Hendrickson Hawk Classic UIL Meet
2023 — Pflugerville, TX/US
LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
LC Anderson 22'
4 years in CD (can always check my comp record)
email for email chains:
Congress: clash, clash, clash!!! logical arguments and good structure are a must / links need to be there! make sure to be engaging, but remember that this is a debate event in the first place; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always! make sure to be convincing, but respectful; be an active part of the debate; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round
- for po's: you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track
PF: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, links are important, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, stay engaged and responsive
IE: do what you need to do, all topics can be super interesting, but make sure to always be aware of your surroundings and give proper trigger warnings
in regard to competing, it is important to recognize powerful speakers who demonstrate skill and poise in every aspect of competition.
My preferences for Exempt would entail detailed evidence (enough for you to convey a message)
With the likelihood of virtual delivery please ensure the following:
- you are prepared for the event in the same way you would be in person
- please position your camera to where we can see your full body in frame (or at least knees and higher IF ABLE )
In case of virtual performance in Oratory/Info please ensure the following:
- you are prepared for the event in the same way you would be in person
- please position your camera to where we can see your full body in frame (or at lest knees and higher IF ABLE )
Author's intent is important but will not determine ranking in a round. For any student performing mature material, I have no issues with use of profanity, or expletives, as long as it is not excessive and proves to be necessary for the climax, character growth and/or development.
For safety reasons I do not shake hands
Hello, I am Daniella and I have been debating since 2015. I debated LD in my first year of high school and competed in many rigorous tournaments. I competed as a CX debater my last three years of high school and was district champion in my region and went to compete at the state tournament from 2017-2019. I used to be a college debater for the University of Texas at Austin. I work as a judge for UIL, TFA, and Great Communicator. I plan to attend law school after I earn my bachelor's degree at the University of Texas at Austin.
Add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
My Paradigms for Policy Debate:
I am a policymaker judge and I tend to take the theoretical viewpoint of a "policymaker," and as such, I will vote on which side presents the best policy option. I vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and on kritiks. The basic policy of this paradigm is the weighing of the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages. I will essentially vote on which world is better to theoretically live in, so impact analysis is a must for me to evaluate which team will win.
Theory: Theory args are unacceptable for me to vote on unless you can CLEARLY articulate a scenario for abuse. Otherwise, I probably won't flow it because I'll just feel like one of the teams is using theory as a last resort.
T: T debates are fine, if a good case could be made on a T argument I will vote on it. I would like an emphasis on standards and voters.
Counterplans: Counterplans are cool, make sure they’re competitive, make sure there’s a net benefit. However, counter plans like word PICs aren’t my favorite arguments to vote on, but I’ll vote on them if you articulate a net benefit.
Disadvantages: This is my favorite negative argument in the debate, make sure your disads are either net benefits to the CP or are packaged with some case turns/impact defense.
THE KRITIK: If K’s are run by the negative team they MUST prove how the alt will solve with a good link story. I competed in high school as a cap debater, so if the neg decides to run it they should be warned that I get extremely critical on it because of my familiarity and experience. Nonetheless of a K is run, the neg team must make sure the alternative can resolve the impacts of the case.
Case: Case debates are really underrated, but do what you have to do for your negative strategies. I like to hear teams read on impact defense. This is the traditional aspect of the debate and I really like it when debaters show me the flaws of another card.
Impacts: I really like comparative impact calc because it makes resolving debates much easier for me. Questions of magnitude, timeframe, and probability are important and you should talk about those, but take it to the next level and talk about how your impacts interact with each other.
My Paradigms for LD Debate:
I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that use util/deontological norms of LD are my favorite, but I would love to see the debaters challenge themselves with other unconventional values. Make sure you actually know how the value works before you use them in the round.
Ks: Ks are decent when they're done well, but I wouldn't recommend running one of them if it won't be clear for everyone. Don't assume I know the literature, explaining is everything! I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like.
