I did CX debate for three years in high school (Irma Rangel YWLS) mainly through the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance. I have also worked with DUDA and its students since graduating in 2016. I also have some experience with judging and participating in UIL tournaments.

I prefer clarity > speed to best follow your arguments and debate. A good debate is where you're engaging with your opponents arguments and effectively and clearly refuting their points with quality evidence. Clear, concise and well structured debates are best. You should be able to clearly summarize the debate and give a compelling RFD at the end. Creative and non-traditional arguments are welcome as long as they're effectively communicated. Although I love hearing creative arguments they can be difficult to follow if they're not delivered effectively and I do tend to lean toward straightforward and practical arguments.

I expect debaters to be respectful and debates to be civilized. Please refrain from using pretentious/condescending language when addressing your opponents arguments in speeches. I take this into account when assigning speaker points.

Besides that - I love debate and I love learning more from you all through judging ~ !

Great job in your presentation.

Racism, sexism, ableism, or any similar things recieve 0 points speaks and will not win a round. Otherwise, I am open to any form or argumentation.

*everything* in debate except for the above statement is up for debate

Strong arguments won beat weak arguments dropped (usually)

I debated CX through college so I can handle any speed *if you are clear and not pushing past capability*

isaiah1415@gmail.com

I did policy debate at Townview Law Magnet & UTD. Minor experience in LD & World Schools. Currently work with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

Make the debate what you want it to be. I like creativity, think outside of the box, take risks, warrant everything.

Im not partial to anything, nor do I not like to see any particular arguments.

I will be listening to you, not reading your docs.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions.

Tim Glass
Policy Coach, Southern Methodist University (2010 - 2013)
Policy Coach, University of Illinois (2005-2007)
Policy Debater, Miami (OH) University (2001-2005)
Rounds on topic: Whatever it says below
Years Judging: 10+
Updated 9/23

I work as a "policy-maker", not an academic or philosopher, and I am not a full-time debate coach/judge. I try to know as much as possible about the topic and critical questions but cannot make any guarantees.

***Paperless Debate - I'm adopting the emerging consensus on this: your prep time use ends when you hand the flash drive over to your opponents OR insert it into the viewing computer. Also, please limit what you hand your opponents to what you honestly intend to read - don't give them your entire Saudi DA file when you're only reading page 17. Let's make paperless debate habits mimic what was the norm in the paper days.

----------

AFFs - I believe that the affirmative case must support the resolution (i.e. must be "topical"). That is not limiting to any styles of debate or ways of engaging the topic, but "critiquing the resolution" is generally, in my mind, negative ground only.

Theory - I tend to favor the team that's doing more explanation/comparison rather than try to hunt through little a)-gg) from both teams. Don't just read blocks back and forth with each other. Impact your arguments and make comparisons.

T - I am not afraid to vote on topicality. T is all about comparison. I have no strong preference for in-round abuse vs. competing interpretations vs. jurisdiction.

K - I prefer specificity and explanation to evidence. The density of critical evidence requires more reflection by the teams and better strategic use of the specific warrants to each argument.

Evidence - I'll defer to the debaters in their speech. To avoid this use your evidence - cite the cards, explain the warrants, only use well-warranted evidence whenever possible. If your card is better but the other team explains their card better, then they win the point, sorry.

Case - I love a good case debate. I enjoy case turns and takeouts. I give teams that do good impact analysis and evidence comparison way more leeway when making a decision than teams that don't but instead over-focus on line-by-line arguments without giving me a picture, particularly in final rebuttals.

Risk calculation / framework - I default to a utilitarian viewpoint unless otherwise instructed by the outcome of the round's argumentation, but I am open to any well-reasoned method of evaluating a debate round. I do believe that there is such a thing as "zero risk" of an advantage or disad if defensive arguments are devastating enough.

Performance - I'm okay with it but I think like many others I have seen its value diminish over time. I do not want to hear a 9 minute song and then call it a speech (if it's not the original work of the debater giving the "speech"). That won't get you many speaker points, just like reading a single nine minute card would not. Fusing music or dance or whatever with your own speech act is probably the best way. If you're going to play a song or video, make it useful for you.

