FOR CX:

Hi! My name is Emily Abrego, and I am a student at TAMUCC. I am a state-finalist CX debater who competed up until my graduation in 2021. I have provided a few paradigms below, but if yall have any additional questions, dont hesitate to ask! P.S. Remember to have fun :)

Overall: Speed/spreading is fine, just please slow down on taglines and authors/dates out of courtesy for your judge and opponents. Unless specified, I weigh all args equally and it is up to the teams to provide voters in rebuttals for how I should weigh the round and why, coupled with an impact calc if applicable. Open or closed CX is up to both teams to agree upon, but I will notice if one person is clearly answering/asking all of the questions, so try to not use your partner's time unless necessary. Flashing between your partner during one of yall's speeches is also up to your opponents, but no verbal prompting. New in the 2 is fine unless it's excessive.

Topicality: I don't vote on T unless it's run properly with all its planks and the plan is clearly abusive. If you're running it as a time suck, please do so properly; I've seen teams waste time on their own time suck.

K: Same as T, I do not vote on unless ran properly. I also think that a good alternative should be provided; if you can't answer the K, why should they.

Theory: I think theory is an "I don't have anything on their case" argument and doesn't reflect well, but I am open to hearing it out if ran properly. The only thing that is a hard no is "FIAT bad" theory as I believe that it ruins the educational aspect of debate.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly.

CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(24-25), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

James Allen
Hallsville '9-'13
University of Texas - Arlington '13-'17

I competed extensively on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits in North, East and South Texas as well as the TOC. Given the meta of that judging pool and its exceptionally diverse preferences on various aspects of debate, I highly value debaters' versatility and adaptability in meeting judges where they are most comfortable adjudicating rounds. Despite this, I believe my paradigm is more adaptable to debaters than is typical because I adjudicate based on what participants have to say, not on whether their content more closely aligns with my assumptions on a given topic. I frequently endorse debaters whose argumentation exhibits effectiveness and efficiency even though I might disagree with the logic of a particular argument.

Thusly, I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.

On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences:

I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary.

Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument.

Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a utopian/dystopian CP.

Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in a rebuttal if the argument is legitimate and strategic.

Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.

Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, will revolve around argumentative agency.

Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere or disingenuous.

Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Extensions- I will account for the time skew in the 1AR if I feel that it is necessary. You must extend the warrants and implications of arguments in the rebuttals for me to consider it as offense. If I end up having to intervene, I will be considerably displeased and will be lazy.

Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.

To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how and why I should vote. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to the quality of argumentation.

Notes regarding the virtual nature of online tournaments:

I would advise disclosing advocacies in constructive and rebuttal speeches through file sharing to avoid the tragic scenario in which connectivity issues degrade clarity. I suggest utilizing OBS to record speeches so that they may be made available in the event of technical difficulties. I most strongly advise that you disclose all of your evidence and strategies on the open evidence wiki.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.

Most of all, I must express how grateful I am for the opportunity to listen to what you each have to say. Thank you for challenging yourselves, facing your fears, and letting your voices be heard. Cherish this opportunity and wield it on your journeys to becoming the best version of yourselves.

john.art.anderson@gmail.com

3/5/25 update for TFA State: Sorry this is late. I usually don't have arg pref shortcuts on here but if you find that helpful then here you go:

1 - policy (util or sv)

2 - theory / basic phil

3 - Kritiks

4 - heavy/dense phil, performance affs or obscure kritiks

5 - tricks

I competed for four years in policy and three years in LD at Lampasas High School. I have judged regularly every year since 2012, primarily at Austin TFAs. I prefer progressive debate but I am liable to miss blippy arguments/analytics/theory etc. if you're spreading fast and off the doc. Give me pen time for those things as well as tags/authors.

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I qualified for nationals three times in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, just gotta win proven or potential abuse. Proven abuse is definitely an easier way to get the ballot than potential for me.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. If you give me another framing argument up top on what my role of the ballot is I will default to whichever side wins framing though.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

Refutation is extremely important, but I am primarily a stock issues judge. I love speed as long as it is understandable. I will keep a perfect flow so I do not like debaters who are all over the place. Be organized and be clear with analysis.

I have actively involved in Speech and Debate for the past two years. It was only this year that I took over as head coach after being assistant coach last year. I have judge rounds in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Prose, Poetry, Extemp and Congress. With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first.

LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive.

In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

Email: reuelhsbautista@gmail.com

For LD:

Tabula Rasa

As long as the argument is well explained and the debater shows why it leads to a winning ballot, I will vote on anything.

I typically judge policy, so I might be somewhat biased to policy-esque arguments.

Make sure I'm on the email chain/speech drop and be clear on tags.

Do not make me make the arguments for you. Be clear on how and why a card or an analytic clashes with your opponent's arguments, or why it's a voter.

Make sure you have fun in the round. Do not take it too seriously. You are [probably] not actually a racist no matter what your opponent calls you.

For Policy:

Tabula Rasa

I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you explain why it leads to a winning ballot. Make it easy for me to judge the round by explaining to me what to vote for and why I should vote on it. If arguments become incomprehensible, I will default policy.

I do not like new arguments in the 2nd Negative Constructive.

Kritiks

I am mostly fine with Ks. I am not super well read on all K literature, so make sure that everything is well explained, defined and be specifically clear on the link debate. Again if the K debate gets too messy or incoherent, I will default policy.

Theory/T

Any theoretical conflict is up for debate. I will vote on T but it has to be well-developed and reasonable in the round. Otherwise, I will typically vote Aff on T as long as the aff has a reasonable response to the argument.

DA

Cool

CP

I am not the biggest fan of CP but I will usually vote on it as long as its properly debated.

Presentation

As long as I'm part of the email chain or speech doc, all you have to do is have clear tags. If for some reason I do not have access to your doc, make sure your reading is clear and comprehensible. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow anything I cannot understand. Do not make me make the arguments for you. Explain your arguments, provide analytics, and make sure you have a clear line by line. Make sure to go hard into voters in the last speech.

Don't be a jerk in-round. I will deduct speaks for unruly behavior.

My pet peeve is "in your own words" questions in cx.

Updated 4/24/25 Pre-TOC

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

Topic thoughts - ICC/UNCLOS -

Aff ground seems interesting in terms of what teams can defend, I haven't judged on this topic at all so I am not as familiar with topic acronyms as you'd like me to be.

"T - and/or means all" is an abomination and are a perfect example of why T debates in this event suck 90% of the time.

Neg k links seem to be pretty alright, I certainly enjoy the link angles here, and I prefer neg teams to take up specific criticisms of the institutions the resolution talks about rather than like "international relations/institutions bad."

I have not judged high school LD since Greenhill in the fall, since then I have judged primarily collegiate policy debate along with some collegiate LD. What does this mean for you? Unsure yet, but more than likely I might be a bit stingier with speaks than normal (also given the tournament), my willingness to put up with nonsense is a lot lower (nonsense = tricks, frivolous theory, and arguments that induce an eye roll when read). For adaptation purposes, I have been spoiled in an event with cohesive warranting and debating for the past 7 months, PLEASE: read an affirmative that defends something (a plan, an advocacy of some kind, or a carded philosophical framework) and negate that something with arguments that prove it is bad (kritiks with links to the aff/the epistemology of the aff, a counterplan + disadvantage, impact turns, a carded philosophical framework).

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. I think my best decisions come in debates where both sides have deep and intricate knowledge of the arguments they are going for, where that knowledge is highlighted in argument explanation, detailed judge instruction, and recognizing the cleanest path to victory that uses these principles. Badarguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Yes insert rehighlightings, caveat is that it must be from the same portion of the article that the respective side cuts, if you read a part not introduced in the debate, you must read it out loud.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Colin Quinn.

Friends of mine in debate whose takes I agree with at least partially: E. Cook, Dylan Jones

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others and need a bit more hand holding)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, this year will mark my 9th year in debate. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 700+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. Those (probably too many) debates have ranged everywhere from local circuit tournaments, the TOC, and to the NDT, but I would say most of my time judging is in national circuit LD, with college policy debate coming in right behind that. I think the reason I judge so much is because I think judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach Berkeley Carroll JH, Jasper SG, Plano West AR, Plano West NS, Plano West RC, and Riverside Independent JD.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with American Heritage Broward CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue/Washington Independent WL, Clear Springs EG, Clear Springs MS, Greenhill EX, McNeil AS, and Vestavia Hills MH.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

If it means anything, I think most of my debate takes are in camp "2N who had to be a 2A for a while as well so I think mostly about negative strategy but also think that the aff has the right to counter-terrorism against negative terrorism."

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters posture too much. I don't care, and it annoys me. Debate the debate, especially since half the time when debaters posture it's about the wrong thing. There is a difference between being firm, and being performative.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2025 and y'all have been using technology for how long????).

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 745 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff exactly 52.08% of the time.

My speaks for the 2024-2025 season have averaged to be around 28.615, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.541.

I have been a part of 222 panels, where I have sat exactly 13.51% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

"Give me thirty speaks." How about I give you a 27 instead?

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

Thoughts on conditionality/dispositionality are in the theory section.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 9 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more because sometimes the permutation is indeed a nonstarter.

For aff teams answering the K, going for framework does not automatically make the risk of the link zero, especially when there is no judge instruction on why your interp would exclude their link arguments. That necessitates that you need to answer the link most often time, especially if there's a turns case argument. I have had too many debates where the 2AR was just framework with no link defense, and I end up voting neg quickly because of conceded link turns case arguments that the 2NR say directly affect the plan's implementation.

Framework only matters as much as you make it matter. I think both sides of the debate are doing no argument resolution/establishing the implications of what it means to win framework. Does that mean that only consequences of the implementation of the plan matter, and I exclude the links to the plans epistemology? Does that mean that if the neg wins a link, the aff loses because I evaluate epistemology first? Questions like these often go unresolved, and I think teams often debate at each other via block reading without being comparative at all. Middle ground interps are often not as strategic as you think, and you are better off just going for you link you lose, or plan focus. To sum this up, make framework matter if you think it matters, and don't be afraid to just double down about your interp.

Link uniqueness matters a lot for me as well, this is where I think framework becomes a large guiding question for how I evaluate the rest of the debate. You don't need to win framework if you have non-unique links to the aff that are resolved via an alternative that commits to a material action and is not just "lets adopt new epistemologies," so long as you win the plan trades off with the commitment toward that alternative.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Grove, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Marxism, Moten and Harney, New Materialism, Psychoanalysis, Reps K's, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, Security, Settler Colonialism, and Weheliye.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Abolition, Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Bataille, Cybernetics, Disability Literature, Puar, and Queer pessimism.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

For other k v k debates, I think the emphasis needs to be offense, offense, offense. Often when teams just throw a bunch of cards at an aff there is little resolution of how arguments interact with one another, this is where I think think line by line debating is necessary to ensure that I keep track of the debate in the most clean way possible.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

In my heart of hearts, I probably am very slightly aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner. If you are an aff debater reading this, my response to you is to innovate and to try to emphasize technical debate rather than posturing, you have an aff and you should definitely use it to help substantiate your arguments.

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

Subject formation? Yeah debate probably influences it, it's definitely shaped my research practices, interests, etc. However this isn't as much a game over issue for T-Framework teams as you think it is, as I think that subject formation can be strategically levied against K teams as well.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

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.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. I think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be more than dismissive if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges. If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Dipositionality is fake, genuinely don't understand how teams can defend dispo and say that it is any radically different than conditionality.

Counterplan theory is probably a reason to reject the argument.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. If you think there is a violation you either stake the round or don't make an argument about it.If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

I will evaluate every speech of the debate sans there being an ethics violations that stops the flow of the debate.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic modesty > confidence in skep debates, confidence > modesty in phil v phil debates

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Policy/CX Debate:

I am a stock issues judge, I prefer the affirmative to defend all 5 stock issues. The affirmative and the negative should both create direct clash by responding to ALL of their opponents' arguments. To me, an argument that does not have a response is an argument that is won by the team that made the argument. I do not like kritiks. Topicalities are great, but I don't like time being wasted on endless topicality arguments. Disadvantages are also a good argument, but should be formatted correctly and have all four necessary parts. CPs should have a net benefit, or they are not better than the affirmative case. On case arguments are the most effective arguments in my opinion, as long as they relate directly to the opponent's case. I will also listen to reasonable theory arguments. The following is personal preference, but one thing that irks me as a judge is teams that kick arguments that they are winning or that there is good debate on, only kick arguments if you're absolutely sure the argument will have no impact on the round at all. Also, when you kick an argument, please be explicit about kicking the argument and don't "silent kick" an argument.