Theory: Not a fan, but if run well I am more than willing to listen and vote on it.
Plans/CPs: Love them, but make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition.
I'm usually okay with spreading but since we are online and there's bound to be a slow connection, I am less tolerant of it so please be fair to the other team and speak at a pace everyone can understand. Accommodate for virtual debate. If you think something is important, slow down. Please don't be rude during cross-examination or points will be docked off, to an extent, it includes repetitive interrupting but the person in question also can't speak forever on an answer because I will recognize they're just trying to waste the time of their opponent. Nonetheless, have fun and be kind! :)
Junior at the University of Texas at Austin '24
I used to debate for Hendrickson
Email chain: email@example.com
Please Add for CX debates only: firstname.lastname@example.org
– None of this applies to PF or other formats besides Policy/CX and LD.
– Tech over truth in most cases. I won't evaluate an argument without a warrant, even if it's completely unanswered. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other wholly unethical and derogatory arguments. Additionally, arguments meant to be a meme or joke are inherently garbage. I will give you the lowest speaks for reading any of these arguments.
– I prefer contextualized arguments with specific warrants over anything else. Although I generally prefer high-quality evidence, issues from lack of evidence or poor-quality evidence can be resolved with good argumentation. I do normally read cards, but I leave explanations and comparison of evidence up to debaters. I mostly read cards to give comments/advice on how to better execute/answer a particular argument. I also don't want card docs. If you send a card doc, that email and doc will sadly be ignored and left unread in my inbox.
– Overviews, in general, are unnecessary. I would much rather here a speech that applies explanations of the aff or off-case position to the line-by-line. I often ignore overviews because they re-explain a simple and understandable argument already presented. Overviews are only needed when your opponents have mishandled or misunderstood your argument and to resolve any confusion. Too often this comment is said in the context of Kritiks, but the same is true for 2ACs on case and 2NCs/1NRs on other off-case positions.
– I’m not the best for teams reading Kritikal arguments. I didn’t read a lot of Kritikal arguments in high school, which means that I don’t understand your arguments as well as most judges. If you do want to read a kritik and pref me, then structural kritiks like capitalism, militarism, and security and identity kritiks like anti-blackness, feminism, and queer theory are fine. Post-modern kritiks are really pushing my boundaries. However, you shouldn't over-adapt. I would much prefer you read arguments you're familiar with and are able to clearly articulate over arguments I understand. I will be able to follow along with what you're saying so long as you're properly explaining key components of your argument.
– I don't often vote on 0% risk of anything. Although I have voted on 0% risk of impacts or solvency in the past, this was mostly because aff/neg teams provided insufficient responses, rather the other side being so good at beating an argument into the ground. In a debate where both sides are sufficiently responding to each other's arguments, I default to impact calculus more than anything else.
– "Soft-Left" affs have become increasing popular and common. I don't have an issue with these affs in general, but I do have an issue with 1ACs that have a short 3-4 card advantage with 5-minute-long framing contentions that include pre-empts like "no nuclear war", "[x] DA has [y]% risk", and "[z] thumped their DAs". Teams that read these 1ACs seem to have an aversion to debate. I have read these 1ACs in the past, so I understand the strategic utility of long framing contentions. However, I much prefer listening to 1ACs that have well-developed advantage and solvency contentions. I enjoy sifting through quality evidence that came from the topic literature base rather than evidence I can find in my backfiles.
– Unlike most judges, I flow cross-ex. This doesn't mean I consider cross-ex a speech, rather I am taking notes of cross-ex. You don't need to go into detail about what happened during cross-ex during your speech. I will understand the reference and evaluate your use of cross-ex accordingly.
– I generally default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I err towards reasonability when there isn't a coherent case list, a persuasive link to the limits disad, or high-quality evidence defending the interpretation. Reasonability is about the aff's counter-interpretation, not the aff.