Other notes / personal quirks:
-I try not to give non-verbals as I don't want to influence the round as it happens - the only exception is to ask for a speaker to be "clearer";
-Generally I also don't want to be asked questions or something as part of a speech (I don't want my answers to influence arguments);
-No RVIs, don't care;
-No shouting in Cross-X; tag-teaming is cool but keep it to a minimum, don't have a dominant partner; I pay attention to, and might even flow, CX;
-No swearing preferred, there are more persuasive words than "f**k";

If you have questions email me at glasstc@gmail.com

HS Policy Debate: 3 Years

College Policy Debate: 2 years

Ran mostly K leaning arguments when I debated. Open to anything being read in front of me.

I value two things in particular:

1) Explain to me why you won at the end of the debate, my favorite debates are the ones where the debaters write the RFD for me.

2) When debates turn into a question of which pedagogy should be preferred, I am very swayed by the transferability of one form of pedagogy over another outside of the debate round.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts!

*If you are reading this before a debate. Stop. Set up your email chain, include me - mgregg@dallasisd.org. I would also like to sit far away, near an outlet. Thank you for respecting me and my space <3

I am currently the Analytics Coordinator and Director of Debate at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School in Dallas. I am also a teacher - AP Statistics, AP Seminar, Government, and Debate. Short version: I was deeply involved in high school and college debate (as a competitor and coach) a decade ago. I am now a teacher/administrator and work closely with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance to create curriculum, files, coach support, and more.

This is too lengthy, but better to overdo I suppose...

Background:

-High School: 3 years at Oak Park River Forest HS (IL) - 2005-2007 (TOC)

-College: 4 years at Northwestern University 2007-2011 (top-ten first round, 2 time NDT elims)

-High School coaching during college: Oak Park River Forest HS (2007-2011)

-High School coaching after college: Glenbrook North HS (IL), Niles North High School (IL) (2012-2013), Stephen F. Austin High School (2013-2014)

-High School coaching as a teacher: The Science and Engineering Magnet High School, 2014-2019, The Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School, 2019-present (Dallas Urban Debate Alliance)

-I've taught at the Northwestern Debate Institute, the Jayhawk Debate Institute, and the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Too old for that now.

Two general things:

1. I will not read along with you. I would like to be on the email chain for after the debate. Keep this in mind as you make decisions about clarity/speed.

2. I value evidence quality very very much. I will vote on no link.

(3.) If this is UIL state, I do abide by UIL rules regarding speed that interferes with communication. If I think that you're doing that, I'll say slow or something once.

While I have been actively coaching and researching the past eight years, I have not participated much in "national circuit" debate. I attend UIL state and NAUDL nationals with my students, but aside from those debates, I do not typically judge high-speed or high-tech debate. I still think that I can flow and understand advanced debates, but if I'm honest with myself I know if I were your age I would be skeptical of that claim. I will say that I try my best, really enjoy judging debates, and get it right more often than I'm wrong.

My experience has mostly been with traditional policy-making debate, but I also debated critical arguments. I tend to default to deciding whether the status quo is better than the aff or a competitive alternative presented by the negative. Pretty open to what the aff, competition, and alternative mean.

I think most people are looking for insight in how a judge resolves debates, so here's some information on that:

-Topicality: T isn't big in DUDA because we have a disclosure system that basically makes it unnecessary. I don't see many T debates, but I tend to default to competing interpretations and think that the neg needs to have pretty good interpretation evidence. Not really willing to vote for a topic that while limited, is not predictable for the aff. I recommend reading fewer interpretation cards - just read your best ones, quality not quantitiy. In the 2NR, it's really helpful if you stick to the 1AR structure/line by line, I know that can't always be done but ideal.

-Ks: I like them. I find them interesting. Much more interesting if you slow down a little, and definitely interested in how you apply your philosophy/thesis to the affirmative, resolution, and policy-making. I'd advise having an alternative (see above). Winning root cause does not mean you win. Tell me the role of the judge/ballot. I also really like arguments about how the K turns/interacts with the case. Evidence - it's fine to have really long cards, but I appreciate tags that preview what's going on, much more so than rhetorically powerful statements or analogies.

-Plans: I prefer them, but I have voted for affs with no plans many times. If you go for framework, I'd advise reading evidence on how the education offered through policy simulation on this particular topic is useful, and comparatively apply that to the education debate.