Style and Delivery Preferences:

I want to be able to understand every word you say. I will award higher speaker points to debaters that speak the most fluently, with the fewest mistakes, as long as I understand them.

last updated: 12/4

Ammu Christ (they/them/their)

Midlothian '22

UT Austin '26

please addgraduated@gmail.com to the chain

active conflicts: idk now

**Follow the bolded portions of the paradigm if you need to skim.

---

LHC/UH/Churchill 2024 Update:

Hi I have been out for like a good 9 months since TFA State

don't assume I know anything about your topic or the current state of norms now

don't assume i can intuitively guess what your embedded clash is - make it as clear as the sun and collapse

most of my thoughts on debate probably haven't changed

Sure you can spread but let my ears adjust/attune to it first, I'll let out clear a few times and if you don't adapt I'll get a bit annoyed and flow a lot less/give up

my brain flows warrants a lot better - this means focus on your explanation more than the formalities of tags/authors

it would be awesome to send me a music or book rec just for funsies

yay debate

---

post-TFA State 2024 updates:

The state of LD has always been in a desolate state, but this past weekend has been extraordinarily disappointing. The frequency of judging beyond this point is up to my wellbeing and being compensated beyond minimum wage.

1 - I'm not sure why debaters feel the need to be cutting necessary corners to explain and win their arguments sufficiently well. It disservices you from winning by underexplaining your arguments and hoping I can make

2 - Be considerate when you're postrounding your judges. Many of us are paid well below minimum wage and volunteer/prorate lots of hours into the activity with little to no return in favor of keeping the community having adequate judging. I'll do my best to explain how I reached my decision and answer clarifying questions, but if you expect me to automatically change my decision, its too late, try again next time.

3 - I am not your babysitter and will give you a stern look if you or any person in the room acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Especially things such as grabbing another debater's laptop without their permission and turning it towards the judge.

4 - I hold absolutely no sympathy for individuals that don't make a concerted attempt for disclosure (ie explicitly refuse to send their cases over, not disclosing on opencaselist dot com) and then read some 2000s-esq theory shell saying they are unable to engage with the 1AC. Go argue with your coach, not me.

5 - It should go without saying that if I find out that you attempt to make a structural/ontology claim (or analogously use some grammar of blackness) through cutting a sui**de note as your basis, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will contact your coach either by the RFD or directly. Absolutely ridiculous.

---

I would best describe myself as a clairvoyant when it comes to judging. I have no strong feelings when it comes to how I evaluate arguments, and feel that I agree with a wide spectrum of opinions and debate takes, even the usual divide that exists within educational/“non-educational” forms of debate.

I will vote up anything except anything morally repugnant (see: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) or out of round issues. Some arguments require a lot more instruction than others in front of me, choose accordingly.

General takes:

• Evidence determines the direction of argument quality - Bad arguments will either have little to no evidence, but it is possible to spin smart arguments from bad evidence. Arguments without evidence is definitely doable, but then again, y’all are high schoolers.

• To win an argument, you need to sufficiently win that it has a claim, impact, and warrant.

• The 1AC will “set the topic” (whether it adheres to the resolution or not), the 1NC will refute the 1AC in any form. I am inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative world is more preferable than the status quo or a different world proposed by the negative.

• Debate is a communication activity. It may or may not have “spillover” into the real world. I am of the opinion, by default, we probably don’t. I can be convinced either way, though.

• My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting.

• At bare minimum, I need to get submit my ballot in before tournament directors nag on me. Other than that, do whatever other than being violent.

• As a neurodivergent person, it is sometimes a bit hard for me to follow implications/strategies of things as well as deciphering rebuttals. My favorite type of rebuttals will respond to things top-down in the order of the previous speech and/or group and do sub-debates in specific areas on my flow. Your speed when it comes to the rebuttals should be 70% of the speed of the constructive.

• I care a lot about form and content. The 2NR/2AR must isolate and collapse to one argument (most of the time). I am very receptive to arguments that specifically complicate the reading of multiple conflicting positions in the rebuttal. (See: a non-T aff going for condo, collapsing to multiple Phil positions and a util advantage, etc). This doesn’t really apply if conflicting positions are read before the rebuttals.
• I default no judgekick.

• I think I’m pretty good at nearly transcribing most speeches. My typing speed spikes anywhere between 110-140 words per minute. I tend to flow more and try to isolate warrants since my brain tends to forget immediately if I don’t write down full warrants/explanations for things. Not a you problem, just a neurodivergent thing. In terms of speed, not a problem, just need clarity and will clear you if it is not present or give up not typing anything if I can’t legibly type anything.

• Speaks are based on execution, strategy, collapse, and vibes. 28.2-28.6 is the cume for average. 28.7-28.9 means you’re on the cusp for breaking. 29-29.3 means you’ll break and reach early/mid slims. 29.4+ means you will go deep elms and/or win the tournament. Not all speaks are indicative of this, but normally they will try to follow this guideline.

LD specific takes:

• Pref guide:
• I feel best apt to evaluate K, non-T, policy, Util/Kant debates.
• I can adequately evaluate theory. I find that these debates aren’t impossible, but I definitely will be thinking a lot more harder in these debates.
• Exercise caution around tricks and “denser phil” (anything not Util or Kant). I can still evaluate these, but I find in these debates I need arguments overexplained in terms of strategy for me to follow.

• I default comparative worlds over truth testing. I think offense under either form of argument evaluation is doable, but I need that blatantly explained to me.

• I’ve changed my thoughts on tricks. I think that I was formerly being dogmatic by saying they don’t hold “educational value”. I actually don’t care now. Read them if you fancy these arguments, but I require a lot more judge instruction to understand strategy/collapse.

• As formerly for tricks, I’ve also changed my thoughts on theory. A shell must have a violation to be legitimate. See below in a later section about specifics with theory offense.
• A caveat for evidence ethics theory. I do not find this shell convincing at all. In order to win with this shell in front of me, the alleged violation must prove that there was malicious intent with the altercation of evidence. I will also ask if both debaters would like to stop the round and stake the round on evidence ethics. If the person who read the shell says no, my threshold for responses on the shell automatically goes down to the lowest possible amount of responses. The threshold to win the argument at this point becomes insanely steep.

• If I haven’t made it clear already, please spend more time explaining function and implications of these arguments if you want to win my ballot. I find that I am following these arguments more better than I was like a year ago, but you should do more work to overexplain to me to win. I don’t know to make that more obvious.

• I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater on theory shells.

• I am willing to zero out a theory shell’s offense if there is no real violation. It is up to the person reading the shell to prove that there is either a textual or functional violation in the first place. No amount of competing interpretation justifications will matter if there is no violation to the shell. I don’t care if the violation is textual or functional, I just need one to grant offense to the shell in the first place.

• I find that paradigm issue debates are sailing ships in the night — you should really group them whenever they’re spread across multiple pages. If the warrants to your paradigm issues are the same I’ve heard over the past year and a half, I will flow them as “dtd, c/I, no rvi” (and vice versa when responding)
• I enjoy unique warrants to paradigm issues, but find non-T offs trying to come up with their own warrants sort of fall flat if they reject a conception of debate.

• IVIs need an impact when introduced. Will not vote on these without one.

• I default theory > K >= content FW > content — this is a rough diagram and open to different justifications for weighing.

• You can find any other relevant thoughts on the K and policy here in the archive for December 2023. My thoughts really haven’t changed as much for the K nor policy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KidiW8WJQi0-PWf2lx33GPi9kiRySLl1TbV_fGZ1PY/edit?usp=sharing

You can request a copy of your flow at any point after the RFD is given.

Good luck! :>

CX Debate: I am fundamentally a stock issues judge. I am open to any well-reasoned and thoroughly explained argument. If a team can successfully prove all stock issues and demonstrate how they outweigh their opponent's arguments, they will win the round. I also value clarity and structure—if you present a compelling argument outside of the stock issues framework, explain why I should adopt your perspective.

CX paradigm: When it comes to CX debate I find myself normally more of a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. I classify myself as a policy maker judge, tell me why your plan, or status quo/ counterplan, is better than the proposition the opposite side is making. Additionally, I believe stock issues to be quintessential in arguing your side, although drop(s) on stock issues do not equate to a winning ballot. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument and every stock issue is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and not tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. I’ll flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round. I am not particularly a fan of K debates, however if the competitor thinks they can be successful in properly communicating the K, I will listen to it. In terms of having an open cross examination during the debate, I will allow it, however, I expect the competitor who is supposed to be question/answering to do most of the talking.

LD paradigm: When it comes to LD debate I find myself normally more a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. In addition to that, I believe that LD debate is centered around the value/criterion debate, as a result, I will not vote on any plan text presented by either side. I also appreciate debaters who treat their value/criterion as a fundamental to not only their case, but also on their arguments against their opponents case. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and don’t tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. I’ll flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round.

Judge paradigms can be complicated, so I am going to give you the gist of my judging philosophy and go into more detail as you scroll down. If you read my paradigm and apply it in round, you will have an advantage and be that much closer to winning. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have about my paradigm!

SUMMARY: I'm a policymaker who did UIL CX in high school, I am familiar with a couple other events though so I'm not super strict on traditionalism. I see debate as a game with changeable rules, the only hard and fast rules are speech times, so I like theory, I don't like generic stuff, I don't like spreading (speed is fine), I don't like guilt tripping, I'm logical, avoid vague links, give me roadmaps before speeches, be nice to your opponents.

DETAILED VERSION OF MY PARADIGM:

I'm a policymaker, I will vote for whichever case I think has the best outcome. It is imperative in my mind that competitors uphold their burdens (of clash and proof). I default to utilitarianism framing (most good for the most people) but I love framework/theory debates, so I am open to whatever y'all bring up; you can treat me like a Tab in that regard, I'll flow anything. IF YOU DROP FRAMEWORK, THEORY, OR T, I AM PROBABLY NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU. I am open to every kind of offcase. I see debate as a game with bendable rules. If you read theory saying that I should weigh the round differently than I do according to this paradigm sheet, then I will judge accordingly (much like a Tab judge, but implicit bias makes that role unrealistic in my opinion). If you read me framing that says genocide is good, I will believe it's good until told otherwise.

I don't mind K's if they are run properly, which they usually are not. To vote for a K I would need a strong, specific link and observable impacts (ie, I'm probably not going to vote for a generic black marxism K).I am, however, a philosophy minor and welcome philosophical arguments.

This is a speaking event, I value clear speech and therefore I'm not a fan of spreading. Speed is fine. You'll know that you're going too fast when I am not flowing during your speech, I will drop my pen.

Don't be that person who tries to guilt trip your opponent or me to win. In round, I don't care about your feelings...like at all. HR impacts are fine but when you say something like "our opponents disagree, therefore they're sexist/racist/genocidal/oppressive" I'm probably just going to roll my eyes. Additionally, don't slander individuals without purpose (ie, "Biden/Trump is the worst president in history" if you're not making a point.)

Anyone should be able to make any argument. So long as it's relevant to the case, I (as a white male) should be able to articulate issues like racial disparities, indigenous sovereignty, sexual assault, feminism, etc so long as it is relevant to the debate. I'm probably not going to sway my vote based on your personal life experiences/anecdotes since I have no proof of them, keep life and the round separated. If you get badly beaten in round, meet your opponents afterward and ask them how you can do better, be cool about it.

I'm probably not going to vote for a disclosure theory, as I said I don't think that anything outside the round should affect the round. I'll still flow it though.

Please keep the flow organized, roadmaps will help you to win. TELL ME WHY I SHOULD VOTE FOR YOU!