– I'm not persuaded by "plan text in a vacuum". Just inserting the resolution into your plan text isn't enough to prove that the aff is topical. You have to prove your mechanism fits under the resolution.
– Comparative impact calculus matters more than winning in-roads to the other side's offense. I am more likely to vote on "procedural fairness outweighs maximizing revolutionary education" over "switch-side debate solves the aff's offense." Winning turns and access to the other side's offense increases your chance of winning, but they aren't necessary to winning the debate. These arguments are inherently defensive and, alone, are not enough to win the debate.
– Despite the above preference, I rarely vote aff when the 2AR impact turns topical, resolutional debates without a counter-interpretation. I don't find impact turns such as "framework is violent", "topical debate is bad", or "fiat is bad" persuasive. I am more likely to vote aff when there is a clear and coherent counter-interpretation paired with an argument about the skills and/or education gained from that model of debate. Winning some comparative advantage to your model is more convincing than going for an absolute disadvantage to the neg's model of debate. This doesn't mean I won't vote aff when the 2AR is just an impact turn.
– Recently, many negative teams have increasingly gone for clash and education as the impact in the 2NR. I find procedural fairness as a more persuasive impact than clash and education. Members of the debate community approach debate as if it were an academic game, which means the collapse of that game discourages further investment into the activity.
– Like most judges, I prefer case-specific links. Links frame the degree to which the neg gets all of their offense and K tricks on framework, the permutation, and the alternative. The more the link is about the broader structures that the aff engages in, the more likely I am to err aff on perm solvency of the links. I'm a sucker for 1AC quotes/re-highlights as proof of a link.
– Kritiks that push back on the aff's theory of the world require, at least in some part, case defense. Defense to the 1ACs impacts or solvency claims are useful to disprove the necessity of doing the aff. I'm more likely to be convinced that the aff has manufactured their threats and have engaged in militarist propaganda when you've proven the aff wrong about their scenarios. Absent sufficient case defense, extinction outweighs, and I vote aff.
– K tricks are fine. However, I won't give very high speaks if a debate is won or lost on them. I am not a fan of floating PIKs, especially if it's not clear until the 2NR.
– I absolutely love counterplans that come from re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC. Even if your counterplan doesn’t come from their 1AC author, the more case specific it is, the more likely I am to reward you for it.
– Presumption flows towards the least change. I consider most CPs that are not PICs as a larger change than the aff.
– I will judge kick unless told otherwise. If I believe the CP links back to its net benefit or the permutation resolves the links to the net benefit, I will evaluate the net benefit independent of the CP.
– DAs that rely on poor-evidence can be easily beaten without the 2AC ever reading new evidence against it. I am much more comfortable voting aff on "your uniqueness evidence is horrible" than 1% risk of a poorly carded DA. I am also very sympathetic to the 1AR making new arguments when the block reads new evidence to defend parts the 1NC poorly defended.
– Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument, except for condo. This is especially true when there isn’t any in-round abuse. Theory arguments that such as counterplans without solvency advocates, vague alts, etc. are reasons to be skeptical of the solvency of the counterplan or alt. They are rarely reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments like PICs bad, floating PIKs bad, agent CPs bad, etc. are reasons to reject the counterplan or alt. These arguments can be reasons to reject the team, but only if the neg severely mishandles the theory debate and the 1AR and 2AR are really good on them. The same is true for theoretically suspect permutations.
– I think the most reasonable number of conditional worlds the neg should have is two. Three or four is pushing it. If the neg only reads advantage counterplans or kritiks specific to the 1ACs plan, then I lean neg on condo even if they counter-interpretation is an infinite number of worlds. So long as those worlds are both textually and functionally (or philosophically) competitive, then I’m good with it. Obviously, new affs also justify infinite conditionality.
– I don't vote on shotty theory arguments like ASPEC, Disclosure Theory, New Affs Bad, etc. unless they are dropped and well-impacted out.