Speaker points - I really value partner communication and kindness towards your opponents (like a lot a lot). I don't like to read along with you, and I tend to get grouchy when you don't attempt to flow (if your order is "overview, link debate, impact debate, new sheet, underview", rethink that). Please keep the round moving in terms of tech, use people's names/pronouns, and just generally be an enjoyable person to hang out with for two hours. Always time yourself and each other. Not into hand shakes (pre-COVID) but now I'm just not into being near anyone, but do appreciate using your legal-sized copy paper :)

Misc - Ethics challenges means we stop the debate, so make sure you can support your claim/if I were to investigate it that you would be correct. Card clipping, cross-reading, evidence fabrication/misrepresentation are all reasons you lose (the round, speaker points, my respect). Clearly mark your evidence by saying "Mark the card at" or something like that and physically mark your speech doc. Provide a marked copy to me and the competitors immediately after your speech.

Email chain: mgregg@dallasisd.org

Questions? Ask before the debate. Have fun!

Hello! :)

My debate knowledge and experience has grown over the past 6 years, beginning when I assisted with DUDA tournaments in 2016. After learning about the behind-the-scenes operations of a debate tournament, I stepped into the role of judge at DUDA tournaments. I then (assistant) coached debate at Pinkston Preparatory Collegiate Academy in West Dallas, later taught and coached debate at Innovation, Design, and Entrepreneurship Academy (IDEA) in Old East Dallas, and currently sponsor debate at Townview TAG.

As a coach, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of students rather than an expert on policy or policy debate; however, I will do my best to provide feedback that you can incorporate right away to improve your speeches or overall performance for the subsequent rounds.

I prefer clarity over speed. You may spread as long as your partner, opponents, and judge can understand you.

I LOVE to see students shine as they participate in something they're passionate about. Are you excited? Are you knowledgeable? Are you listening to your opponents' arguments? Are you responsive to them? Are you asking incisive questions? Are you innovative, thoughtful, insightful? Great! That's what I'm looking for at every tournament and in every debate.

Additionally, please be respectful, kind, and supportive of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Let's create a productive competitive space that encourages discourse.

I'm a stock issues judge, unless you give me a reason to switch paradigms. I like to think I'm a blank slate, but then I have to have some basis for making a decision, so I default to the stock issues.

I am a new assistant coach for debate this school year (2022-2023) at Lassiter Early College High School in Dallas ISD. I judge Policy.

Experience:

September 2022: attended DUDA Training Workshop (for coaches); NSDA conference (2 days) in Rockwall, TX

October 2022: judged two rounds of Policy at a MS DUDA tournament; judged four rounds of Policy at HS DUDA tournament

Hi! I'm Derek Liles, the Executive Director of Dallas Urban Debate. I look forward to judging you.

Things I used to be: Debate Coach at Law Magnet (2016-19), Director of Programs at Dallas Urban Debate (2012-2016), Debater at UTSA (2007-2012), Debater at Dallas Jesuit (2003-2007).

Please add me to the email chain: dzliles@gmail.com.

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

Reactive, mostly grouchy updates for Spring 2018:

1) Clash: Paperless prep is great, but...I feel like in-round clash and judge adaptation is subpar these days. Learn. To. Flow. On that note, you are under no obligation to send analytic arguments when I am judging.

2) Prep time: I think that any time that is not speech time is prep time (barring things like the time it takes your speech to travel through magic tubes and arrive in the other teams' computer). However, I can't be bothered to enforce a prep policy except in the worst cases, so I'll stick to using speaker points to incentivize best practice. Bonus points to people who run a tight ship when it comes to prep time use. Minus points for those who dilly dally. Generally speaking, prep stealing occurs when you use time from some cosmic bank of prep time beyond your allotted 8 minutes. Specific scenarios that irk me: (a) "pre cx" where you ask what evidence was read - that's CX time (b) adding ev mid speech and sending it without taking prep (c) organizing flows/blocks after prep has ceased...more may be added later.

3) Stop asking me if I disclose speaker points. More than half of you don't even disclose your 1NCs. I will subtract speaker points if you ask me and my ballot hasn't already been submitted.