Be kind to your opponents. If I think you're being intentionally rude or obnoxious then you'll probably lose speaks and potentially the round.

Radical cases are fine as long as they meet the criteria I listed. For example, if genocide brings the world into utopia, then by all means commit genocide (obviously I don't advocate for this in real life, hopefully this extreme example gets the point across. This is, however, the epitome of utilitarianism and is subject to losing if the other team persuades me to adopt egalitarianism. This is true utilitarianism.

I love this event, and I want y'all to learn how to think well and improve society, or if that's not your thing then have fun! Either way, if you would like to contact me after the tournament to ask questions, receive critiques or advice for your material, you can reach me at kelly.columbia2216@gmail.com. I'm pretty impartial, I'll help whoever asks me. I have a job and a personal life so be patient with me, but I want to see y'all succeed and doing this makes both of us happy so please feel free to reach out!

I will vote on whatever framework you establish, but I default to policymaker. It would be a good idea for you to collapse down to one "position" in the 2NR, whether that be a K, CP + net benefit, T, or an offensive reason to prefer the status quo. I think reading new arguments in the 2NC makes for bad debate and is generally not a good strategy. For the overall debate, I’d like to see less of a focus on reading cards and more comparative analysis after the negative block.

I am capable of flowing speed, but I prefer you to slow down to a slightly faster than conversational pace.

POLICY

I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should vote on it. As long as you are winning that it is an argument that I should be listening to, then I will evaluate it. This also means that the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions.
Topicality - My default position is that there needs to be an abuse story. I am open to arguments otherwise, but be aware if you expect to win on potential abuse you need to spend a lot of time arguing why I should vote on potential abuse.

Disads - Whatever is probably fine. I think your internal link story should make sense.
Counterplans - Whatever is probably fine without any theoretical objections won by the aff.
Theory - Make sure you tell me how my ballot functions. I tend to think I should reject the argument, not the team. If you think I should reject the team you are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that that is the best remedy.
Kritiks - I'm not as well versed in the literature as I would like to be. I do not have a problem with Ks (aff or neg), but don't expect me to know what <insert your author> says about the topic. As such, without reading me the evidence, just telling me what the author says does not resonate with me. I want to know how my ballot functions in the world of the alternative and on what scale (am I taking a stance in the debate community, is it just an affirmation of the discussion we had, etc).

WHEN JUDGING AT UIL TOURNAMENTS...

I think you should adhere to the norms for the organization in which you are competing. I intend to respect UIL rules by reducing your speaker points if you choose to spread. I am able to flow your arguments and will make a decision based on the arguments in the round.

School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School

Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016

Email: jakecosio123@gmail.com

On CX and LD:

Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.

Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.

Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).

Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).

On CX specifically:

To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).

In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.

On LD specifically:

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.

On PF:

Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me.

Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.

Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters

Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.

Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.

Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).

Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.

Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).

A few questions you may want answers to:

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.

Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

Anything else:

Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.

LD - In highschool, I was an LD debater. I will listen to most arguments as long as they make sense. When it comes to Value debate, I believe it is just how you frame the round, and even if you win the value debate, you may not win the round. Ensure you link arguments to the Value/Criterion to ensure you win on those arguments. The value is just how we view the round, not a win condition within the round. Other than linking into V/Crit and Framework, make sure you signpost your arguments and clash with your opponent. I am OK with speed, just make sure you slow down on taglines.

Policy - Although I was not a Policy kid in High School, I have a decent understanding of a policy round. I will vote on most arguments as long as they make sense. I am OK with Kritiks, as long as you explain them well and they are structured properly. If you run topicality, make sure you tell me how the opposing team is in violation. Again, make sure you clash and signpost arguments. I am ok with speed, just make sure you slow down on taglines.

Extemp - I like a well organized speech that has a clear structure. Ensure you provide sources to back up your analysis of the topic. Presentation and Analysis are both really important in this event.

Interp - I want to see a variety of emotions in interp. I also want it to be clear where the climax of the piece is, and ensure it is being built up properly. I also want to see unique and individual characters within the pieces. I also think visualization is important to a piece, I want you to see what is happening in your piece, so it is not just words on a paper. If it is believable that you truly see what is happening, then the judge will follow you.

Congress - I want connection with the chamber in congress. Ensure that you are not just reading off a paper, but actively engaging with the arguments of the round. I think it is best if you refer to previous members' speeches to either further extend your own or to directly clash with something they brought up. I think presentation style is also important in this event.

Congress

I appreciate competitors who are knowledgeable enough to speak extemporaneously while addressing information and speakers who have already participated. Students should participate actively in the chamber's motions and show leadership even when not presiding. I also appreciate students who understand the role of various speeches in the course of the debate. Questions should lead to potential arguments.

LD

I tend to be fairly progressive and will listen to any arguments you run. I am fine with condo and collapsing. Identifying the winning framing is important and should be used to justify winning your offense on the flow. I don't mind LARPING or any other strategy you may make use of, provided you do it well and understand the arguments you are running. I am fine with speed and will want to be on the email chain. I prefer philosophical debates but don't mind whatever you want to throw at me.

Policy - see above

I am a tab judge and am open to hearing your positions. I will not advocate on the flow. I am open to collapse strats and prefer non-generic arguments that have a real link. I wish we would stop arguing end of world impacts but will vote on them

Communication is key to the performance of all events. Analysis, and reasoning are essential to debate. Persuasion is also a key to the Communication. In debate I want to see clashes supported with evidence. In Oral Interp, play with my emotions. In public speaking, educate me and persuade me.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 29 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and/or Senior Instructor for LD, PF, and WSD. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

Typically I am an LD Tech judge, but I am comfortable judging a multitude of events and I'll list paradigms for each of them below. I have competed competitively in LD, CX, Extemp, and Congress, but I also judge PF.

LD- Speed is fine as long as you always share your docs with me and your opponent and slow town on the tags. I am fine with essentially any argument you want to run as long as they aren't offensive to your opponent or any group of people. I also don't like tricks debate and am very unlikely to vote on it. I am cool with flex prep as long as your opponent is as well. As for speaks, I find them to be archaic and a poor way to break ties when breaking, especially when compared to opponent win loss record. I'll typically just give 29s to everyone if I can, unless you are exceptionally well spoken or exceptionally poor, in which case you'll get a 30 or 28 respectively. I'll only give lower than a 28 if you are rude, degrading, or offensive.

K- I am well versed in almost all forms of debate, but I'm an a little less knowledgeable in areas of kritical debate that don't deal with well established philosophers (deleuze, baudrillard, foucault) or preexisting kritics in the debate space or topic lit (cap, fem, bio power, abelism, afro pec). If you choose to read a k that isn't super well known or more in depth, just make sure to really slow down on the tags and give a clear underview at the end, emphasizing the link and alt.

Theory/T- I vote on any shell as long as the warrants make sense and the arguments are laid out clearly, but I would much rather vote on substance instead so I slightly lean against it. I won't ever vote on friv theory that is useless and wastes my and your opponents time. I think the aff always carries the burden of topicality and I'm more comfortable voting on T that theory. I typically like counter interps and reasonability best when arguing against theory, and I will vote off of RVIs as long as there is more of a justification than just "I have to spend time on the shell".

CP- CPs are fine as long as they are well researched and explained. Picps are fine as well, though I think they run the risk of engaging in a Picps bad debate which I am comfortable voting off on if the win the shell.

Framing- I typically don't care if you read a FW or not, but I do like creative and unique framing metrics that shape the round in an interesting way.

I am most likely to vote for the person that best compares and contrasts their argument with the opponent using reasonable metrics of comparison, like probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc. Please please weigh your arguments, so I don't end up debating the round in my head for you guys.

CX- I am open to pretty much any argument you want to read, just like in LD. Most of my paradigms stack up the same way here, but I'll go more in depth on each here. Please do not read new arguments in the second half of the neg block, I will not flow any of them. Additionally, I don't love hearing completely new, complex arguments in the 2AC (i.e. a performance k in the 2AC) and won't flow them. If you're reading an extension of an argument in the 1AC or a more basic disad, case turn(s), or theory shell I will flow them.

K- Same goes as above. I am more likely to vote off of a performance k in CX than Ld since there is a lot more time for either the off or neg to flesh out the k.

Theory/T- Same as in LD, though I can guarantee I will never vote off of substantial T unless it goes 100% conceded. It is a lazy argument that almost never wins rounds. I am far less likely to vote off of RVIs in CX since there is so much time that can be dedicated to the theory debate. Unfortunately, all that time also means I usually end up evaluating theory as a wash unless there is a clear winner, which there usually isn't.

CP- Same as above

Stock Issues- While I am a progressive, modern CX judge, if both teams want to debate stock issues I am comfortable evaluating that as well. I usually end up voting on inherency or topicality out of the bunch.

PF- I am a firmly traditional PF judge. I never debated PF competitively but I am familiar with the event and can judge it aptly. I think if you want to read progressive arguments in a 45 minute debate, do LD. If you want to read progressive arguments with a partner, do CX. I do not like spreading, Ks, or theory in PF. CPs and T are fine as long as they are well constructed and thought out. I typically will vote on impact debate and weighing the most, which I find extremely important in a more traditional debate setting. Speaks are the same as in LD.

Congress- While congress was not my main event I did fairly well on the state and local circuit, but I'll typically evaluate the event like any other judge. That being said, I don't like a heavy emphasis on LARPing and I prefer more of a conversational style and deep analysis. However, I will rank someone with more charisma and presence over someone with deep analysis. I don't enjoy vocal cadences and they bother me when they get too repetitive. I also dislike planned out rhetoric or AGDs that get recycled throughout rounds. Besides that, I will rank people with 2 good speeches above those with 3 poor ones, but 3 mediocre speeches will outrank someone with 2 good speeches. 2 amazing speeches will trump pretty much anything else in my book, though. I rank normal POs 4th, and for each mistake the get knocked down a spot. If they do something amazing, they will advance a rank.

Extemp- Speaking quality is the same as congress, I prefer those with more charisma and presence over those with in depth analysis. I really enjoy a conversational style and good jokes, especially meta ones about the round or extemp. Just be natural, stay conversational, and speak at least 6:30 and you'll get a good rank from me.

I am a UIL Judge. I want to hear STOCK issues, parts of the DA. Fine with CPs, and if you run a K, know what you are doing.  

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

she/they UT 24 sophiaef2001@gmail.com 4 yrs policy, 2 yrs pfd, 1 yr bqd (lol) @ SMNW in KS

email me anytime w/anything

I have some general opinions about debate, but they definitely shouldn’t be taken as absolute truths and in most cases my opinions are flexible. None of my opinions should prevent you from debating the way you want to, and my goal is for you to prove how the round should be decided. Caveat: if you’re racist, homophobic, sexist, etc., you'll be penalized. Additionally, if you are particularly bigoted and/or problematic after given space to learn and improve, I'm likely to contact a coach.

Since I've stopped debating, I've forgotten some buzzwords and technical approaches/meanings. If you use them properly/in the right context, I'll probably understand, but err on the side of caution. I also haven’t listened to/participated in fast debate since hs, so I may ask you to slow down, but you should start at whatever pace is comfortable for you and we’ll go from there.

Please feel welcome to ask questions before and after the round – I love giving feedback

tldr: Don’t create a hostile space, I'm good with nearly all args, and while I debated policy 4yrs in hs I've only judged slow/medium debates and I haven't seen too many different arguments on this resolution.

About the round

– Email chain please (please don’t send cards in the body of an email)

– You can be assertive and quippy w/o being mean. I’ll dock speaks for being mean. If you're constantly steamrolling, you're likely to be 4th speaker.

– Please try not to be too loud while someone else is speaking. It's really hard for me to understand when multiple people are speaking at once, and it can be distracting if you’re rummaging around.

– Please don’t call me judge, that's really weird to me (like extremely, I can't emphasize this enough).

– Signposting, popping tags, roadmaps are nice and appreciated

– The rest is specific stuff that isn't necessary to know, but may save you from asking questions and informs my evaluation of the round (absent in-round arguments on them)

Case

– Fiat is durable

CP

– Should compete functionally and textually. I'm not super likely to find non-competitive cps persuasive.