– I will always disclose or give feedback after the round is over. Debaters will only improve if they are given proper feedback and the opportunity to ask questions about the round. I want to watch and enjoy good debates, but that can only happen when debaters improve and know how to effectively articulate their arguments.
– For UIL State, the above is not true.
– If the affirmative is going for an RVI, it needs to be the entirety of your last speech and you must prove in-round abuse. I won't reject arguments or the negative otherwise.
– Just because I judge CX doesn't mean I want to watch a CX debate. Debate as if I'm a parent judge with no knowledge about the topic. This means no spreading, theory, or Kritiks. If you debate like it's a CX debate, I will not give you speaks higher than 28.
– Please send cases/evidence through an email chain. My email is above.
Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol
For TFA: I guess I'm an LD judge now
larp is gonna be your easiest way to win in front of me. I can guarantee with confidence that I will evaluate substance stuff correctly.
Beyond that...the guarantees get weaker.
I used to read a lot of theory in PF (disclosure and paraphrasing mostly).
I am familiar with most forms of progressive argumentation, at least in conceptual terms (i don't really see tricks or K debate often but I get the gist). I will attempt to evaluate anything so if you think uplayering is the most strategic thing for you to do go for it and don't blame me if it gets messy or you disagree with my decision.
good with speed just get a chain going
other than that ask questions
mostly pf stuff below
Debate is a game
K's, T, disads, theory, and any progressive args are fair ways to play
I endorse good...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them
Don't read theory bad IVIs in front of me (you're literally saying we should ban checks on abuse)
Instead, if you think you've encountered bad theory read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive
Default competing interps
I flow real good so follow the rules
No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read extinction framing or struc vi in final
Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped
If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore
You should frontline in second rebuttal
Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary
I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech
I give speaks based on strategy in round and technical prowess
Email for anything: email@example.com
World Schools Debate:
My favorite form of debate because in my opinion it is the most accessible. Style is 40% of points so keep in mind that presentation and delivery are very important in this event especially. This means no spreading! Speeches should utilize all three criteria (content, style, and strategy) in order to deliver the most convincing presentation of their case. I will evaluate holistically based on which team employs these criteria the best and therefore is most convincing. Use POIs strategically in order to poke holes in the opponents case and make them explain their reasoning/evidence/analysis, which you could use in rebuttals later. Make sure to clash with the opponent, clearly point out where their case is flawed, by the end of the round you should make it very clear why the world of the Prop is better than the Opp, or vice versa.
I really appreciate a performer who really embodies the character in order to get the messaging across. A memorized, meaningful intro is important. I'm not looking for constant yelling/crying, rather theatrics that are used to get the mood across. Stay in character, "popping" is important too, use timing, think meaningful pauses and switch up your tone/pacing when necessary. Remember it is a performance, so do what you can to clearly portray the author's/your message that you are sending with this piece. I also pay attention to and appreciate good cutting--think structure, plot, etc. The piece should be cut around a clear distinguishable climax, and structured in an order that makes sense to tell the story to the audience.
This is a challenging event (but so rewarding!) The important thing to me is not a flawless delivery (though that is very impressive), but a speech that is well structured with a clear, defensible answer to the question. Clever intro that ties into the rest of the speech (revisited again at the conclusion) are always appreciated! You should have 2-3 reasons to support your answer, each one with your own intelligent analysis andsources. The extemp walk is super useful too, (muscle memory) and a good way to demonstrate structure within your speech.
This was my favorite event in high school! The most important thing here is a good, interesting topic that you analyze thoroughly and with a unique perspective. The most important word in Info is implications. What are the implications of your topic? Don't just tell me about it, tell me why in detail why I should care and how it affects me. I LOVE an interactive, creative visual, it is important that you use it purposefully, not just cause. A visual should enhance your points and be used at the right moment so as to not distract from your speech. Delivery is important (be clear and loud), but do not be robotic! Show some personality and of course humor is always appreciated.