4) Stop throwing all of your arguments at the wall and hoping I work it out for you. Thoughtfully select a strategic end game and present me with a definitive victory path - don't leave it up to me to find it amongst the weeds. Scott Deatherage, late director of Northwestern Debate, says it best:

"CHOOSE. Choose...The first most essential lesson of effective rebutting is choice making. No matter the speech; be it the 1NR or the 2AR or any point in between...Young debaters, so anxious, every argument they think to be important, especially in rebuttals...instead it is the best arguments and the strongest points that make the effective rebutalist the winning champion in the debate...You...must in the end decide on an effective strategy for the judge. Choose for them what is the best avenue to prove conclusively that the coherent set or complete package of arguments you present as a totality in the last speech constitutes a way, a road, an avenue by which they achieve the effective end of concluding for the [aff/neg]."

<.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.><.>

General info about me and my feelings about debate:

Some overarching ideas will shape my answer to just about any question you could have about my predispositions: I've been around debate a long time and have judged/coached/debated from just about every angle. I debated at the national level in college (elims at CEDA/NDT). I have a background in policy argument from high school, but shifted very aggressively towards kritikal literature in college...that is to say, I'm receptive and fairly knowledgeable about most approaches to the topic at hand.

I think debate is best when teams effectively clash with each other, so I like when teams prioritize depth over breadth in their strategies and take time to flow/directly engage each others' ideas. I think preparation makes for good debate, so I default to the belief that teams should engage in some form of disclosure (it helped me prep at my small college team, I'm biased). I believe the value of debate comes mostly from the form of analysis it teaches you to make - less so the content of what you are advocating (barring some extreme circumstances). Make your argument as best you can and I will be happy to judge you. I'm not here to tell you what arguments to read.

I tend to be unmotivated to vote on theory - debate should be hard and focused on substantive issues. It's easy to convince me to reject the argument, not the team - so in front of me, you will be better off using theory to close doors on key components of your opponents' strategies. If you plan to go for theory, develop your objection early, rather than starting with a 10 second blip. Theory seems like even more of a cheap shot when it becomes a serious issue only in the last speech.

Bad arguments: Some arguments - impact turns that have "jumped the shark," ASPEC, contrived scenarios, etc. - are just bad (at least I think so). I feel like we all know when it's a bad argument, and if you don't, my reactions will probably make it clear how I feel. I'm likely to intervene or allow a lot of flexibility for your opponents to add arguments in rebuttals against them. "It's not new if it's true!"

Speaker points: I generally range between 28-29.5. Some things (not described in update section) that affect my calculus:

• Act like you want to be here - after judging several rounds, nothing is more refreshing than watching someone who is passionate, engaged, friendly, etc. I also appreciate humor, and unlike some people, respect the beauty of punny wordplay.
• I think debate is a communication activity - lack of clarity in terms of speaking style or strategic endpoint will impact your speaker points and my ability to give your argument the consideration it's due. Concerning speed, start at 80% so I can warm up to your voice and ease into full tilt over 30 seconds.
• I prefer strategic depth over breadth. See rant at top - but in more detail: if starting with several sheets of paper, I'd prefer you resolutely condense the debate to a handful of core issues by the end. Less moving parts = less for me to resolve after the round = less likely I'll have to resolve it for you = more likely you control my perception of what happened in the debate. This also means you need to actively close doors in the last speeches, and I reward debaters who find unique ways to cross-apply concessions to their advantage.
• AFF side bias/musings of a slighted 2N - I think 2ARs get away with murder when it comes to resuscitating advantages that were completely absent or barely in the 2AC & 1AR. I will have no hesitation to entirely dismiss or assign overwhelmingly low risk to advantages that re-appear/weren't fully developed until the 2AR.
• I am very open to the idea that there is zero risk of an argument/averse to the ".01% risk of extinction = extinction" form of impact calculus - sometimes, it only takes a smart analytic/CX question about an internal link to get me to reject a preposterous terminal impact. If I'm smirking while flowing, it means you're doing well and can probably expect me to back you up in the post-round.
• Bad evidence - old man moment: there are so many terrible cards in debate. Speaker points to anyone who publicly shames bad ev & the people that read it.

Small soapbox moment: I try to be attentive to the ways in which normative structures of gender, sexuality, race (and so on) affect student participation in this activity. Debate should be fun, respectful and accessible. Our activity shouldn't lose voices out of a stubborn commitment to remaining aloof of these dynamics, so don't participate in those systems in round and we're good.

I look forward to judging you!
Questions? Email me: dzliles@gmail.com

• Understanding of the arguments
• Organized
• Refutation
• Reasoning
• Smooth Cross-Examination
• Engaging and persuasive communication
• Good presentation (speaking skills, etc)
• Teamwork

I prefer clarity over spreading.

I am not the biggest fan of K's. However, I am a huge fan of T shells and CP's if done properly

Please add me on the email chain: hosegueda@dallasisd.org

Hello! I am the debate coach at North Lake Early College High School in Dallas, Texas.

I do not have any preference for arguments.Tell me explicitly why I as a judge should vote for you.

Clarity is important to me. I am generally flowing what you are saying and not what is on the speech doc in front of me.

I do not mind speed, but if I can’t understand what you’re saying, that is probably not good for you.

CX is good for me order to evaluate how well you know your arguments.

I value unique positions and interesting , but every claim should have its warrant. I believe debate is first and foremost a communication event, so I am looking to how well you can convey your position to me and everything that goes with it. I will vote on what you tell me to vote for - big on role of the ballot/judge args.

Background on me

I am not new to the debate world, I did public forum, LD, and policy for three years in high school but not at all at a competitive level - just for funzies.

I like to tell myself that I am a much better coach than debater. My teams have won city championships debating in the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance and this is our first real foray into the world of TFA.

I look forward to learning a lot and listening to fun debates. All this to say I can hang (I like k, k affs, no plans, open to what aff, neg actually mean) but I need reasons to vote and I need it to make sense to me. I think it is good practice in rebuttals to simplify what your team is saying

Experience: I am a first year Middle School debate coach, however I did policy debate at my high school in New Jersey.

Speed: Some speed is ok as long as you're clear (not crazy speed). If you can't speak both quickly and clearly, slow down.

Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

Speaker Points: Your level of courtesy is my primary concern here.  Be self-aware of your posture and demeanor. Enunciate. Each speech should have evidence of organization. Use all your time.

In all styles, it comes down to the same thing: it's your job as a debater to convince me to vote for you. It's not my burden to make sense of arguments that are muddled, incomplete, poorly organized etc.

Always remember have fun and good luck!

Tristan Rios (they/them)

BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email

Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain

for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar

who on hell is Tristan?

I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)

last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams

I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) but I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.

Non-negotiables

- misgendering

- trigger warnings

- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater

General Thoughts/Preferences

• generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
• I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
• I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
• I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

Speaks

if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks

if u open source + 0.1 speaks

Note for LD:

i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences

Hello, I've been judging policy debate since the Fall of 2020 to the present (Spring of 2024). This is my second year serving as head debate coach, and I also have experience in LD and World Schools Debate.

Previously to being a High School AP World History teacher at the School of the Talented and Gifted at Townview in Dallas, I served as an instructor in both the English and the Latin American Latino Studies Departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where I incorporated debate into my courses.

As such, my approach to judging could be described as a synthesis between a policy making judge and a tabula rasa judge. When deciding a round I try to put myself into the shoes of a national legislator who must vote for the best policy offered in the debate, focusing on the AFFs plan and the NEGs ability to clash on the feasibility implementing the AFF or the NEGs ability to present a more preferable counter plan. And I like to adopt the posture of a tabula rasa judge because it is unfair for judge's to vote based on their own knowledge of the issues and/or their own politics.

So, I leave it to the debaters to demonstrate gaps in the opponent's plans, contradictions of values, or to extend each others timelines, minimize each others magnitudes, break link chains, impact calculus etc. As such, your rebuttals are key for giving me a path to voting for your plan, so be sure to flow the debate, and give your most strategic clashes for the most important grounds.

And, for me anyway, whatever you say under your timed speech always already enters the record as grounds for the debate, I do not strike out previously made claims if you happen to lose on those grounds later on in the match.

Also, I really appreciate it when students argue in good faith about the resolution as opposed to when students choose to argue about the rules of policy debate instead. I mean, in a way, it makes sense. Students should not introduce new evidence in rebuttals and if something like that occurs, then I am flexible to hearing your claims. But if the entire hour-and-a-half round is about the technicalities of CX policy debate then I feel like we are wasting our time / avoiding the actual topic.

Final note: debaters must use evidence ethically, quoting with integrity to the source. If your evidence gets called into question and it is clear that the evidence says the opposite of what you claim, or does not exist, then this may impact the way that particular argument is evaluated. Please CC me into the round's email chain entitled" Tournament name, Round #, school-1 vs school-2" at: nesandoval@dallasisd.org

I am a first-year middle school debate coach. I am here to enjoy your ideas and arguments without personal or political judgement. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals!

Email chain - solomonsonofwat@gmail.com

Whats good.

To treat people as people is my governing maxim, for debate it is to treat arguments as arguments. This activity lacks any coherence without a judge who adheres to such a universal. The energy generated in this activity relies on the thesis that everyone's argument will be heard, recognized, and reason will be in the decision.

Reason is the product of a unity between the particular argument and the universal debate, reason as the substantive new achieved only at the moment of synthesis of the particular and the universal. Biases are not only inevitable but to some degree necessary, to the degree any objectivity can be achieved it is through recognition of the self’s position in the universe.

I competed at grady (now midtown) high school as an ambassdor from the atlanta udl, later coaching for the atlanta ambassdors (grady, decatur, roswell, etc) from 2018-2020. In 2022, I graduated with a political science degree from utd, after competing there for 4 ½ years. And continued briefly coaching at utd before enrolling in the philosophy, politics, and economics masters program at the university of groningen.

While there is likely a good number in this judging pool with more experience/success in both debate and education, my experience can still make my ear somewhat demanding in certain conversations. As a competitor I approached debate as a game of exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, with the round itself a puzzle to be solved. This approach led to my participation (as both competitor and judge) in high level policy, K v K, and clash debates. My background has made me both familiar with a wide number of literature bases and argument genres, consequently I'm agnostic to both style and content. All I’m looking for are arguments.

When it comes to an argument, I’m looking for a claim with a warrant that’s has an implication for the round/debate at large. A conceded claim with a warrant is not a conceded argument, because it may lack an explicit explanation about the claim’s implication for the round. My commitment to treat arguments as arguments leads me to focus on reading arguments as they are presented and not if they are true. This commitment also leaves me in total deference to the arguments made by students about what the round is about, what the role of the judge or students are, and changes to the traditional calculation or weight of certain arguments.

Debates about the metaethics of the activity or the community are welcomed, in so far as you can articulate a reason why these ethical considerations are of more significance than the procedural concerns that come with alterations to the status quo of the activity. Deference to procedure for the sake of procedure is not always a sufficient defense of the procedure in question. Debates about the metaethics of debates are often most aided by comparing the benefits or harms of proposed models of debate rather than technical conversations that may proliferate the flow.

As the judge I do not allow, merely adjudicate. If you want to do something, make the argument for why you should do it. 2nc cps? Word PICs? Floating PICs? Make the argument and argue it, as the judge I will adjudicate who won. The door to creativity will be left open. Creation of arguments is the self-expression of debaters; self-expression is the life blood of self-aware creatures. Creativity can only exist with limitations, precisely as something for creativity to overcome. The precise boundaries of the limits of the round are for the competitors to argue.

Adjudication is a process of reading arguments through a combination of their technical presentation, offense defense framing, evidentiary/warranted support, and implication for the round. I flow on my computer and will passively read evidence throughout the round. Therefore, I tend not to need card docks after rounds, even in policy debates. That being said, if specific attention is made to a piece of evidence or the debate otherwise hinges on a piece(s) of evidence I will return to it.

My commitment to non-interventionism spills over to my conduct, I tend to say and interact as little as possible during the round. The debate is for the debaters to define, I’m merely an observer. My ballots tend to be littered with misspellings and grammatical incorrections. Generally, I use the ballot as a space for me to cohere my thoughts into a comprehensible rfd, from which I essentially use as a script for my oral feedback. If post facto questions exist about a ballot I encourage reaching out by email for clarity.

To treat people as people is very important to me, any actions on the part of competitors during the round that would negate this maxim will be rewarded with speaker point deductions or a loss depending on the severity. Moves that deny the personhood of participants based on otherization, class, race, gender, ability, religion, migrant status, etc are clear violations, be they epistemic, discursive, or interpersonal. Essentially, don't be an ass.

The debaters who presented their ideas in a more logical and convincing way play a critical role in determining which team is going to win.