– Should have a solvency advocate.

– Solvency can be a net benefit, but the burden here is really high, and I probably wouldn’t hinge winning the round on it (especially if the perm accesses solvency).

– If you run a lot of lazy CPs just to bog down the 2AC (and it's clear you were never going for them), I'm going to give leeway to condo bad

T

– Never a reverse voting issue – if you make that arg, I'm not going to listen to it because it is objectively silly

– Jurisdiction as a voter is just not real (source: I made this argument to parent judges and got away with it way too many times)

– Counter interps are generally important to have, especially if you objectively don’t meet the interp.

– If the 2NR has T it should probably be the only thing in the 2NR

– I probably won't weigh impacts of the aff against T

– If reading multiple T violations, please don't just cross apply standards and voters from one flow onto another. They should probably be intrinsic to the the violation and the interp you’ve read.

K

– I'm not super familiar with K literature. I've encountered many Ks and have a general understanding of their premise (setcol, cap, fem ir) (and have handled their literature in courses outside of debate), but I didn't read them while debating in hs and K work will have to be especially clear and structured.

Misc takes

– Evidence is important, but just having it is not sufficient to win: a claim with good analysis is going to win over evidence with no explanation (tag extensions aren’t sufficient, warrants and arguments are needed). Including both evidence and analysis is preferable.

– I lean probability over magnitude (i.e., economic instability over nuke war), but don’t be scared of running big impacts – good analysis and break down of the internal link/link story is very important for high magnitude impacts.

– Theory is cool, but I'm not likely to vote on a spec arg unless there is objective justification (funding and enforcement spec are probably a no go). Normal means is typically sufficient (as a result CPs that are basically just the aff + meeting the spec arg are not super persuasive).

– I think dispo is weird and you should probably just commit to being conditional or unconditional.

– I'm not really a fan of judge kick; I don’t want to have to make those decisions (i.e., i'm not going to kick the second advantage for you)

– Clear line-by-line is my favorite. Overviews are good for analysis, but I can have a hard time flowing them if they’re especially long (so please don’t hinge the success of a flow on your overview).

– Please don’t use those weird stock issues metaphors. They’re not for me because I'm not a stock issues judge, so they’re really only a waste of your time (stock issues are weird to me).

– Reading blocks at lightening speed is not a good strat for me. I can’t write as fast as you’re firing off important things and I'm going to miss some (or a lot of) stuff

– tech ≈ truth: I don't have to believe an argument is true in order to vote on it, but it can't be obviously false

– Please don't sweat eye contact or being charismatic; I don't really care

Reka (Ree-kah) Fink (she/her)

Put me on the email chain: reka.fink@gmail.com

Past: Policy debater at the University of North Texas and Edina High School, assistant debate coach at the Blake School.

Generally: To win a flow, tell me why your impacts should come first - this applies to critical and policy strats, as well as procedurals. I enjoy watching a good discussion of the topic (topicality was one of my favorite arguments as a debater). I think debate is a game, and any theoretical questions should center on who makes the game better, more accessible, more fair, etc. I have a high threshold on theory.

Critical Arguments: Not my area of expertise, but I have general knowledge about most critical positions. I don’t believe teams should always have to defend a policy option.

I am a stock issues judge. Communicate in a way that everyone can understand you and don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponents.

About me: My name is Alejandra C. Garza, pronouns she/her. I have a PhD in history from the University of Texas-Austin. I have been judging and consulting speech events for over 10 years.

I believe debate is about communication first and foremost. If your opponent cannot understand your speech/debate, neither can I. Therefore, no one can adequately flow the round. Rapid fire delivery is not appreciated and often times conflicts with clear communication.

CX

Overall, I am a policy maker judge.

Counterplans can be effective if executed correctly.

I don’t particularly like T or K arguments, however if you lay out the voters, I may be more keen to vote that way. Still, a debate spent arguing nothing but a T-violation is a waste of a debate.

Quality and quantity of evidence are of equal importance.

As a judge, I look for clash from both sides. Can you adequately argue against your opponent while upholding your plan? The Aff’s job is to show that their plan goes against the status quo and is a better option. The Neg argues for the status quo or CP and shows that it should be upheld.

Present voters and tell me why your side should win the debate.

I do not flow CX time, those 3 mins are for you to clarify, not argue. If you want me to flow something from that time, bring it up in constructives.

I default to policymaker when judging a round so I vote more based on disadvantages and counter-plans. I rarely vote on topically so you’d have to make a good case for it. I’d try to stay away from kritiks. Beyond that if the argument sticks I’ll go for it.

Speed is not important to me. If you can speak fast, and still be understood, that is fine, if I cannot understand you, then slow down and take you time. The quality of your arguments is far more important to me than the speed at which you present it. You entire speech does not need to be you shoving evidence down my throat, I want to see you make connections between evidence, not everything has to come from a card. That being said, do not BS your arguments because you are unprepared. When presented with unchallenged framework, I will consider it when making my decisions. If framework is challenged, I will vote on it first and foremost. If neither is presented, I will revert to a policy-making stance. After all, this is policy debate. I believe debate is first and foremost educational, educate me, educate your opponent, educate yourselves.

I'm a policy judge. I want clash supported by evidence and expert opinions. Please remember this is a speaking event and you should be clear when you speak. If I can't understand you, you will lose points. I want you to think about what is being said and refute it with ideas and evidence.

I weigh the value of communication highly in the round. Clear speaking with an organized presentation of value/criterion and organization of attacks. Do not be rude to your opponent, but believe in what you are trying to argue. Speed without clear communication will not earn points with me.

I consider myself a tabula rasa because I am open to hearing most arguments and try to stay open-minded. I usually vote and weigh heavily based on traditional stock issues but I expect both sides to be very convincing persuasive speakers. Be polite and professional to each other, especially during cx. I will time flashing evidence. If you use a computer, please do not let it be distracting to your speaking.

I do not like speed. I feel gasping and spreading to the point of lacking proper communication leads to significant holes in my flow and lack of clash and resolution of important issues. I also time roadmaps as I feel debaters are abusing this and providing speeches instead of true roadmaps. I am also the official timekeeper. If you prefer to use a timer as well, please do not say "starting time now" as I am the one that officially starts it.

Hi i'm Austin, I use to be a competitor in UIL. I did poetry, extemp, theater, and CX debate.

When im judging im looking for good clear speaking voice if I can't understand you I cant judge you.

The biggest thing to me in a debate is good clash, treat me as if I know nothing about what you are talking about, if you don't tell me I can't flow it. you can run just about anything with me as long as it makes sense within the debate. but try to hit the big 4 of a debate case solvency, harms, inherncy and topicality.

CX- I will listen to almost everything you give to me. Prefer to vote as a policy maker. I would prefer every other argument except Ks but if that is all you have to run, I will vote on it. Please don't spread. If I can't understand you, I will not vote on the argument. If you need to speed through the information emphasize the taglines and analytical arguments. SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST.

LD- I will vote on just about anything. I prefer traditional debate but will go for anything, ultimately it is your debate, I'm just judging it. It would help me out tremendously if you are running something that is super progressive then please try to spoonfeed me. I am not as well versed on these arguments. I don't mind some speed but slow down on taglines and analytical arguments. If I don't understand you, I will not flow you.

PF- I want good line-by-line argumentation and heavy signposting. The more you keep in order on the flow, the better your chances of winning the debate. Good impact calculus will go a long way.

Congress- I like good refutation. I do not like repeated arguments and will vote you down if you are not adding to the debate. If the PO keeps an orderly chamber and commits few errors (I get the error every now and then especially with questioning) they will rank high on my ballot. I am also not opposed to ranking the PO first if they are #1 in the round. Questioning should not be a shouting match. If you are rude to other debaters during questioning I will not rank you. I understand some competitiveness but not allowing someone to answer the question and constantly interrupting will not be tolerated on my ballot.

Extemp- Humor goes a long way with me. Keep it old-fashioned and stick to the book. Be sure to emphasize your sources because I do keep count. My count won't affect my ballot much but if I'm stuck between two speakers, this will help me decide a little easier.

HI- Comedic timing is everything. If you're going to land a joke, it must be timed perfectly.

DI- I hate screaming. I deduct the most points from people who scream. I like a good build-up and tear-down during most DI pieces. It shouldn't just be sad, sad, sad, sad, sad. I should go through a whirlwind of emotions. I don't mind the heavier pieces.

Duet/Duo- Relationships, relationships, relationships. You and your partner need to be in lockstep and be timed together.

All other interp events- It is an acting exercise, not a reading exercise.

My email for the email chain is justin.holland2019@gmail.com

I am a tabula rasa judge who will allow the debaters to determine how I should evaluate the round. It is important for the debaters to explain to me how I should evaluate the round. I do my best to keep an accurate flow, and I make my decision for each round by how the debaters evaluate the round based on the flow. Debate the way you debate and most important, have fun!

Hi my names Mish I debated at Brandeis for 4 years and now am a senior in college!

Please put me on the email chain:mishkaathj@gmail.com

General:

- Time your own speeches

- Don't be rude, especially during CX my pet peeve is when the team asking the questions doesn't let their opponents answer

- Spreading is fine as long as I can understand it and I have what is being read so I can follow along

- Pretend I am a child that you are walking through the debate, at the start of the debate I know nothing which means I want everything explained well I prefer quality over quantity, nobody likes listening to 7 different arguments in the 1NC

- So do not put multiple off in the 1NC

- Tech over truth

- Make sure to explain why you're winning each argument you are going for in the 2NR/2AR, I heavily go off of these speeches for my decision

T args

- Do not have an opinion, I did it a lot in high school but if done wrong it can just be a waste of time

CP's

-Nothing much here I like them again explained well

- Case turns I like those

DA's

- I love DA's I prefer facts which is why all the technical args speak to me more than k's if I'm being honest

- Case turns on DA's I love as well, keeps the debate spicy

- The link on the DA needs to be strong, if theres not a strong link theres no point in reading the arg

K's

- I like K's I was a K team

- K's are a lot of work, I will not assume anything for you make sure every part of the K is covered and explained well

- EXPLAIN THE ALT!!!!

- I need a strong link, again if the link isn't strong enough there is no reason to read the argument

AFF

- For aff anything if fine I don't prefer any specific thing on affs

- I will say for K affs just try to be a little more clear because I need everything laid out for me

Current: Speech and Debate Coach at Lometa ISD

Overall, I like significant clash, evidence-based arguments, and clear communication. Be clear and concise in speeches, while also being respectful to your competitors. I have no issue with speed, but please slow down on taglines and case components.

CX:

I default policymaker. If there are issues with the AFF, capitalize on them. You are welcome to run any argument, as long as you adequately explain. If you're going to run T, commit to it. I am open to CPs and DAs, as long as they have all components and in-depth analysis. I am not as familiar with Ks, so adequate explanation is needed when running those. Please signpost as you go.

LD:

I like V/C clash, and clear arguments made on cases in the constructive speeches. Signpost as you go, and give clear voters. Drops should be impacted out as to why they are relevant to the debate, and why I should vote for them. I will vote how you tell me to vote, so make it clear.

Hi! My experience is with CX, but I have judged LD quite a bit over the past few years.

As far as cx goes, I am comfortable with any style of argumentation. I'd say I am a tab judge as much as you will let me be. I appreciate it when teams are doing the work for me. For instance, spending ample time on the framework debate and focusing on comparative analysis. If you don't do the work of essentially writing the ballot for me then I default to an offensive/defensive paradigm, so don't waste time on frivolous matters.

Note on speed: I will absolutely try to listen to whatever speed you are comfortable with, but I cannot promise I will catch everything. I am not the best at speed comprehension, so if you want to guarantee that I catch things then just slow down for it.

Please be kind and respectful.

I am open to any specific questions you have before the round starts of course!

I am a tab judge. I let the debaters frame the round. I will default stocks if the debaters do not frame the round another way.

I do not like Ks, but I will flow them. They must be run to perfection for me to vote on them.

I have no problem with new in the 2.

