fourth year assistant coach

Enjoys clearly stated framework and contentions

Reading well organized cards is not enough, you must be able to understand and apply studies/evidence being used and defend it!

Proper dress and decorum is important

Will take detailed notes by ear, not an expert flower

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

Please add me to the email chain: chloegbrown31@gmail.com :-)

**Feel free to ask more specific questions before rounds, but know that your style/ research is more important than my feelings about specific args/ strategies.**

CX:

I did policy all through high school, mostly critical/ soft-left stuff. I l still like K stuff, not necessarily more than anything else though. Honestly, I don't tend to vote for T but will if the voting issues are made very clear and important.

Southside is my first tournament judging the 2023-24 topic, if there are specific acronyms, please clarify them. Don't expect me to have super intimate knowledge of NATA/ AI- related legislation. I keep up with the news, but I am an English major.

I pay close attention to role-of-the-ballot and role-of-the-judge args but want to knowwhythose roles are valid/ important/ good.

If you are going to run a K, please demonstrate a good understanding of your methodologies, authors, and foundational philosophies. Running something critical just for the sake of it is not going to win you any points.

Generally, I want to know why things matter and believe in truth over tech. I am not going to catch every minute technical concession. By the end of the round, wrap things up nicely and tell me exactly what matters the most (and why).

L/D

I never competed in LD but enjoy judging it and have quite a lot.

Although I don't have super specific preferences, please do flesh out any framing-- do not assume that just because yousay the value criterion is "____" that means I assume it's true. Tell me why!Let me know what matters in/ out of the round.

I pay close attention to the line-by-line and love to see direct clash.

I have competed, coached, and judged high school debate over the last 30 years. I consider myself knowledgeable about assorted frameworks in the Debate world. I am now a parent of a debater. I consider myself a blank slate.

I believe it’s the responsibility of the debaters to guide my decision by their analysis and evidence. If your opponent drops an argument, it’s your responsibility to point it out and provide analysis as to why it matters. I really appreciate when in the final speeches of a debate, the debaters provide the concrete reasons to vote for their side. If neither debater provides these details, I will adopt a secondary framework of common sense to determine the winner.

Clarity in speaking whether conversational or spreading is important.

I'm comfortable with a variety of arguments, just be creative and explain things well. I'm comfortable with speed but articulate well. Slow down for complex arguments. Extend arguments properly with an explanation as to why you win the round off of it. Tech over truth. Email chains. Don't be a jerk, have fun. rehernandez1202@gmail.com

Phil/Traditional

Pretty much one of my favorite forms of debate, and it is largely unappreciated in the current debate world. There are a wide array of values and VCs out there with creative concepts and reasons to prefer, so get creative. Philosophy is an insane world with plenty of crazy ideas to choose from (so long as you argue why I should prefer a certain idea of philosophy). And if you are going to default to morality as your value, you better have a strong definition/evidence for why it should be valued or how it is even objective (basically, don't just have it to have some connection to a value).

TL;DR: explain it, give me a reason to prefer, get creative

DAs

I like this style of argumentation. It provides grounds for an interesting of chain events, widening our scope of the impact of our actions. That being said, you must explain the connections of one link in the chain to another logically. I don't want it to sound like some stars-align conspiracy theory. I also don't like that so much defaults to extinction. I get that it is the strongest impact possible for rational actors to take into account, but if you do run it, have a strong link chain with a high probability.

Plans/CPs

Go for it. I love arguments about flaws in plans, credibility, anything you have to offer. I expect a good weighing analysis on impacts, so explain why your impacts matter more and why your methods for weighing is better.

For CPs, get creative with it. I don't really like the generic CPs but I'm willing to evaluate it if you have a strong case for it. I also expect a clear line of exclusivity. I don't like CPs that can be easily permed. That being said, if you run a perm, I expect a good explanation of how the plan perms the CP. PICs are fine.

Ks

Run them, but err on the side of more explanation if it is an obscure K. And explain why I should care, all that jazz.

Other Notes:

Speed - I am comfortable with it, but please, for the love of Obama, articulate. Even if you are spreading, I expect to be able to understand you. I don't one one syllable per sentence.

Every argument should have a claim, warrant, and impact, with proper extensions on the impact. And please explain extensions. I don't want to hear "extend this" and no explanation on why it should be extended or why it matters. You shouldn't leave things up to interpretation. I can only judge what you show me.

I'd appreciate if you collapse stuff on the 1AR, 2NR, and 2A. Your speaks will suffer if you try to pull across a egregious amount of DAs and only end up needing one.

I err on the side of tech over truth, but if an argument is just egregiously false, I will not evaluate it.

I prefer email chains, especially if you are going to be spreading.

I am willing to disclose if you guys are willing to wait.

Please relax and have fun. I hate seeing debates get so vicious. I get that it is a competition but that shouldn't stop this from being a fun and accessible event if people are willing to put in all the effort. Don't be a jerk, relax, and have fun.

My email is rehernandez1202@gmail.com for email chains or questions that haven't been answered here.

For all debate

-> Speaker points reflect the argumentation and presentation of the debate, and awarded speaker points will reflect the overall round winner, the comparative performance of the debaters, and the overall presentation.

LD

-> I attach greater weight to values arguments than case arguments, and a well-argued value/value criterion will put a competitor in a much better position to claim the round.

-> Aff and neg both bear responsibility for advancing their own values and contentions in the face of clash. However, aff must always affirm and neg negate the resolution. Higher levels of clash will garner more speaker points.

-> Please present road signs and clearly state the tag lines of cards.

C/X

-> The aff has the burden of proof to advance the resolution. Neg can maintain status quo and successfully claim the round through negation.

-> Impact calculus is always appreciated, and clear taglines are essential in C/X. If the tag line is not clearly listed and I miss the argument being advanced, that is a serious problem that affects voters.

-> I weight dropped arguments more heavily in C/X than in LD.

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

LD/CX:

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

Traditional judge, I prefer no spreading or Ks. I won't take off for them, but I encourage you not to!

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

Info about me: I was a high school competitor and have done LD for about 2 years. I know the rules and I will not tolerate any harassment or abuse during a round. This is mainly for personal attacks, and if this happens, it will be an automatic loss and taken to the tab room. Keep the debate civilized.

For speed, I do not mind if you are talking fast, be careful do to the tournaments being online. I do not allow spreading in my rounds. If you are speaking to fast for me, I will signal you to slow down

I do flow my rounds, so if I am looking down, I am still paying attention. I also listen to cross and that may be included with my judgment, however please don't only use the cross for clarification, makes the debate lose speed and clash.

For arguments, I am looking for a logical debate from both sides, I do not want a debate over definitions, or only framework, debate the cases as a whole. Evidence is encouraged for attacking and blocking, however do not rely on it entirely, too much information is just as bad as too little. If you are going to use hypothetical, please don't give the most extreme because that is unrealistic and brings down the debate.

Hey, I'm Cade (he/him). I debated and did extemp for Teurlings Catholic on the Louisiana and national circuits for four years. Now I compete for LSU (Geaux Tigers!) and occasionally coach/judge for Isidore Newman.

Generally, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. Also, I do want to be on the email chain. My email is cadetsavoy@gmail.com.

For Louisiana tournaments/traditional rounds:

I enjoy lay/traditional debate as much as I enjoy circuit debate. Sometimes, though, I find it frustrating. To avoid frustrating me (and to get more speaks and my ballot), I suggest avoiding the following practices:

-- Spending a lot of time on the framework debate when it really doesn't matter. Don't be afraid to concede framework if you think you can weigh your impacts under your opponent's framework. 39 times out of 40, the "value debate" has no weight in my decision-making process. Ask yourself how winning the framework debate affects your overall chances of winning the debate.

-- Not collapsing. Pick one or two arguments and go for them in your final speech. This allows you to develop your central claim much more fully than you otherwise would be able to in a 3-minute 2AR. I promise you will not be able to properly extend all of the offense you read in the constructive in your final rebuttal. Trust.

-- Not having real impacts while reading a consequentialist framework. Your impacts should be a scenario. Try to paint a clear picture of what the world of the aff/neg looks like. Err on the side of over-explaining your impacts. Also, weigh them against your opponent's impacts in terms of probability, magnitude, time frame, etc.

Housekeeping:

1] Post-rounding is good! It promotes education and keeps judges accountable. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like after my RFD. However, I will be capital p Pissed if your coach comes and fusses at me after the round has already ended — especially if you didn’t ask me questions when you had the opportunity. My only obligation as a judge is to make the best decision I possibly can. Sometimes, those decisions will be flawed. But under no circumstances will I ever be interested in engaging in any flavor of weird national circuit politics.

2] Don't be bigoted. Tech and truth go out the window the second you make a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary argument/remark.

3] For online debate: keep a local recording of your speeches in case someone loses connection. I really don't want to hear a rebuttal re-do.

LD/Policy

I'm putting LD and Policy in the same section because I think most of my relevant thoughts regarding LD and Policy apply to both events. If I have a thought that I think applies to either LD or Policy but not both, I'll flag it as such. Be mad if you feel so inclined.

Run whatever you want. I'll be fine. Still though, there are some arguments that I'm more experienced/better at evaluating than others. Here's a pref shortcut:

1- policy, traditional, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, more dense/complex Ks

3/4- tricks (depends on the level of density)

1] An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on anything that doesn't meet that threshold. I also won't vote on an argument that I can't explain back to your opponent in the RFD, so be clear.

2] Impact framing is really important in every debate, regardless of whether its a standard DA/CP v case debate or a K v K smackdown. I don't see myself connecting the dots for you, so, again, be clear.

--add on: I've found that I'm very reluctant to vote on vague/poorly explained impact scenarios. Err on the side of over-explaining the story of your impacts. I might care about it more than other judges.

3] I think I'm alright at flowing, but I would really appreciate it if you slowed down on tags and analytics, especially when you're reading theory. I'll say "slow!" or "clear!" as much as I need to, so I won't feel bad not voting on an argument because I missed it on my flow.

4] I think I'm fairly neutral in most K aff v T Framework debates, but I'm more receptive to T Framework arguments that leverage education/clash as impact instead of just "pRocEDurAl faIRnEsS." But in these debates, I think the side that paints the clearer picture of what their model of debate looks like typically wins.

5] For LD specifically, I don't understand what it means to defend the resolution but not defend "implementation." "Defending implementation" seems to me to be a logical consequence of fiat.

6] Also for LD specifically, I wish phil debates focused more on the logical syllogism of whatever normative theory is being debated than a bunch of poorly developed reasons to prefer.

7] I have a couple of defaults that dictate how I evaluate the round. They can all be changed with proper argumentation.

• competing interps
• DTA unless it's something that's irreversible like T
• No RVIs
• Epistemic confidence
• No judge kick
• presumption goes to the side whose advocacy deviates least from the squo
• permissibility goes neg
• comparative worlds

8] Debate means different things to different people. Be cognizant of that.

9] Be accessible. In the context of debate, this means not doing things that would jeopardize debate as a site of inclusive, constructive, and critical discussion. I think most people intuitively know what "accessibility" means in debate, but, just in case, I'll outline a few implications of the "accessibility" maxim:

a] Don't be a dick.

b] Don't be shady. Obviously, don't clip cards or falsify evidence. If you do, you'll lose. But also, be forthright about the arguments you're making. Don't act like you don't know what a floating pik is in cross. Don't send a doc with only some analytics (i.e. sending eight out of your nine frontlined responses to T but not the "I meet").

c] If you're debating a novice or a traditional debater, consider reading arguments with which your opponent can substantively engage. I won't penalize you for going for any particular strategy, but your speaks will look better if you make an effort to make the round productive.

PF

All of the stuff from my LD/Policy paradigm apply to PF too. It's worth noting that I only competed in PF like three or four times, so I evaluate PF rounds the exact same way I would a policy-style DA v case debate in LD. I don't see why that would be problematic in any way, but it might be worth considering. Here are some of my PF-specific thoughts.

1] I think a lot of PF teams get away with really lazy extensions. It's not enough to just jump to impact weighing without explaining the link story of the argument you're going for. I won't vote for an argument that isn't properly extended.

2] It irks me when grand cross is dominated by only one debater from each team. I view every speech as a performance, and cross-ex is no exception.

3] PF rants and side quests:

a] Why are evidence ethics in PF so bad? Paraphrasing is stupid. I will give you +.3 speaks if you read highlighted sections of the actual text of what you're referencing. If you're going to paraphrase evidence anyway, put the full text of the card in the doc and highlight the parts that you're referencing. Also, every card you read should include the name of the author(s), the title of the piece, the date on which it was published, and a link/DOI if applicable.

b] Why are email chains in PF so weird? It seems incredibly inefficient to send cards your opponent calls for after the speech has already ended. Just send a complete doc before the speech starts! I will give you +.2 speaks if you send the doc before the speech starts.

Please include me on the email chain at jstewartdebate@gmail.com. Feel free to ask questions always.

I competed for Barbe High School, McNeese State University and Western Kentucky University. I competed in IEs in both high school and college. I debated L-D and policy in high school on the local, Louisiana circuit. I also competed nationally in college in IE’s, Parli, NFA L-D policy and some CEDA/NDT. I have judged in Louisiana and around the region for the last 15 years.

TLDR: I was a policymaking type debater. Weighing net-benefits is what I am most familiar with. I try to be as “tab” as possible and will evaluate any argument. It needs to be well warranted, well impacted and well weighed against the rest of arguments in the round. You might need to do slightly more work fleshing out newer forms of argumentation with me, but I will vote on them if I feel like you are winning them.