Oratory is a super cool and unique event. The point of an oratory is to make the audience think about your topic in a way they never have before. Your speech should leave the room with a new perspective on your topic that they may want to incorporate in their own lives. I.e. If your topic is about, say, coffee, I should be left educated and with a brand new perspective of thinking about coffee. Be persuasive! Show me that your unique thoughts on coffee are worth every second of your ten minutes. Be engaging, loud, clear, and persuasive in your delivery. Humor is always appreciated.
Be persuasive and clash with your opponent!
I prefer a debate that is focused on facts and evidence. I appreciate a clear roadmap. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are speaking to fast or not clearly connecting ideas you will not do well. Speaker points are given when it is clear you have practiced your opening argument.
For the most part I am lay, but I there are some priorities for me:
Establishing framework is very important and who can most utilize their value as tool against their opponent. I want debaters to argue why the value should weigh more and/or why it can even solve for their opponents case. I have judged LD before, and I get disappointed when framework arguments fade from the center of the debate because they should be focus of LD.
Impact debate is important and will ultimately decide the round. I need to know why I should not vote for the opponent and why I need to vote for your case. If there is an impact to not voting your case, let me know. Or vice versa tell me there is an impact to voting for your opponent. Impact debate can be won by using impact calculus and using the framework to tell me what why yours is more important.
I will listen and vote for K debate, just make sure the argument presented has a clear link and not just an overall generic link to resolution.
Any questions, you can ask me.
I am typically oriented around policy maker as a judge. The best negative offense for me, are a couple of DAs and a good CP. I expect the DAs to have non-generic strong links. I will mostly evaluate a DA base around the link debate. My only standards for the CPs is that they are creative and can solve for the entirety of the Affirmative case, with a net benefit.
T args: I will only vote for T if it is pretty obvious that the affirmative is not topical, otherwise if they are presenting a common case then T is a time waster for me.
Theory: I do not flow on theory, I think it does not take the debate anywhere.
K debate: I am familiar with Ks, especially Cap, and I would be willing to vote on Ks, as long as they are well represented and are not generically linked to the affirmative case.
Case: Aff just make sure your entire case is defended and upheld.
Impact: A big chunk of my decision will be based on impact debate. So each side please provide an Impact Cal, and I am willing to listen to big and small stick impacts. However, I will have a higher standard for probability for big stick impacts.
If you have any other questions then please just ask me before a round starts.
Director of Debate at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - Present)
Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019
Texas Tech University 2019-2021 (Graduated)
Putting this at the top cause its important: IF YOU DON'T EXPLICITLY EXTEND YOUR PLAN TEXT OR ALT I WILL VOTE ON PRESUMPTION. This does not mean you need to reread the text word for word but at least say extend the PT/Advocacy and tell me what it does.
Speed- I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.
MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.
Affs- Read one. Policy affs should not have planks in the plan text. Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters.
K Affs- The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.
Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate.
T- Aff has burden to prove topicality. I will grant aff reasonability if there is a bright line given. Otherwise I default competing interp.
FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad.
DA- The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.
PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are not that deep into any election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me.
CP- I like counterplan debate and have found myself reading them a lot more in college debate. The 1NC shell must have a competition section. If the CP doesn't explain competition with the aff then all it takes is the 2AC to point that out or read a permutation and it basically destroys the whole CP. Also make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has.
K’s- Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.
Theory- I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage. Specification arguments are eh. I'm a strong believer that Cross X is there to check back against those arguments.
I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I do know that TOC level LD is now utilizing actual policy affs, K's, CP's, and DA's. Because of my policy background I believe those arguments are good and can be used. I don't understand Phil affs or Kantian ethics.
My Experience is in TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.
do NOT be racist, transphobic, homophobic, bigoted, etc.