I can flow pretty fast, but if you are talking so fast you can't breathe then I can't flow it.

basically, stock issues. I reserve the right to play critic of argument.

counterplans ok.

kritiks are considered. But they should pertain to the debate/resolution

Policy first.

Context and Correlation vital in constructive speeches.

Clash needed for impact to happen.

I consider Topicality off case, along with Kritiks and CP. Looking for link, uniqueness and impact/significance.

I will occasionally vote on stock issues but need something more than generic auto-run Shell arguments that your entire team runs regularly. Creativity and depth will be needed to win on a stock issue as a stand alone. Rare.

DEb8 don’t H8.

Quick run down: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and have fun. No one wants to spend their Saturday feeling bad about themselves.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed just please slow down on tags, authors, and analytics.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. A long overview explaining the K would be helpful, but if you feel that you can do a good explanation in the line by line with a shorter overview, then im good with that too.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

My email is ferry4554@gmail.com for the email chain.

I would say that I'm more of a stock issues judge, but I am willing to listen to any argument as long as it is logical. For aff, I like to see the stock issues in a case and be able to see how it would succeed in a real-world scenario. I am totally fine with hearing disadvantages and on-case attacks for the neg. I am okay with a counterplan as long as it is run well. Kritiks are a no-go for me, if you typically run them save them for a different round. I feel as though Ks serve as a distraction and weaken the round overall. I love to hear the impact calc for both the aff & neg. To me, impact calc helps to tie together and summarize in short why you should win the round.

As far as speaking style or speed is concerned I'm totally fine with reading evidence cards quickly, however, I do find more conversational debate to be more efficient. I do not want to listen to spreading for an entire 8 or 5 minutes so if you do spread, your speaker points will not be as high. As a judge, I would rather hear the explanation behind the argument rather than just read the evidence for an entire speech.

Hello everyone! My name is KJ (he/him), I competed all 4 years of high school and now go to Texas State University.

I am primarily an IE person. I competed in every IE event including OO, Info, and Extemp. I as well competed in World Schools a bit too. I was a 4x state qualifier, state finalist, 5x state semi finalist, 2x NIETOC semifinalist, and a 3x NSDA qualifier. I was as well an All-State and All-American competitor with over 2200 NSDA points. What I am looking for is understanding of the piece. How well thought out it is and how much effort you have noticeably put into it goes a LONG way.

IE's

- Needs to be clean, concise, and have a deeper meaning as to why you're telling the story, interp is acting with a purpose

- Be proud of what you're performing! and have fun with it!

- Characterization is key, I want to see real peoples stories that I am actually able to connect to

- I want to know what's going on! Don't just throw us into the middle of everything, give us some exposition, who are you? Where are you? What is going on?

OO, Info, Extemp, WS

- Are you just telling me the facts? Or are you engaging with the information and the topic you've chosen and presenting it in an effective way?

- Charisma is KEY, you wrote this speech, be proud of it!

- How well thought out is your argument or topic?

- Are you speaking fluidly and confidently or are you using filler words and swaying nervously?

- Make sure that you're applying the facts that you give to the grand scheme of things, what are the implications?

Like I said earlier, I was always more of an interp person. However, I do know all of the rules and the ins and outs of debate! I may not be as adept as I am with speech but I know my way around. Essentially just treat me as a lay judge who knows a lot about the subject.

Debate

• Well thought out arguments will go a long way, the more you put into a speech the more you will get out of it, and trust me when I say that we as judges notice how much effort you put into it
• How well do you structure your speech? How well does it flow?
• How do you respond to questions and how do you interact in the round?
• Don't just tell me what you are going to do but also HOW you are going to accomplish it and WHY
• Add me to the email chain plz - kjamarino@gmail.com
• As far as flowing goes, I'm not a stickler for it during cross so don't worry about it
• I can follow spreading but if you'd like to have mercy on my soul and not that would be awesome
• I'm not a huge theory argument person, so if I feel you're twisting the resolution in a way that it most likely wasn't intended as may not work if its too far out there

All of these are just my personal opinions regarding judging, please do not change your speech or performance based on trying to get my 1. So long as you have fun, enjoy what you're doing, and you are proud of the work you've presented, that is all I ask.

Email: kjamarino@gmail.com

CX: Honestly, get out there and do what you do best... Debate! All I ask is that you provide me with decent clash and voters at the end of the round. I'll listen to pretty much anything, but be warned that CPs must be run correctly and adequately apply for them to be a significant voter for me. Also, just know that I can count the number of times I've voted for a K on one hand, as most of the time they are run incorrectly, provide zero education in the round, and/or are just vague and silly timesuck arguments. I'm not saying I won't vote on a K, just be cautious in doing so. I'm fine with DAs, Ts, Theory, and all other on-case, as long as it's relevant and applies. Additionally, don't be afraid to run new on-case arguments in the 2NC; after all, it is a constructive speech. Finally, please don't waste our time playing games with technology or running arguments you plan to kick later. Time is a very valuable resource, so if you don't plan on seeing an argument through to the end of the round, please just don't run it to begin with. Other than that, be decorous, communicative, and most of all have fun!

I don't mind speed. As long as you don't sound like an auctioneer or like you're about to pass out, we should be good. I will not tell you if you're going too fast or can't be understood. You should know if you're adequately communicating with the room or not. The biggest thing to remember is that this is a communication event and you should not expect me to figure out what you're talking about on my own. Explain, communicate, and remember that I don't have the cards in front of me to refer back to (nor do I want a copy to refer back to). Remember, if everyone in the room does not understand what is happening, then it isn’t debate.

LD: Probably the most important part of LD is the value/criterion debate. If you can show that your value/criterion frames the resolution better than your opponents, then that's a pretty easy win in my book. Otherwise, the main thing I look for is legitimate clash between opponents. I don't mind some progressive argumentation, but remember that at the end of the day value debate isn't about providing a plan to solve a problem. If you want to do that, you might consider switching to CX.

I tend to lean towards traditional arguments and stock issues. Maintaining an accurate flow, and following it, is very important to me. I don't enjoy frivolous arguments and time sucks. Stick to the basics. I like clear extensions, tell me why the argument or point you are presenting is important to the round, is it a voting issue or key link to the impact.

I believe debate is a public speaking event so I deduct heavily for speed that hinders your ability to be understood or impacts your ability to speak clearly.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 23 years and I am an NSDA Three-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

I have taught speech and at the secondary level for 14 years, coaching interp, extemp, and other speaking events. I have taught and coached debate at the high school level for 7 years, having 6 teams qualify for 3A State CX contest within that time.

I am looking for a poised speaker with clear and organized ideas, sharp analytical skills, and powerful persuasion. As long as I can understand you, speed is not a problem for me.

I consider myself a hybrid policy-maker/stock issues judge. I vote on stock issue arguments and impact arguments with equal weight.

I enjoy a well-crafted Counterplan. In the "quality" vs. "quantity" of evidence question, both are regarded as equal importance within the context of the round.

I very rarely appreciate Kritik arguments. It has to be virtually impenatrable for me to vote for it. I do flow rounds, so please provide roadmaps and signposts, then stick to them.

Relax! I am a teacher, first and foremost. I want each round to be a positive learning experience for all involved, regardless of the outcome.

General

Add me to the email chain -- colbymenefee@utexas.edu

I'm a tab judge but default to an offense-defense heuristic.

The best thing you can do to win my ballot is provide very explicit judge instruction. Tell me explicitly what to evaluate and how to evaluate it. My goal is for you to be able to debate in the way that you debate best.

K

I'm more comfortable evaluating policy v. policy and policy v. k rounds than k v. k rounds, but again, I want you to debate however you debate best. Assume that I am probably not familiar with your specific K literature; provide a clear explanation of the thesis of the criticism.

I expect a coherent explanation of how your alt resolves the link. Again, this explanation should not be contingent on me having background knowledge on the specific literature you're reading.

Topicality/theory

I default to competing interps but will evaluate the reasonability argument as it's given.

I have a very high threshold for RVIs -- unless the neg is reading a truly absurd number of frivolous t/theory shells, this is just an argument that I am not likely to find persuasive.

If you have a question you don't see the answer to, ask me.

I am primarily a policy coach/judge, but do have experience with LD and PF. I have been judging for more than 15 years and have judged on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits.

In CX, I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater that convinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strong evidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for cases that not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the round with no preconceived notions. I want to see strong framework and strong impact calcs.

Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeating that statement. It bears repeating.

Speed is ok, but at the end of the day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then your speaking habits are not showcasing what you should be doing. I would rather hear fewer quality arguments than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see clearly how it all works together.

While I do not judge as much LD as I do CX, my paradigm remains much the same. I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, and delineation between arguments. I want to see evidence early in the round but more analysis as the round progresses. Make sure that your Value and Criterion are strong and show me why I should vote on those - and back that up with what you are presenting with your evidence and analysis.

In Congress, it is important that you are active in the session. I know it becomes a game to see who can get the most speeches in, but unless they are quality speeches, it's going to backfire. Speeches should be quality speeches. And on that note, while I know it is super easy to read straight from notes while competing virtually, I don't like it and will not score a speech high if you are reading straight from your paper. Evidence is important and I want to hear sources. You should have at least one, and preferably two, sources per point. Once the initial speeches are made, it is vital that new arguments to keep things fresh and to promote clash are essential. The PO should have control of the chamber and be confident in his or her style and movements. A good PO will keep things flowing without stifling competitors and will manage to get an optimal number of speakers in. '

In IEs, I look for poise and confidence, good speaking style, strong movements and posture. In INF and OO, as well as extemp, quality evidence is essential but should flow seamlessly with the information. In all events, including interp, I would like to see you far enough away from the camera that movement is natural and not distracting. In OO and INF, as well as in interp, I would like to see a connection to society and/or to your own experiences. For me, the best pieces do both.

In interp, intros should be casual and conversational. Tell me why your topic is important, even in HI. What is the connection to society? To yourself? Blocking, movement, and bookwork (POI) should be natural and not distracting. Characters should be distinct and recognizable, vocally and physically. I don't mind the use of curse words, but do want to see pieces that are true to the author's intent.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

Updating in progress, January 2025.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put all three emails on the email chain.

codydb8@gmail.com (different email than years past)

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.com

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourselves. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Ending cx early and turning that time into prep time is not a thing in front of me. You have either 8 or 10 minutes of prep time, use it judiciously. Please, do not prep when time is not running. I do not consider e-mailing documents/chains as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy all kinds of debates. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

If the first thing you do on counterplans is read 3 or 4 permutations and a theory argument at top speed then you know I won't be able to flow all of the distinctions. Why not separate every other analytical argument with an evidenced argument or what if you slowed down just a tad.... I am a great flow, it is just analytical arguments aren't supposed to be read at top speed stacked on top of each other. Same on K's F/w then numerous Perm's all at top speed stacked on top of each other is silly and not realistic for judges to get all of the distinctions/standards.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD January 21, 2025

No tricks, A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will say clearer once or twice and then it is up to you if you are going to choose to read clearly. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or I could look annoyed both of which are clues. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments with compelling warrants will surely affect the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant and why. Dropped arguments are true arguments. Please, be nice to each other. GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

Policy:

In short form, I’m tab. Problematic speech tanks speaks. I’m fleshing this out a bit later, so forgive me.

Ive debated in high school for 4 years, mostly policy, been around the block a time or two in Texas. Familar with most circuit styles. I love hearing a good debate. It’s a strategy game, and should be played as such. Have fun!

T: T is a priori as a voting issue in round unless framed otherwise by the affirmative, so i'd suggest that. I want to hear substantial weighing on standards and voters on neg, explain how this negatively effects the round in question or the debate community as a whole. Concession of any part of the T debate is almost always a loss. Some TVAs and RVIs never hurt anybody. I would suggest some consolidating of the 2NR, but that's up to you, not me.

DA: Disads are cool, Strong link chains are very necessary. Neg and Aff please do some impact calc. Do some framework when running against soft left/k affs please. Other than that, there's not much to say about disads.

CP: CP's are best used to compound existing arguments such as turns and external net benefits. Internal net benefits are cool too. Be ready for some theory if you're running a PIC.