I am self-professed “lazy” judge. I want to feel like I am doing the least intervening possible at the end of the round. I would love for you to tell me which arguments are important enough for me to vote on, what their comparative impacts are and why you are winning those arguments. I appreciate you telling me how I should sign my ballot.

I am still somewhat old school around paperless debating- it just wasn’t a thing yet when I was competing or judging the first go around. I use e-mailed/flashed evidence mostly for reading internal warrants. I will use this to follow along the speech, however I’m not a fan of reading speech docs/blocks in a vacuum. Signposting and clear organizational structure are important for me and I tend to award higher speaker points for them.

POLICY-

K/Kritikal Aff- I have a pretty good familiarity with critical theory/thought. I am probably less familiar with the intricacies of Kritik debate theory. You would probably be helping yourself out with me to spend a bit more time on setting up your framework and giving really clear impact stories. Explicit arguments about “how we win” or “the role of the ballot” would help me better understand how/why to vote for you on these types of positions. This is especially true if there are situations like perms put on the alternative. I want to know why the alternative alone solves best on its face, in addition to any theoretical objections to the perm. I also appreciate clear pre-fiat/post-fiat analysis. If the impact is post-fiat (“turns case”) and the alternative is pre-fiat (“discourse/radical space/etc”) I want you to tell me how to navigate the multiple levels of your advocacy.

T/Procedurals- I tend to have a slightly lower threshold on procedurals. I do not need an iron clad in-round abuse story necessarily. I will evaluate these more often than many.

LD-

I tend to vote on framework first. That is just how I was taught. But with more progressive styles I will evaluate framework in light of case advantages/disadvantages. As with the Kritik info above, you may need to do a little more hand holding with me around the alternative and/or role of the ballot. I tend to prefer crystallization at the end of the round with clear impact analysis and tend to give higher speaks to those that show good round vision and can ‘boil down’ the round effectively.

PF-

I’m comfortable with the newer trend of giving an explicit framework at the top of case. If you don’t give me one then I’ll default to something like policymaking/comparative advantages. I tend to appreciate probability over magnitude in PF because of the lack of depth of evidence. Things that are intuitive and make sense on their face seem like a more natural fit to this style of debate. I will evaluate anything that is argued in front of me, though. It needs to be well warranted, well extended (including extending the warrants), well impacted and well leveraged against the other argumentation in the round for it to be most persuasive. I like final focus speeches that crystallize the round for me and give me good impact analysis. Feel free to take the ballot out my hands by telling me what arguments are most important, how they function in the round and why you are winning on them.

IE’s-

I tend to think about most IEs in terms of argumentation. This is more obvious for events like Extemp, Impromptu and Original Oratory. But even interp events use a text to craft a narrative with a unique point of view for each competitor. I usually evaluate IE’s on the clarity of your thesis (argument) and then how well you do at expressing/supporting it (advocacy). The more you can distill down an idea into its clearest form and then use multiple rhetorical tools to express it, the better chance you will have of getting higher ranks and higher speaks from me. FYI I’m a big fan of variety as a rhetorical tool (fast and slow rate, loud and soft volume, high and low intonation, etc). These tend to keep me more engaged in the speech/performance and tend to make me trust you more as a speaker/performer.

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

Congrats on making it to the TOC!

Most paradigms I read seem a bit pretentious, so I'll try to keep it short and sweet. The round is yours, and it would be best to read arguments you are comfortable with. I am not predisposed to any argument style. Instead, I'm much more concerned about how you communicate your argument, interact with others, weigh, and collapse. This does not mean I don't have preferences.This means that even if you make an argument that I think is dumb (but warranted), I will evaluate it as microscopically as I do with arguments I love. My preferences will severely affect your speaker points but not the decision.

I am paranoid about making mistakes, so I flow extremely carefully and take my time when writing up my RFD. As a result, I'm reasonably confident in my judging record, and I would say that (in my opinion) I've made a bad decision a maximum of one or two times. Want to eradicate the chance I mess something up? Give me some judge instruction!

harunvemu15@gmail.com

There are four things that I consistently care about:

1. Don't be late. If I'm ever late, you can expect a speaks bump. If you're late, you can expect the opposite.
2. Speaker points are mine! PREP ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT.
3. I don't flow off of the doc. I check for the quality of evidence in CX, and if you want me to read something after the round, mention it.
4. Please change the intonation of your voice when reading taglines and slow down on analytics. I feel zero guilt when I say, "I didn't catch that."