CX: Policymaker. Debating between two opposing viewpoints makes a bill a law. Simple right? In this activity we argue both sides of an issue, so as a debater you should use your past experiences as an aff or neg to your advantage when you are arguing your case. Be prepared, show me through your evidence and in your own words why the other side's contentions do not hold up versus your plan/disadvantages. Winners do not just read their evidence cards, they understand the content of their cards and use that content to their advantage when on offense or defense. Try to limit your dropped arguments, and if you are dropping any arguments then signal it to me in your speech (I will not penalize you for this). Most important, relax and have fun with this!

I am looking for insightful and new analyses of a topic in OO

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised in INFO

I want honest and truthful storytelling in INTERP

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

My paradigm is simple- be good.

When it comes to debate, I won't reward "debate tricks"... you need to do a better job with your case than the opponent, not Reductio Ad Absurdum.

I have a background as a History and Government & Economics instructor; getting simple statistics, historical precedent, and overall facts incorrect will hurt you. I don't judge that way to "gotcha"- I judge that way because winning debate requires you to be "the expert in the room."

I can adjust to different styles of debate but spreading is likely to hurt you more than help you.

With speech, I want to believe the character(s) you create. With humorous pieces, I want to be entertained (and maybe even smile). With dramatic pieces, create the scene for me... you do not advance/place because you have the "saddest" piece.

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

Matthew Cupich. matthew.cupich@gmail.com

Experience:

* 3 years: Public Forum debate competitor for William P. Clements High School. (Texas & National Circuits)

* 2 years: Foreign Extemporaneous competitor for '' '' '' '' (Texas Circuit)

* 1 year: coaching middle school Public Forum debaters at Fort Settlement Middle School.

- Be respectful and kind.

- Please weigh the impacts of the debate: explain to me why your argument's impact/result is the most important in the round. Why is it more important than the impacts presented by your opponent? I evaluate the weighing debate before all else when making a decision. Thank you.

- Don't add me to the email chain until it is necessary.

- Speak at a slow to moderate pace (6/10 speed). I don't like fast mumbling because I can't understand what you are saying (Especially on zoom, this is difficult).

- Evidence ethics are important: Extend cards clearly through summary and final focus (Public Forum). I don't like to see misconstrued or unclear evidence. Now your sources.

- Crossfires are important: ask meaningful questions that have strategic value (Public Forum)

- Speak clearly and confidently. (Slow & clear > Fast & messy)

- Signpost: explain where you are debating on the flow (Public Forum).

- Theory is good. However, I do not have any in-round experience with theory debate.

If you would like know more, feel free to ask me questions before the round starts. Thank you.

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers reckon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Background: I debated at Memorial High School in Houston for 3 years, graduating in 2018. I mainly competed in extemp in high school, and I qualified for TFA State in FX and the TOC in Extemp and Informative. I also qualified for Nationals in World Schools debate twice and reached the quarterfinals of World Schools in 2018. My main debate events were Public Forum and Congress, which I did on and off for the most part. I graduated from Harvard in 2022 with a degree in History, and I currently work for a LGBTQ rights nonprofit in Boston, MA.

I have judged on the TFA circuit in Texas since I graduated high school in 2018, judging disproportionately many tournaments in 2020-21 and then nearly every weekend in the 2022-23 school year. I consider myself most proficient at judging World Schools Debate and public speaking events, although I have of course judged many a round of LD or PF.

My email for any email chains is knfjudges@gmail.com.

WSD: Remember that WSD is not LD or PF, and I will not be "voting on the flow" the way that LD and PF judges do. I will generally try to stick to the 68-72 range for each speaker, although I've found myself going under that range more often than I've gone over. Of course, this means that you might not like my decision at the end of the day. To lessen the odds of that happening, here are some tips to maximize the chances of winning my ballot:

• For content: "The House" is understood to be the whole world unless specified otherwise. Therefore, your content score will not go above 28 unless you bring solid international examples to the table. Generally, the more empirical and the less hypothetical evidence you bring to the table, the better you'll tend to do.
• For style: I would say the easiest way to improve style points on my ballot is with speeches that have personality. Obviously, this will differ from speaker to speaker, but I have rewarded speakers who depart somewhat from the "clean speech without fluency errors" kind of model and bring humor, personal connections to the topic, anecdotes, etc. to the table.
• For strategy: Teams that are consistent down the bench, especially teams that have a consistent team line, will tend to do better in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here; generally, teams should take 2 POIs, usually at the transition between points that were elaborated on during the roadmap.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is the prevailing international style of debate, where the debate changes every round, concerns issues on a global rather than a national scale, and invites teams to clash on the central set of issues presented at conversational pace rather than trying to win with tricks or arcane points.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I generally prefer to flow on paper with different colors of pens representing the two teams, although in a pinch, I will flow on Excel on my computer.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I would say that, generally, a principled argument would carry my ballot - at the end of the day, if the team argues that I should care about the principle regardless of the practical effects, then I will probably buy that argument. That being said, I do not have any trouble discarding a principle argument where this type of framing is not employed. If a team advances a principle argument through the reply, but impacts it out to a practical impact, then I probably would not prefer the principle argument just because it is labeled a principled argument. If both teams advance principle arguments through to the reply, I would tend to evaluate the competing principle arguments first.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Essentially, the question of strategy is whether the debater addressed the main arguments in the round. If they focus too much on dropped or irrelevant arguments, they would have a deduction in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here - if there is a lack of engagement in POIs, this category would be negatively impacted, whereas if a debater does particularly well with POIs, they might have this category bolstered. Finally, the team line also figures in my calculation here - a team with a consistent bench will do well in strategy, whereas a team with three speakers who feel like they're making separate and distinct speeches would not do well in strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

Style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

I tend to rely heavily on warrants and examples; a warranted argument will outweigh an unwarranted argument, and I will generally prefer advocacy with solid international examples rather than merely hypothetical points. Of course, the examples must support the point, rather than just being examples for their own sake.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I tend to adopt a broad view - did the OPP's quibbles with the PROP's model successfully challenge their advocacy of the motion as a whole, or did the Prop's use of the model nonetheless prove the truth of the resolution despite the OPP quibbling with it? Frankly, I see a "quibble" as seeing the forest for the trees - in my mind, OPP teams should play hardball with the model proposed by the PROP.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I would take a comparative worlds approach, but ultimately, look to whether either side either upholds or defeats the motion as a whole. The model vs. countermodel debate is not supposed to end up about the models - all models should be in service of each team's broader burden.

PF Debate: I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well (especially on evidence quality and strength of link). I am not receptive to theory or kritikal arguments in PF (this includes disclosure theory, etc.). The more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you. Defense is not sticky (please carry it through the flow). Finally, please remember that this is public forum debate, not "shorter policy," so please avoid spreading, and touches of rhetoric are always welcome (and will be reflected in your speaker points).

LD Debate: I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge), but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For Ks, make sure that the link is specific to the case and that the alt makes sense. I will warn you that I have heard many bad Ks in my life, and while I have voted for Ks in the past, that doesn't mean I automatically like every K that I hear. In addition, it's really no fun for anyone to hear rounds where the AFF has never heard of the K, and their only response is "the NEG doesn't have a value and a criterion so we should win." So try to remain respectful of your opponents as well.

Repeated from PF but... I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially on evidence quality and strength of link), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Congress: I would say that I prefer content over presentation. When evaluating content, I look to the type of speech being given (constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization) and my expectations for each type of speech... Unfortunately, I have found that there are many constructive speeches given later and later in the chamber, and many so-called rebuttal or crystallization speeches that neither rebut nor crystallize. Please, please, please remember that this is congressional DEBATE and not congressional soapbox. I love clash and I hate repetitious arguments.

Relatedly, I really detest when chambers need to take in-house recesses at the beginning of items because nobody is prepared to debate. I believe that I have somewhat contributed to this problem by stating that I prefer well elucidated speeches over speeches that were extemped in the chamber. To be fair, I don't want to hear these speeches for the sake of giving a speech, but I am now of the belief that I should reward the representatives who are actually prepared to debate in my rankings. So do with that what you will.

Public Speaking: In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. (For the record: I have checked sources that sounded fishy, and I have tanked speakers who have egregiously misrepresented sources. Misremembered the date or the publication for a source? Fine, I've done that before, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt! Told me that Boko Haram has attacked Egypt or that a New York Times editorial praised El Salvador's Bitcoin experiment when, in fact, it panned it? Not OK!)

For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Interp: Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot, but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions (positive)? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions (negative)? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

I am a retired coach. I have judged LOTS of rounds in all formats. I consider myself traditional in my approach to all events. I have provided my paradigm for speech and debate events here.