Competitive history: 4 years at Princeton High School (split time w/ LD and policy). 4-time national qualifier in policy, congress, and extemp. 4-time TFA qualifier in policy, LD (doubles), and extemp (qtrs). UIL state qualifier in policy. Competed primarily in TFA/Nat circuit, but I have experience in UIL circuit too. Policy was my main event, and I think this will be applicable if I’m judging you in LD too.
Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing.
TLDR: The best way to explain my evaluation of debate is offense-defense. I don’t think you should pref me high if you are a primarily K team, albeit I will listen to a K debate, I just have a very high threshold for voting for it without a non-jargon explanation (this is applicable to any arg, but for K’s it is especially relevant). Aside from K debate, I’m comfortable listening to anything and I usually don’t have a predisposition for any arg. I love a clean line-by-line. I’m tech over truth and I try my best to not judge intervene.
Evidence: I do read the evidence in the round, so try not to falsify the warrants of your arguments, but I still think it is up to the debaters to call out bad evidence.
Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.
Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold on abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.
Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case. I believe DA starts at the uniqueness, but I have voted for a non-unique DA sadly.
Counterplans: I don’t judgekick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.
Kritiks: I’m not familiar with/don’t remember all of your authors albeit I do know most of the criticism associate with the lit of these K’s, but it is still up to you to have a sufficient explanation. This is an argument where I would much rather you have a link that is specific to the aff because it makes it easier to convince me to vote for you. Generic links are fine too but make sure they are to the aff and not the status quo, but this is still up to the other team to make that argument. Explain your alt please. I will vote on a linear disad.
LD specific: I love a good framework debate and often find it to be the crux of winning arguments/rounds, I’m also generally lenient to the 1AR but that doesn’t mean you should be lazy with your theory shells. Progressive args and speed are fine.
PF specific: if you have me as a PF judge, see above.
Extemp specific: if you happen to have me as a judge more than once, I don’t care if you use the same attention-getter. I don’t have a pref for performance versus fact-telling, but I would like to see both and some sort of weaving of points to a coherent explanation.
Gordie O'Rorke (he/him)
--- Call me Gordie (gore-dee), not judge, not sir
University of Texas '26 -- not debating
Winston Churchill '22 -- policy debate
--- firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains
--- email@example.com for anything else
TLDR: I have no familiarity with the NATO topic. Please explain acronyms, intricacies, etc. clearly if you want my ballot. I am willing to listen to any arguments that aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Some arguments will obviously need more explanation than others. Write my ballot for me--the first part of your 2NR/2AR should be what I repeat back to you in the RFD. Yes spreading, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed--I don't care how good your arguments are if I can't understand them.
Very much tech>truth. However, you need to extend an argument completely if you want me to evaluate it, even if it is dropped.
Other Relevent Things:
Please no small talk if I don't know you.
Speed up the debate. Have the email chain ready to go when the round is supposed to start. I don't want to sit there and watch you slowly get ready for your speech.
Speech drop = :(
If you send a google doc or pdf, I will take off .2 speaks and be very annoyed. (download verbatim, it's free)
Give an order before your speech. Example: "CP, DA, Case" not "Link, Line by Line, Impact"
Topicality: Competing interpretations is probably a better metric in determining T debates however I can be persuaded otherwise. Reasonability is a question of the counterinterpretation and the literature base. Please articulate an internal link/impact -- "they explode limits and ground" is not an argument.
Counterplans: It's counterplan, not "see-pee". I generally don't like counterplans like "Add a 4th Branch" or "Reverse Guidance Docs": ie. counterplans that adds something arbitrarily. I won't default to judge kick or sufficiency framing unless you tell me to. Counterplan theory is probably underutilized in the 2AR but it needs to be a substantial part if not all of the 2AR. You need a net benefit or you will probably not get my ballot. Aff specific advantage counterplans are always better.
Disads: It's disad, not "dee-aye". I like well thought out disads. Zero risk is possible if debated well. Disads are generally bad and generic--please point out the logical flaws--this will go a long way even as analytics. Aff specific links are always better than generic ones but I understand disad ground is not always extensive. Turns case arguments are very persuasive and should be at the top of your 2NR.
Kritiks: Slow down on overviews. These were a majority of my 2NRs my senior year and a majority of my partner's 2NRs my junior year. I am familiar with common kritiks like cap, antiblackness, set col, IR, but have almost no experience with high theory which means you'll likely need to overexplain. I default to weighing the aff. Links should also be articulated as reasons to turn the case. Often times the alt debate gets lost which I think is a detriment. Explaining the alt makes it a lot easier to get my ballot. Thus, I also find it difficult to vote for the K without an alternative.
K Affs: I like K Affs as long as they have a link to the topic. Taglines that say NATO, AI, Cybersecurity, with vague or no basis in their literature is not a link to the topic. I find it hard in those scenarios to believe that it is necessary to read this on the aff. I find TVAs and Switch-Side very persuasive therefore the aff needs to have a strong response and justification for their aff and model of debate. While I did mostly go for the K v K Affs, I find these rounds hard to adjudicate and will need more judge instruction if you want a helpful ballot.
Framework: I probably lean more towards voting for framework in K Aff v FW debates. Arguments about dismissing K Affs from debate, excluding literature bases, etc will likely result in a loss--these aren't persuasive. TVA/SSD is a good strategy and I find that Aff teams rarely have a good answer to strategic TVAs or a strong justification for why it's necessary to read their literature on the affirmative. Structure your debating around why your model is preferable, not whining about "cheating K-Affs".
Theory: Underutlized. I also have very little experience in these types of debates but good debating, and articulating clear in-round abuse, internal links, and impacts might make it a reason to reject an argument. Condo is the only reason to reject the team. Reading your 10 point theory blocks at each other without responding to the other teams 10 point theory block will lead to low speaker points.
LD/PF: I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these events. I will probably judge these rounds like I would a policy round. This means backfile theory shells, RVIs, gotchya arguments, etc. will not be understood and likely not voted on. I don't know what "tricks" are and I don't care to learn. Please still send your evidence. I'm not sure why other events don't always have an email chain but disclosure is good. If you are unsure how to do this, please ask. Not sending evidence will result in lower speaker points.
Experience: Teacher and Coach of Speech & Debate! Although I have a few years of experience I am BIG on public speaking skills!
What I look for: A speaker who keeps the audience in mind by applying speaking techniques that keep the listener interested. (Eye contact, non-verbal communication, body language is important to get an overall perspective of the speaker).
Each speech or performance needs the basics: intro, body conclusion.
For extempers, I love to see the waltz during your delivery.
I am always open for the speakers to find their own unique ways to make their topics interesting and purposeful! I am all about the persuasion and emotion behind a performance (THINK ethos, pathos and logos).
*Treat the round as a "communication experience" and remember to have FUN!!
For debaters, DO NOT spread during a round. I like to flow during rounds and understanding your arguments is most important.
I enjoy clash during CX and voter reasons! (Remember part of a debate is in the art of persuasion)
- For Extemp:
1. Make to sure to include a humorous or captivating AGD in the intro.
2. Please, provide a blanket statement corresponding with your answer to the question. Ex. "Yes, because of...."
3. 3 points of elaboration to the answer are a must.
4. I provide 3-down time signals.
5. I have extensive background in DX and FX. Additionally, I am currently a public affairs graduate student. Inaccurate statements or misrepresented statistics will be reflected in your rank.
For Debate events:
1. Don't spread. Speak clearly. Spreading will ensure that at most, you'll receive 28.5 speaker points.
2. I judge based on the flow. With that being said, I evaluate impacts above all else. If you extend and cogently argue your biggest impacts, you'll likely win.
Updated February 2023
I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.
I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions before or after rounds.
I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.
Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/
You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf
You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.
Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.
If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.
Prep Time Standards:
Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.
If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.
Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.
-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.
-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.
The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.
Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.
Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.
CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.
DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.
Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.
Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.