that is past kant or any derivative of util. i am probably (surely) not the best judge for anything past these.

a) explain/warrant out the syllogism to me like i'm a parent

2. the kritik - love it. please make the alt/solvency mechanism clear, as well as cleanly extend them if you want me to vote on your for it. i will be pressured to vote against you on topicality (for planless affs) if you don't adequately respond to any form of it. just make sure the links are contextual to the topic or are specific, NOT anything randomly pulled out of a pat backfile and read on a teenager at 8 a.m.

a) 1ac quotes are great if they genuinely link. like this will make my morning/afternoon/night much better

b) dylan said it best: "[i] strongly dislike the trend of identity-based arguments that appropriate the language of antiblackness literature to make their argument"

c) make sure turns case is in the 2nr with your link o/v or something like that; i'll be tempted to not buy it regardless of how well it was extended because at that point why care?

3. policy - yeah that's great. i will vote on plan affs, da, cps, etc.

a) make a turns case argument in the 2nr and weigh accordingly

b) if your internal links are nonexistent/bad i will be pressured to vote neg on presumption

4. theory - sure if it's a genuine violation/abuse, just warrant it out

a) if it's frivolousANDun-/under-covered, i will vote for you but just know you ruined my day

5. tricks - strike me if you absolutely desire running this

6. topicality - a note: mygood friend and teammate angel ribohas an excellent paradigm on this.tl;dr, i'll buy it but "weigh, weigh, weigh".

STYLE:

As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

TOPICALITY

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

SPEAKS

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters.This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

25-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

20: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

other things

1. why do i even have to say this: any -ism or -phobia/form of violence or misgendering is an L20, i seriously don't care if it's the first card in your 1ar i'll submit the ballot and potentially talk to tab. please just don't be a bad person. if i genuinely missed something violent that happened in round, i'm sorry and i invite you to please talk to me after

2. if you have any questions post-round don't hesitate to ask me or email me @ the email above. no 3nr/-ars please, just a genuine space where i will give you extra criticism that wasn't in the rfd if you would like me to and i'm not busy. education is key

3. i'm not an expressive guy, ask my friends. you could get an L25 or W30 regardless of whether i look like i stepped in mud or a child on christmas morning. i will be flowing, and don't get caught off-guard if i start looking at the ceiling---my pen is still moving at the same speed/accuracy as your content.

4. please extend before you talk about something. make a bare-bones o/v at the VERY least (you won't love your speaks but you might love your win). if you yell at me at 8 in the morning about how one word in subpoint AA of Z of AB of so on and so forth was dropped without telling me WHAT the argument is, i will cry

EXTEMP - bold is TLDR

I don’t have any strong political affiliation, and I’m more than welcoming for political jokes (all in good spirit of course). I value good fluency, good rhetoric, and good tags. Extemp should be entertaining. Obviously, make sure your links are clear, and have good content and evidence.

Basically, all of your analysis should be linear, i.e a sets up b and b sets up c which is why my answer is correct. A lack of cohesive argumentation in extemp is the easiest way to get a really mid rank even if you're a good speaker.

for the love of god have all of your points stand alone, don't have point 1 explain point 2 and etc...

Anything over 7:20 will probably have you ranked down. 7 minutes is the limit and grace is to help you finish your last sentence or two. Please follow good structure, 100% of your extemp speeches should have 3 points.

Anyways please be yourself, as a competitor I can easily tell when you try use canned jokes that don’t fit.

If you steal jokes and I recognize that, you're actively violating the rules of extemp - that's a 6.

I prefer competitors memorize the majority of their speech, that’s how you impress me as a judge. the more stuff you have to reference in round makes me feel like your 30 minutes was used incorrectly. if you do use a card/notes please try and limit it to sources.

I'm a really slow typer, so i'm looking down a lot at my computer and stuff - just because im not looking directly at you doesn't mean i'm disinterested, and certainly doesn't mean i'm not listening.

if i can sense you're having fun, then i will too.

Centennial UPDATE: Try to set up that email chain/speech drop/etc ahead of time pls. Flight 2 also feel free to enter and set up the doc share asap pls.

Last updated - 12/12/24

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX), Isidore Newman (LA)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please at least read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) +0.1

- including funny/relevant/topical memes in the doc +0.1 if it's funny

- playing good music during cx - up to +0.3 depending on song choice

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

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

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

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

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

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

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

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

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

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

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

Background: Masters student at University Nebraska Lincoln studying Communication Rhetoric with an emphasis on critical theory and film. Former 2021 NFA-LD National Champion, 2019 Missouri State Policy Champion, 2018 NCFL LD Quarterfinalist.

While I will likely vote for almost anything if you have the proper framework to justify it. I am a former critical anti-blackness debater. I believe debate is more than a game and my experience in the activity has obviously informed my love for critical debate. Critical education is a cornerstone of this activity that I love to explore. However, you can read just about anything in front of me but you should know my strengths and weakness as a judge. Don't think reading critical stuff is a auto-win, far from it, I'll hold you to a somewhat higher standard because I know what good K debate looks like and I understand it.

I'm not super well versed in the intricacies of policy argumentation despite my 10 years in this activity. I just ask you to meet me where I'm at. I love a good policy debate whenever the story of the AC is CLEAR and EXTENDED throughout the entirety of the debate. Your AR's shouldn't just be extension and tech, I need overviews and clear articulations of what the AFF does, what it solves and why it matters. Run your heg/econ/war policy AFF, just do it well. If you do run policy, do it well. However, I draw the line at any death/extinction good arguments. It's weird and privileged asf. If you think your opp can be construed as accelerationist or fascist, call it out as so and you will likely win. I'm tired of hearing "all humans need to die". I won't auto-down vote but if your opp impacts out your genocidal rhetoric, you're cooked tbh.

Policy NC's: In order, I prefer K's, Case Turns, DA's, CP's, Topicality, and Theory. I expect the AFF to cover all negative positions unless AR theory says otherwise. I will vote for topicality on policy AFF's but it will be an uphill battle reading framework against a non-T critical AFF. If it feels exclusionary, and the aff wins that it is, good luck.

Test your critical sauce in front of me, I will vote for K's/Critical AFF's them or give in depth feedback on how to improve them. I have a moderate/deep knowledge of most identity/class based critical literature and surface level understanding of po-mo crit lit. Run your critical/non-T AFF if you can win the topicality/methods debate, run the K if you know the actual links to the AFF. Rebuttal articulation is EVERYTHING.

If you're reading a non-T critical AFF, I would like your evidence to be rooted in the topic through the lens of your critical theory . I will be more sympathetic to well-crafted (rare) framework against non-T AFF's that are filled with backfile cards that have been read ad-nauseam in nearly all debate communities since 2000-2010 or even worse, cards that aren't even about the topic or identity. I'm not asking for you to role play the state, that's whack asf, i'm just asking you to innovate. I don't wanna hear the same afropess, be gay do crime and cap K cards that have been circulating in the community for decades. I want you to apply contemporary critical theory to the specific resolution at hand, you don't have to affirm the resolution but please, have to 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 of your AFF cards use same language used in the topic. There are scholars of all identities writing about Nuclear War, find them and amplify their voice. Framework is always an uphill battle in front of me but it's much easier when the AFF is not engaging with critical lit rooted in the topic.

K's: You need to clearly articulate why and how the AFF specifically links, and clearly isolate these links in the rebuttals. Explain why the perm isn't possible. Do not read afropess if you're not black. If you read links of omission, you better hope your opponent does not have a good response to why links of omission aren't real because I find those arguments persuasive. Links should be predicated off AFF action, language, impacts, politics, advantages etc.

Theory: Sure, I guess. I don't know much about condo/dispo/presumption, etc., so just try to explain them a little more than you'd usually have to for judges like me. I am less hesitant to vote for theory if it comes from an affluent or white team running frivolous theory interps against marginalized debaters/small schools. I encourage smaller teams to run disclosure theory against their opponents. If you're in policy, I may not be familiar with certain theory arguments.

Speed: I'm comfortable with speed if you go slow on tags and share docs. I flow on my laptop for most debates. Since I flow on my laptop, flash all docs and if you can, analytics too. Extra speaks for flashing analytics.

How to Get My Ballot: Win thesis-level claims and tell me where to vote and why. Exploit concessions (with warrants).

Feel free to email me at andre.j.swai@gmail.com for additional thoughts after the round and questions about college debate.

Welcome to my debate dissertation.

John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math & Statistics + Data Science)

I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate) and run a debate camp.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Events covered in this paradigm: Congress, LD/Policy, PF, Worlds, Extemp

Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.

Congress:

The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.

The long version:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.

Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious preferences I have in this event.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.

Here is what that looks like:

• Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.

• I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.

• I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.

• I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

• Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.

• Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!

• It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.

• Most importantly, I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.

LD (and policy ig):

I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...

Just kidding.

I vote for bad arguments all the time.

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down a bit on anything that isn't on the doc

I aim to be a tab robot.

TFA STATE 2025 UPDATE: I have not judged LD this season and especially not this topic so I'm very out of the loop with the contemporary meta of the topic. I know everyone says this but err on the side of over explaining.

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, that's cool (although you probably will need to win FW)

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.

Trad - 3

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 3

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally, I feel like contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot to win for me. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.

My defaults:

Comparative worlds > truth testing

• Presumption affirms < presumption negates

• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

• The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.

• PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my mind on this, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).

• Collapse in summary!

• A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.

• The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.

• I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.

• Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it

Worlds:

I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot more technical and extemporaneous.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

• I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.

• Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks. I think rhetoric can also help with argument clarity.

• I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity and adds no value to the round.

• Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.

• Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.

• Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.

• Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!