Public Speaking Events

All speeches should have well structured introductions, fully developed body, and satisfaction for your audience thru your conclusion. Sources are key to your speech, you should use a variety of appropriate sources. I expect that your speech will include the "why do I care" - What draws your audience to want to learn more from what you have to say. In extemp, I expect you to answer the specific question you were given. I evaluate all non-verbal communication in your presentation. I accept all perspectives on all topics; however, I expect that your are aware of your audience and avoid language or statements that may be offensive.

Interp Events

First and foremost, pieces should be appropriate for the venue. While I understand that some pieces may contain some sexual innuendo, I will reject innuendo that is not a part of the original script or that is added for the "shock value" rather than the development of the performance. Your introduction should be more than telling me the storyline that you are presenting. There is a reason you chose this piece, a topic you want to discuss. Share that in your intro. Give me believable characters that I can empathize with. Be sure there is an identifiable difference in your characters.

In all debate rounds

Don’t depend on email chains or flashing briefs to include an argument in the round. If it is not spoken during your speeches, it is not in the round. I prefer a more communicative speed of delivery, especially when using online competition. I can keep up but, I think the idea of trying to spread your opponent out of the round is not in the realm of what debate should be. I would rather hear a good clash on the arguments presented.

In PF

I believe PF should be a debate with class. Interactions between opponents should be cordial. Crossfire should be used to obtain information NOT to belittle your opponent. You can not ignore your opponent's arguments and expect to win. Evidence and common sense are key.

In LD

I feel that LD should be philosophy based. Even if the topic is policy-oriented, the selection of a policy is always based on values. Therefore, you should be prepared to debate your value and criterion to support your view on the topic. If you can't support your view, how can I accept your position?

A Kritik on the topic is not an acceptable position. You have been given a topic to debate and that is what I expect to hear. If all you offer is the Kritik, you have not upheld your burden and will lose the round. Running a Kritik on the topic in addition to case arguments is a huge contradiction in your case.

If you want me to view the round from your viewpoint, you must provide voters in your final speech.

In Congress

This is a congressional debate. I expect that you do more than read a prepared speech. There should be responses to previous speeches. You need to be active in the chamber. Questions are an essential part of the process. With that being said, don't ask questions that do not seek to expand information. That is a waste of the chamber's time and takes time away from those with solid questions. Provide sources to the house to substantiate your points.

In CX

I encourage traditional debate in terms of format. That means I do not like open cx. With that being said, I accept progressive style arguments. I will listen to your arguments, but I expect you to provide warrants and logical analysis. If you are the opponent, don’t assume I will reject an argument on face, you must respond if you want to win the argument.

I DO vote on STOCK ISSUES. So Affirmative teams should be prepared to meet those standards.

Negative teams, please don’t throw out a dozen arguments only to drop the ones that don’t stick. If you bring the argument into the round plan to carry it thru to the end.

Label your arguments before you start reading your briefs!

I believe it is essential that you weigh the impacts of your argument in the round.

Elkins '19 |TAMU'22| Rice '24

TLDR: Tech>Truth. My debate philosophy is that of the classic flow judge that I vote for the debater with the least mitigated link chain to the best-weighed impact.

Substance/LARP/Theory/K- 1|Heavy fwk- 2 |tricks etc...- 4

PF

1.I look heavily towards the terminal impacts at the end of the round so weighing/crystallization will ultimately be beneficial for you. Just saying, "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc..." does not qualify as proper weighing. Give me the actual reasons/stats as to "how and why" you outweigh on all those fronts.

2. If you guys arrive at the same terminal impact ie; poverty, climate change, war, etc... the first place I look at is the strength of link on both sides.

3.FWK- I default to cost-benefit analysis unless any other fwk is given in round. If any other framework is given in the round, I will hold you to a higher standard in defending that framework. Overviews are fine with me but must come in the first rebuttal (no offensive overviews in the 2nd rebuttal).

4. If you are the 2nd speaking team, you must frontline all offense stemming from the first team's rebuttal. It is preferable if you frontline a good majority of the defense. Any dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

5.Anything said in final focus must have been alluded to in the summary.You guys literally have an extra minute of prep and time for your summary so there should be no excuses in not extending terminal defense and turns AND do some solid weighing. That being said... PLEASE EXTEND YOUR Turns/Terminal Def etc... through both Summary and Final Focus.