Theory: Please do some work on theory please. Reasons for even valuing the theory is often neglected by both sides. Use it if you want to, don't if you don't.

Framework: This is a make it or break it. I LOVE a good, in-depth framework debate. I want to hear a clear lens to view the aff or neg, not just surface level card reading without textual analysis. The framing flow shouldn't be neglected in favor of anything, I treat it as a pre-fiat argument.

K: K debates are my personal fav. This is not a go ahead to just run the cap k without being familiar with critical theory. Strong link chains, analysis, and framing are necessary. Alt debate is key.

On Case: No question, you need it. Even just some generic solvency is better than nothing.

K Affs: Go for it!

Please include in the email chain: daltonmusel71@gmail.com

Don't see something? Ask me before the round!

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

My high school debate experience is mostly UIL LD, UIL Policy, and NSDA (then NFL) PFD. Our team wasn't a powerhouse debate team by any means, but I feel we did as well as we did due to a focus on speaking style and presentation, clarity of a few select basic arguments key to each debate style, and the understanding that every round was an opportunity to learn and grow (no matter what the decision was). I competed in NPDA in college and have spent the last ten years as a bilingual elementary ELAR/social studies teacher.

Currently, I tend to be a more traditional, “old-school” judge in all areas of debate. I never grew up with all of the excessive jargon and terminology so I would really appreciate it if you focused more on the substance of each argument and the bigger picture rather than expect to win on overly complex technicalities or applications of debate theory.

POLICY: I am not the biggest fan of speed for the sake of being fast. If you absolutely must spread, I must be given perfectly clear and enunciated (normal rate) taglines if you want me to flow your arguments. I am more of a policymaker/stock issues judge. I will listen to topicality, disadvantages, and counterplans on negative. I am not really the biggest fan of kritiks, unless you are confident that you can thoroughly explain them to a lay person. If you have any specific questions let me know.

LD: I am not really “progressive” when it comes to LD (prefer to hear value, criteria, contentions debate). I have voted on policy arguments such as plans, disadvantages, and counterplans (both debaters have to be on the same page) in the past though. I am not a fan of overly critical and debate-theory arguments in LD. If you have any specific questions, let me know.

PFD: I still believe that PFD should be judged as a debate “of the people” and like to see rounds focused on simple arguments based on simple interpretation of the resolution. I don’t like any LD or policy elements in CX and prefer debate jargon not really make an appearance (as people from the general public wouldn’t know these terms). Speaking skills and presentation play a big role in PFD for me. Rebuttal speeches are absolutely key for me in PFD and I am a huge fan of BOLD second speakers who go for only one or two thoroughly articulated voters in the final focus.

All of this being said, I obviously encourage all debaters to do whatever feels most comfortable for them and what they have been taught. I just ask that you be aware of my preferences and take the time to craft rebuttals and voters that clearly articulate why you deserve the round and clarify a purpose of the strategy you have chosen to use throughout.

Philosophy Statement

I am a traditional policymaker that is interested in the merits of the case.

I am more interested in comparative analysis than quantity of evidence. I do not mind hearing that certain aspects of an opponent's case have value (all of them do, even if just a sliver). It is ok for a debater to recognize the value of an opponent's case, but then I want to hear why even despite that value, it will be better to adopt your position over your opponents'. This is usually best done by analysis *supported by evidence.*

I think the Affirmative's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected.

Keep in mind I am interested in sources. Evidence supported by a source that lacks credibility is not persuasive evidence. For example, when presenting evidence to a jury, if the witness is not credible, a jury ignores what the witness says. Similarly, if a debate judge should disregard your opponent's evidence because of the source, explain why.

I am also interested in effective C-X. I will give weight to this interaction. C-X is a highly effective way of framing your opponent’s arguments. Remember you do not have to rebut his/her argument in C-X; instead, you should set up that argument in C-X so that you can destroy it in your next speech. Keep in mind that asking one question too many, especially on the ultimate issue—“So you’re case won’t work?”—is a mistake.

At the end, I will give the round to the side that has done a better job persuading me of his/her position based on many of the criteria above (although please do not let what is written above ever stifle your awesome creativity).

Style and delivery preferences

I believe debate is about honing persuasive skills that you will use in the future to advocate for your position in whatever field that may be. I want to see persuasive skills more than debate tricks. No bill has ever been passed in Congress based on the speed of presentation. The best persuasion combines emotion, analysis, and evidence. An advocate must determine what moves his audience and focus on reaching that audience, not on what makes the advocate most comfortable. Look for cues; if I look confused, maybe you need to explain your point in a different way.

Mercedes ISD (2013-2019) 2A/2N

UT Austin (2019-2023) 1A/2N

__________________________

Short Version: Tab

I'll vote on anything as long as its impacted and developed well. I think debate should be about the engagement between teams' arguments and what they ultimately mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other.

Don't be racist, sexist, ableist etc...

DO NOT READ DEATH GOOD

Any mention of Sexual Assault, Self Harm or extreme/graphic descriptions of violence with any language requires a TW - I'll dock your speaks if you don't

email chain: benjaminnoriega9@gmail.com

__________________________

"Long" Version:

People that influence the way I think about debates: Sammy Healey, Zach Watts, Pia Sen, Will Coltzer, Brendon Bankey, Azja Butler, Will Baker, Texas DK, Jose Alaniz, PJ Martinez

My own thoughts:

I think debate can be a lot of things, but at its core it’s a space for teams to have interesting and impactful discussions about differing perspectives. That being said, I believe that it’s important for teams to demonstrate their ability to explain a clear narrative and deploy that narrative to generate offensive arguments against their opponent’s position.

I think there are a few things that teams can do to grab my ballot:

1.) JUDGE INSTRUCTION: I think it’s to your benefit to explain to me what I'm supposed to do with the things you have said. There are questions that I need answers to (What does the aff do? What does alt/cp do/why is preferable? What is the role of ballot and how should I use my ballot? Etc.) I also think attaching offense to your judge instruction can be useful in swaying me a particular way, especially for K teams. Clearly define what action I should take given the comparison of impacts and offense in the round.

2.) FRAMING: I was a big FW debater and think that winning the FW debate coupled with clearly articulated judge instruction is a slam dunk for me most of the time. Framework determines how I evaluate other portions of the debate, so even if I think your winning some compelling arguments, you need that FW push to justify prioritizing those arguments. A 2AR/2NR centered around what voting for your framework and evaluating the debate through that lens means in the broader sense paired with an offensive comparison of the arguments on the line by line proper will help me gravitate towards voting you up.

3.) OFFENSE: Forwarding a few key pieces of offense with a clear explanation of what they mean in terms of you're opponent’s arguments is necessary for me in terms of impact calculus. It’s also important for you to recognize and problematize your opponent’s arguments and not let this portion of the debate become two ships passing in the night.

4.) This is me (ask anyone) but BE PETTY: I am here for the spice, and you will be met with bonus speaks. You’re there to win, and you should let it be known. This is also super helpful because moments like these can open opportunities to exploit your opponent’s reactions and the way they articulate responses to these moments. Read my Wiki, you’ll see how out of pocket I was, there really is no limit to the things I will vote on.

Random things about me that may or may not be useful to you and your ability to adapt to me:

1. I was mainly a K debater, read policy in High school, went for Cap for like 9 years and was a Policy 1A for a little under 2 years in college…don’t really keep up with ‘TIX updates, read a lot more K lit.

2. Mainly went for Cap, Racial Cap, Disability, Frame Subtraction, Petty RVI’/IVI’s, and PIKs.

3. I flow on paper…’cause that matters to some people.

4. Truth over Tech

5. Once again, check my wiki – your judge’s wiki tells you a lot.

Random thoughts about certain positions:

Framework/T USFG – Been in this debate many times, and I think for me, it centers around a question of offense against your opponent’s model of debate. If at the end of the day your model of debate may have some imperfections, if you are able to problematize your opponent’s ability to resolve the offensive questions you have posed, and set up some defensive explanations about how maybe your model of debate could resolve to some extent the questions that may linger, even if only partially, I should default to your model of debate because of the risk you demonstrated is associated by voting the other way. I think big picture explanations are much more conducive to the way I think about these debates, however judge instruction and framing mean I’m pretty open.

K – Most familiar and preferred argument – lots of K tricks that can generate offense. Main questions I need answered are 1. What is the link? 2. How does the alt/permutation function? 3. How should I evaluate your arguments and what does it mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other? You should articulate a clear link and impact story that allows you to generate a beneficial narrative to push in the final rebuttal. K debates can also be benefited by being observant and reading the room, generating performative links, taking note of people’s reactions to things that are said, or using what people say to demonstrate your link arguments allow you to take the debate to a different level or mitigate your opponent’s offense by demonstrating performative inconsistencies.

DA – Not too many thoughts – DA turns the case when your Neg, Case o/w when your aff. The Link/Uniqueness portion becomes super important and should be coupled with in depth impact calculus. For a CP/DA combo, demonstrating the magnitude of the DA allows you to sell the “any risk of the net benefit” line better.

CP – The permutation is my main area of focus when it comes to these kinds of debate, no functional or textual competition probably persuades me to vote aff…that being said “perm do the cp” is cheating and lame. Net benefit work also needs to be done to the extent that I am willing to dismiss any risk of the aff, otherwise the permutation probably resolves any residual offense.I do need a little more help and explanation in intricate Process CP debates

T – Not my favorite debates, I think they become fairly generic by the final rebuttals. That being said, I have a couple thoughts:

1. Predictability is the internal link to all your terminal impacts, not a terminal impact in and of itself.

2. I am less persuaded by the Limits and Ground DAs as terminal impacts – I think limits controls portions of the internal link to ground and ultimately is a subjective notion…like is there really NO ground or just not the ground you want (Aff’s you can back file check and replace two or three cards).

3. I can be persuaded that risk of the case should come before T.

Random things that people may or may not like:

1. I’m totally cool with using CX as prep, it’s your time.

2. I think Condo is probably a good thing but that’s not a set-in stone notion.

3. CX is binding – these are things you have said to explain and defend your position, they can and should be used against you if you open the door.

I have some other random thoughts so feel free to ask questions.

As a judge I approach competition as clash in communication. Debate is a elevated level of both communication and critical thinking applied through logical application.

I will judge any argument -- not opposed to K, Aff K, theory etc. I have awarded wins on each. However, my feelings about K/Aff K are that this type of argument is basically a protest against the event or the alleged inherent bias or unfairness of the topic/framers/system or other foundational aspect of Policy Debate. If you are refusing to engage on the topic of the round, I must hear a clear alternative to the specific failures exposed by the K/K Aff, and you must give voters.

Clash is all important, but civility is paramount to applying your arguments to the round. Ad Hominem attacks will cost speaker points, even if they are somehow tied to an inherent bias argument. There are plenty of ways to question the fairness or bias of something without somehow crafting your CX opponent into the evil embodiment of such a bias.

Rapid delivery is tolerated insofar as I can keep up. If I stop typing and disengage from the ballot, you are going too fast. This relates back to my position that Debate is a communication event, it is not an audition to become the voice that reads fine print at the end of a Pharmaceutical or Car financing commercial.

I like CP, Stock Issues, DA, On Case, and Framework arguments equally. It is up to you to teach me why your arguments are superior to your opponents and how your positions have withstood any attacks from your opponents. A great impact Calc is a way to take me over to your side...I have changed my mind many times in judging a round when I am presented with an effective final rebuttal like this.

Have fun, be respectful, and great job for working this hard to get to this meet. I look forward to judging each team I will meet.

1. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate?
1. Policy maker
2. Which best describes your priorities in judging policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Communication skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.
   _____Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.
   X Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance.
3. Which best describes your philosophy concerning evidence in policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Quantity of evidence is more important than quality of evidence.
   _____Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence.

X_Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance.

1. Indicate your preference for the following items (check one number for each item):
1. Preferred Quantity of Arguments ____1____2__X__3____4____5 (1= limited quantity - 5 =Unlimited quantity)
2. Topicality ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 (1= rarely vote on – 5 =vote on often)
3. Counterplans __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 (1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
4. Disadvantages ____1____2__ __3_X__4____5 (1= Not essential – 5 Essential)
5. Conditional Arguments ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
6. Kritiqs __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)

Are there any teams you should not judge due to affiliation or prefer not to judge.

Additional Comments: I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. State your case up front as soon as possible and as clearly as possible in the 1AC. Running generic DAs or topicality arguments by the negative is risky, I'm not a fan. I prefer on-case DAs however I've noticed that this year's topic is often attacked and attacked well with "generic" DAs. Well-thought out analysis and evidence of DAs will be essential to winning a NEG ballot. Extinction arguments don't usually sway my vote. Impact calculus will sway me—tell me why the harms/advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and vice-versa. Don't claim abuse on a technicality and don't spread because I am not sympathetic and I think spreading is abusive. If I don’t hear and understand it, it didn’t happen.

Philosophy:

Although I am primarily a policymaker judge, I still feel that the stock issues are an important part of policy debate. I prefer affirmative plans that are realistic, calculated, and substantial. I expect affirmative teams to know their plans inside and out, and they should be able to defend the stock issues of their plans against any on-case attacks. When it comes to off-case, show me how the significance or advantages of your plans outweigh the negatives’ impacts. Don't forget to leave time for a good round summary and impact calculation.

In regards to the negative team, I love good counterplans and disadvantages; however, I would rather debaters refrain from using super generic CPs and DAs. Those tend to be just a waste of time and usually end up getting kicked anyways. I also want solid on-case argumentation and lots direct clash. I will evaluate/vote any type of argument, including topicality and kritiks, IF they are ran correctly and debaters take the time to fully explain them and remember to extend them throughout the debate.

Delivery and Style Preferences

Debating the effectiveness of the affirmative's proposed plan is the primary objective of a CX debate. However, this can only be accomplished if both teams (and the judge) are able to clearly understand all the arguments. To this end, it is imperative that debaters speak clearly and audibly. Sacrificing enunciation and clarity for speed is never wise. Sign posting and road maps are also important. Additionally, I believe that gesturing and sarcasm should be kept to a minimum.

Congratulations on qualifying for Nats! It is through hard work and dedication that you have made it.

My criteria for judging is as follows. I use a framework. whether this is the traditional value criterion or just a statement of what is more important, I need some lens to view the round. I am more familiar with the traditional side, but do not feel that a debater has to necessarily uphold that tradition as long as I have a way presented to look at the round. Basically, you both define the realm of the debate. I will put myself in that space and determine within this guideline who wins.

What happens then? I don't have a leaning toward structural violence, util impacting or rights based approaches to the topic. While my debate time was spent in policy, I won't default to that unless there is nothing else for me to do. I enjoy rights v util rounds. This topic may have a few of those. If you are running something you consider not mainstream, I am ok as long as you prove the tie in to the topic. An example would be a specific country vs a US based democracy approach. I do not like voting on topicality but again, if neg is winning it I will vote there. I am not a fan of lots of debate theory, as a preference, let's debate the topic. That said, if you are a theory debater, debate well. I am not a fan of defining what you do and don't do, I just don't really from a selfish perspective want to see a round of tricks and rvi's.

I am antiquated so I write on paper. I can write down what you are saying if you stay organized. Please stay organized. Explain why your position is better than your opponents and things will work out.

If there is an email chain please add me russellphelps@gmail.com. If not, I will not ask for evidence unless it is part of the argument that I consider essential to the ballot. Please have fun and be respectful. If feedback is allowed without revealing the decision, I will share my thoughts. If not, find me after and I will talk to you about what happened in your debate. This is an educational activity. I hope when you walk out of the round something has been learned and you will continue to be a part of this activity in some form. Good luck.

I am a tab judge. I am willing to listen to anything as long as it’s not offensive. No spreading. I expect both teams to give a road map before speeches and signpost along the way. You should weigh the round and tell me why I should vote for you. No rudeness, there is no place for it.

Stock Issues Judge

- do not get caught up in definitions and wording

- know vocabulary and attack on specific stock issues (harms, inherency, disadvantages, etc.)

- speak to the judge, not to opponents

- if you spread, do it both audibly and coherently

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him. I don't check this email when I'm not at debate.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including if you want docs from rounds I've judged) email me at apulcine23 AT gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me. All the stuff below is personal preference and be overcome by good debating. Default to offense defense.

Speaks: I generally adjust how I give speaks depending on the tournament. To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize isPLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.

If you can win using just the needed speech time (you probably don't need all your speech time to win a dropped disad vs team that dropped the aff after 1ac) speaks will be better, but if you end up losing or undercovering stuff speaks will go down.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed. SLOW DOWN on analytics! Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card.

Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo, but you tell me. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc in tiny text with no verbatim heading. Gimme pen

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.

K Aff: I didn't read planless affs in hs, I'm going to have much less experience in these debates than you do. I don't judge these debates too often (probably due to the tournaments I judge at and people reading my paradigm), so come into the round knowing that. For the most part, same thing as K section, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

LD:

for larp / k everything above applies.

trad - Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect.

Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit. I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. If you want my ballot reading phil stuff, break it down and impact it out like policy / larp. If it is the end of the round and I still don't really know what you do / what we are talking about, youre probably not getting my ballot.

Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T. If the argument isn't contested, not much I can do about that as judge. Don't be surprised if the round doesn't go as you expected if I'm judging a fully fleshed out trix round.

Key things:

- As a UIL judge, I prefer people not to spread. I will give one clear call. After that I will stop flowing and I usually tune you out if you continue to spread.

- I do NOT like hypotheticals. If you cannot link it in a logical way, I will not be persuaded by your argument.

- I am a TABS judge. I flow and base my decision on if you hit harms, topicality, etc. I base my end decision on the number of arguments won by each side. In the past, topicality is usually a wash. The aff has to be complete un-topical to lose based on topicality alone. If you run a CP, make sure that you solve for all of the aff's harms. If you run a Disad., make sure you have the four required parts.

- I value impact. When you debate, remember I look at impact calcs when making my decision.

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I'm a stock issues judge (I know, don't hate me). I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (anna.m.rhea@gmail.com). I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must.

I believe that first and foremost all debate should be based on communication. To that end be sure that you do not utilize forms of debate which leave the audience more bewildered than informed.

When it comes to speed, don' get a ticket. But, I will hang with you until about 350 words per minute. Exceeding that barrier will leave me with the impression that you are yet another lost narcissist with dreams of sugar TOC fairies dancing through your head.

Style, I consider myself a policymaker, although my wife seldom agrees. In argumentation, I like most arguments, however, I hate K debate when it turns totally ridiculous, i.e. time machines, comfort (keep your clothes on), pinkwashing, etc, I like theory arguments to be justified and tied to other arguments in the round that warrant their use. Humor is a plus when used appropriately.

I don't care about your WIKI. I won't ask you for your evidence after the round (Unless one of you is lying, then the liar loses). And, I don't care what your coach thinks. You're the one debating. Speak like your life depends on it.

In everything, ...decorum!

In the end, I want to think, wow he/she would make a great president, not argh, ...another cute dog catcher. Represent the sport well.

Let the games begin.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Pronouns He/Him/His

Boling High School 06/ West Texas A&M 10

LD debate

I am more traditional and believe in a strong Value and Criterion debate. I am not a fan of CP in LD but will use it as a voting issue if the AFF doesn't answer it strongly. Speed is not an issue but if I can't understand you then there is an issue. I love philosophy debate and appreciate a strong philosophy based case.

CX Debate

I have been judging CX debate since 2008. I am a policy maker judge. I believe that the affirmative has the burned of proof and the Neg has burden of clash. I do not like time suck arguments. If you are running topicality please make sure that it is warranted. I have no issues with speed but if your diction suffers because of speed i will not flow your speech and your arguments will not matter. I am ok with K, CP and DA. Make your impacts realistic.

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

jhu 24 | email chains: docs.andersondebate@gmail.com

general

quality arguments with a claim warrant and impact win debates. i have minimal predispositions and the ones i do have will not influence an rfd without an argument made to instruct me as such. getting my ballot is shockingly uncomplex. i am privy to watching debaters put gargantuan time and effort into a spectrum of different arg styles, and therefore want to see good debaters do what they do best. this means that i put immense care into rfds and value the privilege of judging. anything else is silly, wastes copious amounts of time, and waters down the quality of debates.feel free to post-round, yell at me, or whatever you have to do, i will likely not take it personally.

prefs

1 - k + policy + phil + tricks

1.5 - theory

Jimmy Smith has over 45 years of coaching and is a 5 Diamond Key along with a very proud member of the NSDA Hall of Fame. Over the 45 years he has been honored to 9 students on the Final Stage with one National Champion. After retiring in 2017 Jimmy re-entered the classroom because to quote him, "this isn't work, it's fun"

Policy -

I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.

I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

Debate is a uniquely adept at developing critical thinking skills, fostering open-mindedness, and sharpening articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thought as well. It’s far more important that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any argument as long as you can tell me why you win it. I’m good with Ks, I’ll vote on T, do whatever you want as long as you can defend it. (Seriously, I ran extinction good regularly, a counterfactual aff, delay CPs with international politics scenarios nearly every round, a Taoist performance K, Zombie apocalypse scenarios, and a Burkian pentadic rhetorical analysis of the 1AC as a piece of literature, etc.) It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events.

Good line-by-line and organization is extremely important. Don’t frustrate me with careless and sloppy speech structure. If you don't answer an argument, it is conceded. If you don't extend it, it’s not extended.
Don't spread analytics like they’re cards. If I don’t hear it, you didn’t say it. And if I can’t write it, I might forget you said it. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency is how you make up time, not by being faster than you are clear. If you’re super super quick and also clear and easy to flow, then by all means. But most of you ain’t.

I want good overview and synthesized analysis in the 2Rs. Draw me a blueprint of how these moving parts connect and interact one another to make your win machine make a win. And then do good line by line.

I debated CX on the national circuit in high school, and policy and international parli in college. I have judged tournaments for 18 years in debate and also contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools.

Effective communication which shows in a student's manner, preparation, performance, and substance. In debate events, it is important to offer evidentiary analysis and specific clash with either policy issues (CD/CX) or values/criterion (LD) without games. Pretty basic.

I really like policy. Common sense policy. Counterplans are great if you can sell it to me with the skills mentioned above.

Kritiks, no. Conditional arguments only if you are clear where you are going with it. I just don't exist in a world where we debate with those strategies. Does not mean I will vote against you, but I just may not understand where you are going with them. Be clear and persuasive, and I'll be more inclined to give you the ballot. Please don't be jerks in the round--I do like some decorum. Not asking you to be phony nice. Win the round with your policy and your ability to communicate that to me.

For larger school circuits whose debate style includes speed/spreading, I will adapt but not a fan. This is TFA and not UIL, so I respect what you are accustomed to on this circuit. I would ask the same courtesy of your coaches if they were judging UIL.

Jack Black rules. Be like Jack.

Paradigm--stock issues, prefer quality evidence over quantity

I am a flow judge, so do not drop arguments. Be sure to address all attacks on your case. I will be paying attention to clash in the debate, so whatever is the focus of the clash will be important to me when I vote. For example, if the clash is over topicality, I vote on that and the dropped arguments.

As long as your delivery is intelligible, I'm okay with speed. I'll let you know once if you are too fast. Then I expect speed to be adjusted.

I am a traditional CX judge. I consider myself a Tab judge in allowing you to format the debate in a Policy or Stock Issues format. I am open to most arguments and will try to do my best to adapt to the debate in front of me. I focus on my flow, so be clear when moving from one argument and warrant to another by either numbering, using AND or NEXT, or really slowing down and using inflection. Please slow down on tags, authors and dates. My bottom line is have you proven the resolution true or not.

I do enjoy really good, organized T arguments and like to see commitment to it. Topicality has its proper parts, make sure all parts are presented or it isn't worth the time. Just saying the other team isn't topical isn't good enough.

Aff should extend their case in each speech. Just attacking the negative and not saying anything about your case is a drop. Pointing out negative drops and why those are important is important.

I don't like speed just for the sake of trying to always go fast. If clear and controlled then I am agreeable. As I said earlier, I am consider myself a flow judge. If my pen is down and I'm not flowing, that isn't good for the speaker and their team. You need to look up and make sure I am flowing. This is a communication sport.

Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance.

Quantity of evidence and quality are of equal importance.

I am not very acceptable of Kritiks, but I have accepted them as voting reasons. I look to see if the team running it/them really understand it/them well enough to Keep It Short and Simple and apply it properly.

Disavantages are not required to be run in a debate round, but certainly help weigh out a Policy paradigm if it comes down to it.

Conditional Arguments - I like a good "trap" argument set up from CX. If I perceived as just a time waste argument, then not good ethos for that team.

No Prompting. No open CX.

I like to see a good clash. I do not have a preference when judging. As an older judge I tend to listen and look more at the debate clash. I flow fast, organized and well. I do not drop case arguments and look for that when judging a round. The arguments and a clear understanding of one's case is crucial for me when determining a round. Throwing out evidence with no understanding or context does nothing for me. Strength in the second constructive is important to me as I see this as the best opportunity to defend, clarify and reiterate one's case.

Generally, I am a policymaker judge, though I expect the affirmative team to address and resolve stock issues in the debate. I will accept theory and topicality arguments. That being said, teams should emphasize advantages and disadvantages, as well as real-world impacts. Plans (and counterplans) must be feasible in the real world.

My academic background is history. I want debaters to emphasize why particular sources of evidence are salient for the round.

Clash, please.

COMMUNICATION STYLE: Debate is chiefly a public communication experience. As such, while I can handle speedy delivery, I (and others) need to be able to track flow. Also, robust, intense debate is expected, as is aggressive cross-examination. However, remain courteous, please.

Howdy! I started competing in 2008 and graduated from Big Spring High School in 2012. I've been coaching since 2016 at different schools in West Texas, and I’m currently at Permian High School in Odessa, TX! General rule of thumb; don't be a jerk and things will be fine.

CX:

*Include me on the email chain, austin.trevino@ecisd.school

I am a policy maker that evaluates all arguments. I typically judge based on impacts/cost analysis/risk scenarios, but if you don't want me to evaluate that way then let me know why. Just to go in-depth on key arguments:

T- I will evaluate T's every round but in some (most as of late) instances the T is used as a time suck and a strategy of the Neg to win on a technicality. Please do not do this. Only run T if the Aff is definitely not topical. I defer to reasonability on T.

DA- Try to have your links as specific as you can. The more specific the link, the better. That being said, I will evaluate generic DA's if the speaker can analyze and make the link argument fit the Aff.

CP- I hated CP's for years, but they seem to be almost a necessity for this year's topic so I have learned to love them. Theory debates on the CP get very muddy very fast so try to avoid running those arguments if you cannot keep a bright line in there. I err Neg on CP theory, regardless. 50 States is viable, but the more specific your CP is to the Aff, the better off you will be. I do not enjoy rounds with multiple CP's, though.

K- I'll listen to just about any K, but you have to be able to explain it to a five year old. Don't assume I am familiar with your authors. I would like to consider myself relatively well-read on some of the literature with the topic, but be able to break down arguments to their most basic level in case I'm not. I prefer more pragmatic alts to the K rather than the philosophical. Also, don't run the "Postmodern Tap Dance Theory" K that your coach cut for you last night just because nobody has anything on it. Just because you can run an argument does not mean you should.

Theory- Open to theory debates if you can keep them clean. If you know you can't, you probably shouldn't run them.

Speed- We're online so take that into consideration. I can give a verbal clear if need be.

Any other specific questions? Ask me before we start. GO MOJO!

LD:

I'm less Tab here. I enjoy a value/criteria debate with lots of clash in that area as well as lots of good framing arguments, with impacts strewn in. Please do not run any policy arguments here. I do not enjoy those rounds and one theory shell could lose the round for you in the NC.

I am a stock issues judge. Topicality and disadvantages are my main focus. Explanation is key in every argument. I will listen to any type of argument that you give me. I do not prefer counterplans and kritiks, however, I will judge them if used. I will flow anything that you deem impactful to the round. Be sure to explain the impacts of every statement.

CX Debate: I am primarily a stock issues judge but I have some policymaker leanings as well. Overall, I will vote for the team who presents the best policy decision while debating within the stock issues framework.

It is critical that teams emphasize why I should vote for them and why I should prefer their arguments. Do not bring up an argument (such as a baseless topicality) just to fill time in a debate. Counterplans are good if they present a better policy outcome. I will consider K's but they have to be run correctly and the alts have to be realistic.

On delivery, I prefer clear and concise speech. I am not a big fan of spreading, but if you have to, please be sure to slow down on the taglines so I can flow your arguments.

Best of luck!

Stock issues judge. Make arguments with weight. Topicality is fine. Counter-plan is fine. Critiques are fine.

Please limit your spread. I hate that tactic in debate and irl.

infowars isn't a source. All modern media outlets (i.e. Breitbart, Fox, MSNBC, etc) are flimsy at best.

I love debate and I love to judge debate. I am a stock issues judge in policy. I want to hear good analysis, evidence that supports the thesis, and extemporaneous explanations. I am a UIL coach and judge so I understand the rules and what goes in UIL and what does not. Please use good manners toward your peers, colleagues, and all judges. I want to see faces, not computer screens, so look up at me especially if your case is very technical. Remember those stock issues; significance, harms, inherency, solvency, impacts, and topicality and remember to have fun and make memories.

Debate is the art of influencing the judge to agree with your arguments. If your delivery is unclear and your pace is not understandable, then you may have not effectively communicated your points. I generally lean toward stock issues, but will accept most well-formulated arguments. I am not a fan of spreading but am fine with speed as long as long as it is within reason. I am also not a fan of K's that are far-fetched. I am a fan of well-developed T's so be sure to have all elements of a T if you are going to run one or I cannot vote on it. Do not rely totally on analytic arguments as your points are more effective when supported by evidence. Neg, be sure to link your arguments directly into the aff. Aff, be sure to cover every argument made by the neg.

Lastly, and most importantly. Thank you for participating in debate. You are developing skills that you will carry with you throughout life.

I am a stock issues judge through and through. I do not like theories, counter plans, and kritiks. I do not mind speed but if I cannot understand you, I will not flow. Speed should not be used as a mechanism against your opponent. Do not trade clarity for speed. I do flow CX times. I will vote on a T arg and will vote solely on the arg. T is priory, if you win a T, you will win the round. (Your args need to have all necessary parts to be sustainable in the round). CX debate is a professional competition. With that being said, I do not stand for slander, passive aggressive remarks or rude nonverbal behavior. I do notice when things like this happen and will judge accordingly.

Speech Events -For public speaking, including Extemp, Informative, & Oratory - I require clear organization and appreciate originality and creativity in both the spoken speech and the delivery. While extemp is limited to current events discussions - the speeches can still be interesting. For Interpretation events I want to see poise, polish, and I want to feel the emotion you are trying to convey. Draw me into the story/scene. You should consider me "traditional/old school/etc." - I'm not a fan of super racy literature. I am fine with talking about and considering controversy, marginalization, and going against the grain - but I do not want to watch high school kids in oversexualized roles. I just don't. Some people don't like Counterplans in Debate, I don't like Rated R in Interp. Having said that, I'm pretty lenient regarding language choices. You can use language to communicate resistance, defiance, frustration, word reclamation, etc., and I'm fine with that - it mirrors real life experience. If it's excessive and seems more like you just really want to say bad words in front of adults (think Joe Pesci), that's another issue.

Policy Debate - I'm open to both traditional and progressive styles, I enjoy all kinds of well-constructed, interesting, arguments that young students are learning and able to articulate well (including theory and kritikal arguments). Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with. Hyperspreading (giant gulps followed by high-pitched, rapid, stutter-inducing speech) is heavily discouraged due to my hearing impairment - depending on whether or not i can understand you, it won't necessarily cost you speaker points - but I'm a flow judge, and if I don't flow it then it didn't happen. Roadmapping, sign-posting, and internal organizational labels are heavily encouraged - and will be reflected in increased speaker points - and ensure that what you say makes it onto my flow. I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument but it's not required. If you have time it's a nice communication moment. Arguments should be fully articulated (in other words, include analysis on your T standards and voters, impact calculus, and solvency frontlines. The quality of your evidence and your demonstrated understanding of the evidence and how it impacts the arguments in the round are more important than the quantity of evidence that you read. Having said that, YES, you should have plenty of evidence supporting your case/positions, just remember, I am not judging your ability to read allowed, I'm judging your ability to understand and critically evaluate what is being read allowed. I've been judging CX Debate for 32 years, competed in CEDA and Parliamentary Debate in college, and have been a certified teacher/debate coach for 23 years. I enjoy Policy debate. Refutation should be well-organized and include sign-posting so that I know what arguments you are responding to.

LD Debate - I competed in LD Debate in High School in the early '90s. I have a Degree in Philosophy & Political Science from Texas Tech University (emphasis on political and social ethics). I have judged and/or coached LD Debate for 32 years. I enjoy a mix of philosophical and pragmatic argumentation in LD. Your framework (Value/Criteria) should include explanation of your Value and analysis of why I should prefer it as well as a clear, well-explained criteria for evaluating whether or not you have achieved/increased access to your value. In other words, don't just work on the contention-level debate, do the work on the value/criteria as well, if you want my ballot. Cross apply all organizational preferences from the CX debate paragraph here. (See what I did there?) :D

CONGRESS - Remember that you are operating as a member of the United States Congress and make arguments from that perspective. Arguments should be well-constructed and supported (like other debate formats) and should be responsive to the previous speeches on the item being debated (except for the author/sponsor, of course). There should be absolutely nothing even remotely resembling "spreading" in Congress. Speeches should be clear, passionate, and well-spoken. Your ethos in Congress includes your personality as a speaker, in addition to your preparation/research. I have been judging/coaching Congress for 23 years. Attach your refutation of previous arguments to the speaker who made the argument you are refuting, when possible. Show respect for your fellow congress persons when debating, avoid personal attacks.

Public Forum Debate - I prefer not to judge this event and I don't coach it. But if I am judging it, it shouldn't look like a policy debate round because then I will be annoyed at all of the tournaments struggling to make numbers in BOTH policy debate and public forum and the entire round I will be thinking about why we added another debate event that is just splitting the numbers and is looking more and more like the original debate event... So, no spreading, less evidence cards, more analysis and clash of arguments. Speak like an orator, not like an auctioneer. Thanks. And show some personality.

World Schools Debate - I enjoy this format, it's new (to me) and fun and emphasizes a holistic rhetorical strategy, including strong argumentation and persuasive speaking style. I also like that the topics change each round, it's a challenge event that really tests the students' ability to analyze a topic, work as a team, and effectively persuade an audience. I have coached NSDA teams at nationals, but I do NOT coach this event on my own team as a regular thing and I don't judge the event often. When I do, I like to see polite, organized, logical speaking and personality from the speakers. Humor is appreciated, where appropriate.

ALL DEBATES - ALWAYS BE HUMBLE AND KIND. Rolling the eyes, huffing, cutting people off rudely, yelling, etc., will not be tolerated and will be reflected in significantly lowered speaker points. Avoid villainizing, condescending to, or underestimating your opponent as a rule. Remember the rules of evidence governing this activity. Avoid asking "where did your evidence come from" when it's included in the speech or the case materials to which you have access. Flashing/file sharing should not take an inordinate amount of time and may be included in your prep time. If you can't get it shared by the time CX following your speech is over, it will cut into your prep. Stronger arguments look at the root of the opposing positions and attack there. Weaker arguments deal with dates of evidence. I have instructed in CX, LD, and Congress at camps in Texas over the past 18 years and have coached UIL State champions in Congress and LD and UIL quarterfinalists in CX; TFA finalists and NSDA semifinalists in Congress. If you have questions about my thoughts on anything and it's not covered here, just ask.

Updated January 2025

About me:

I am currently the speech and debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt HS.

I have been judging speech and debate (mostly policy and LD) since 2017.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

Please go slower if debating in front of me. I am not very fast at typing.

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.

Evidence Standards:

Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.

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.