6. I know paraphrasing abuse has become more relevant these days so I will typically not have much leniency if I call for evidence and your paraphrasing completely misrepresents the evidence. That being said, it would be a safer bet not to paraphrase. Also, when I call for evidence, I will need to look at the entire article.

7. Speed is fine, just slow down on warrants, authors, and anything extremely important, ie; weighing/stats. But make sure there is clarity and organization (line by line) in all speeches.

8.Speaks: 28-30 usually. If you strategize really well and weigh/crystallize well, I'll give you a 29.5, even if you catch an L.

LD

DA's/Advantages

A lot of advantages/DAs are super contrived, and it’s easy to convince me that impacts short of extinction should matter more. I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." If accessing extinction specifically, as opposed to just a big non-existential impact, is important to your impact-framing arguments, then you should justify that last internal link.

CP

Make sure you specify the status of your Counter Plan in the constructive. If you do not have a properly warranted solvency advocate in the constructive, the chances that I will vote on the counter plan are slim to none. Make sure you establish a strong link chain and ensure that the plan itself is competitive.

Theory/T

Unless it's Disclosure theory, I WILL NOT evaluate any out-of-round abuse. If you want theory to be the highest layer of offense in the debate, make sure you explicitly state it. The only exceptions are theory shells which involve actual real-world norm-setting, that isn't ridiculous (like shoes and clothes theory). For Theory/T, I default to competing interps and Drop the Argument.

Kritiks

I can always appreciate a well-written Kritik, however, do not make an attempt to commodify for the sake of picking up a ballot. Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. Minimum standard of clarity: don't phrase your alternative as an infinitive.None of this "the alt is: to reject, to challenge, to deconstruct, etc" business. It needs a clearly specified actor.

+1 speaker pt for a Starbucks frappuccino mocha/vanilla iced coffee

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic.

If you have any questions, email me at ppj1002@gmail.com

- also for the email chain if need be^

I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next. In Informative, I also look for an overall theme that is informational (thus the name) rather than persuasive.

In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD at NSDA Nationals.
In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked in the room.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.

Hey! My Name is Conor Rice

I am one of your traditional style judges! I am an NSDA Alumni and I used to compete in the various speaking events.

What I Look for as a Judge:

Speaking Events (OO, INFO, NX, DX, FX)

I look heavy on the content side of these speeches because good content is what makes a speech truly effective. I also do expect a performance of a good content speech is pointless if it is not well presented. I want to feel that personal reason why I should care about the topic. Bring me into the topic and hit me with the facts through an engaging speech. For INFO I want to see the true connection with the audience do not let your props become an obstacle.

Acting Events (Prose, Poetry, HI, DI, POI, DUO, DUET)

I want to see the story (beginning, middle, and end) of your piece and you truly feel it. The pieces that make it the furthest are the ones where you can see the person having fun and loving it. I want to be able to tell this piece is well-rehearsed and not thrown together minutes before the round. I love good blocking and choreography and will always highlight it in the feedback I write. I also look for the small details the attention to detail in the blocking. Ex: How you hold and pick up things.

Debate Events:

LD/PF:

I am looking for a clear framework and articulated argument with a clear structure. Tell me your value and crit and side post so I know exactly where you are in the argument.

WSD:

I need to see a clear framework and structure for the speeches and arguments. In the reply speech, I really want to see you clarify your team's argument and crystalize it, don't use this time to attack the other case.

Sincerely, Conor Rice

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

I am sometimes asked prior to the beginning of a round if I might offer any additional insight into my paradigm or I might be asked a question pertaining to what I might identify as key voting issues. I do hope all of you take the time to read through all of the paradigms posted as they are for your benefit. I might argue that if you do that in advance it should help you determine what each of us is looking for. For the record, I do have an extensive background in the forensic world of debate at both the high school and college level. I debated for Bellaire High School from 1973 to 1976 where I learned to win quite often and for four plus years on a full debate scholarship at Houston Baptist University. I competed in high school and in college in policy debate (CX) and competed at a national level during my college years. Although it's been awhile since those days filled with stress and with competition, I have been judging off and on the past 12 years and I certainly have a few opinions to share with you perhaps best referred to as some friendly advice.

Like any good judge ought to insist upon during any round, my decision is based upon what the contestants themselves argue during the round, based upon extensions advanced to the flow and of course based upon what does persuade me or does appear most compelling at the end of the round. I do actively take down cites on most evidence read during a round and respectfully, I will not need a road map from you. That's probably helpful though for you guys to share between you. By now surely we all know that there should be no new arguments presented during rebuttals. I would also hope that debaters at all levels understand and fully embrace the notion that competition during a debate as a battle of wits ought to come down to winning arguments that can be proven and are linked quite reasonably. In my own mind, it ought to be fairly clear for me to see by the end of a round what the important voting issues are and why. I suggest trying to limit repeating what you have already said and instead focus upon extending your own case and or arguments as your key arguments. Any success during the round should be sought through purposeful and thoughtful clash with your opponents on the flow. I tend to look for and typically best follow teams that extend effectively in ways in which I can still flow where it belongs. I tend to defer to the team who best persuasively convinces me that their intended plan of action is much better than the other based upon evidence, reasoning and logic.

I am also asked if I can handle a fast speed or for that matter, the flow. I try never to be rude when I might retort in response that there is simply no way they or anyone else could ever be any faster than he and I were while debating the likes of Harvard, Georgetown etc. in that college setting I mentioned. Nevertheless, speed can still kill a good argument due to a lack of application, lack of explanation or simply because it was unintelligibly spit out. At high speed your killer evidence may indeed just become lost upon the deaf ears of a lay judge or even upon the perky ears of seemingly competent judges doing their very best to follow you. Your successes will be most often determined by you, your style and by your unique ability to fully connect the dots on the flow for all to see. You must be prepared to make your evidence and arguments count with great force in such a way that it sticks with your judge. I do accept most reasonable arguments as presented during a round especially those that are well defended with evidence, with logic and sound reasoning. I believe strongly in a professional courteous exchange at all times during a round, especially during crossfire. Cross fire is certainly not the time to keep on arguing with your opponent thinking they will agree that you are going to win. We all accept that you will probably never agree with the other side on this day of battle (until you must debate the opposite side of the flip), but use your CX time not to help set the record straight for everyone but instead to win. Utilize this precious time to seek out and gain needed clarification providing clarity for your own purposes. Responses given during cross fire are binding unless dropped or explained in context. If properly employed crossfire time can certainly make a difference in the result of the round.

Let me state it more clearly, if you are rude, obnoxious or loud during crossfire exchanges you do rub most judges the wrong way. Lastly, you might be surprised how many debaters do not do a very good job telling me as a judge why I should vote for them. Typically they insist that I must vote their way. Tell me why and keep telling me why. It begins with those first two constructive speeches in which clash is fully expected and undertaken. For the record, I do not give decisions or feedback at the end of a preliminary round, but of course I do during elimination rounds as allowed. My ballot will generally always make it crystal clear to both parties why I voted the way I did, agree or disagree. Debate is and always has been intended to be a fun, exciting activity and of course, highly competitive. Highly competitive though is not defined by talking over someone during cross fire or by being rude to another or by speaking much faster and much louder than others. I view forensic activities as a whole to be in large part preparation for your future endeavors in life with the potential to help one distinguish between what is true in theory and what might actually happen in the real world.

In terms of student Congress and Senate competition, I have judged those events often over the past 12 years and I do enjoy it immensely. It is still all about the numbers if you desire to win at a high level so naturally it does matter how many bills you are prepared to address with substance and it matters what you have to say about the subject. Your ability to effectively and respectfully question your peers effectively when called upon is critical to help garner a judges attention. It might help if you try and visualize Congress being in session and accept that you are literally debating a bill on the floor. Respect for each other, your demeanor and your own ability to participate is vital to making a great impression on your judge. Embrace that role and allow your efforts from the minute you walk into the room be dedicated to collaborating with others alongside representatives you hope might be persuaded to vote for the bill you choose to defend. If you go into a student congress event be prepared to participate, that is why you are in the session itself.

Individual events tend to be speeches or performances where you are on your own for the most part. It's important if you do want to place and compete that you make every effort to most effectively utilize the time you have been given to speak. A short speech is just that, it's short and often way too short. Proper use of mannerisms, natural body movements and practicing a deliberate and confident style used to deliver your piece is critical to success. Judges do tend to remember a genuine smile, a look or feel feel of sincerity and almost always naturally connect to the dynamic use of voice, dialog and diction patterns. It does not matter where you are in the speaking rotation. I can assure you, judges are waiting in earnest looking for you to stand right up their and knock their socks off so just do it.

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"

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki