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

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

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

General: Send cases to agbasinger@gmail.com. Trained through NSDA and NFHS. Will disclose through writing immediately after the round.

LD/CX/PF:

Generally speaking, things I like to see:

-Signposting is so important.

-VCV or framework explicitly stated and aligned to arguments and evidence throughout the case.

-a classical approach to debate that values depth of argument over speed and spread. Technical language is okay but should be defined.

-Negative has the burden of rejoinder. No rejoinder, no win.

-CX that challenges to the links between definition and framework, evidence and impact, and VCV and framework.

-Clearly stated impact calculus (probability/substantiality, magnitude, severity, timeframe).

-direct and sustained clash that leads to clarification of positions.

-Voters being mentioned early and often.

Things that I think weaken or sink a case:

-Poor definition work from generalized sources or definitions that play little role in case development.

-Citing specific data as 'common knowledge'.

-Hodgepodge cases: your definitions come from Blackwell's Law, your C1 cards come from 1980's Russian Nuclear scientist, your C2 cards come from The New Yorker, your c3 cards come from an experimental geological research journal and your framework is util and justice. Stick to a lane and work from that lane- legal, scientific, popular theory, something consistent holds more weight that trying to link disciplines that require multiple degrees before you can read the industry material with any level of comprehension. In other words, good cases require continuity of understanding and depth of knowledge.

Kritiks:

-Jargon-heavy kritiks that lack definition work and teams that don't challenge these kritiks.

-Deconstructive kritiks, particularly in their anti-colonialist form, have their place in debate as red flags in our collective conscience, but they do not constitute a counterplan. You must provide an alternative.

-Kritiks are inherently philosophically loaded positions. If your K shifts the debate from policy to values you must define and defend your values. Kritiks require strong linking and framework not just a cut card of implications.

Case sharing and good sportsmanship:

-If your team asks to see a case, you provide the case first.

-You provide the case you are running, not cards that 'you might run'. Unethical.

-There is no rule that says you MUST provide a case to an opposing team. You can provide a framework if you wish, either on-clock or off-clock.

-Agreeing to share cases then sharing your case moments before you compete? Bad taste.

-Frustration and anger are expected but don't let it turn to sarcasm or passive aggressive remarks. How you react to a poor competitor reflects your confidence in your case and abilities.

SPEECH EVENTS

DX/IX

Generally I prefer analysis and sourcing to style and delivery. Clearly structured is more important than having exactly three points. State your question and take a side. Bonus points for setting context and complexity through historical references and present/future impacts

POI/OO/DX/PO

I favor clear characterization and the elements of plot. Creating building tension, owning the stage, and balancing verbal/nonverbal elements of drama is important to me. Filling the entire clock is less important than the art of storytelling, but generally I don't rank sub 5 minute piece well.

Rachel Brooks

Teaching Experience: Pre-K, Kindergarten; College: Certification Examination Preparation; Middle School: Language Arts, Reading; High School: English 1, English 4, Debate 1-4, Yearbook 1-4, Archery

Education: B.A. English, B.S.E. Secondary Education, M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction, Cert. in Women and Gender Studies, Cert. in Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies

Judging Expectations: I coach and compete in the UIL circuit so I mostly adhere to UIL guidelines and UIL handbooks. That means I will be looking at time limits, speaking abilities, sources and documentation, dress/appearance/nonverbals/posture, and topic/prompt/category representation/adherence.

All speech events: Speech is an art. I will notice and judge pronunciation, enunciation, pacing, projection, breath control, inflection, affectation, tone, etc.

Extemp: My background is English, so I like standard formats. I love road maps and theses, topic sentences and transitions. You should include an introduction which states topic/purpose/claim, a body which presents points/contentions and research/sources/citations, and a conclusion. I do not like the extemp triangle - I find movement distracting.

Interp: My background is English, so I will recognize tone shifts and semantic choices. I expect you to have identified these things and use vocal cues and variations to emphasize them and enhance your reading. You must connect the piece to the prompt and explain that connection. Please consult UIL expectations regarding binders.

All debate events: Your job is to convince the judge and attack the problem, not to convince or attack your opponent. Stay on topic, stay on message, stay on goal. Be kind, be respectful, and be civil. There had better be some solid research with reliable sources, that is non-negotiable. Aggression is not inherently a problem, but if it's personal or rude, I will deduct. Speed reading is not inherently a problem, but if it sacrifices clarity, I will deduct. Jargon is not inherently a problem, but if I do not understand, I will deduct.

LD: I better hear some philosophy and you had better explain it.

CX: I better hear some good questions and you had better use your time appropriately.

For reference, I competed mainly in a Traditional circuit, so i have more experience with traditional arguments. That said, I'm not totally opposed to progressive styles when done correctly.

Speed: I can keep up with a pretty fast pace, but I do based my evaluation of the round based on the flow. Meaning if you go too fast for me to flow, it won't get counted towards the round

Role of the ballot: i believe the ballot is to determine if the resolution should be affirmed or rejected. as such, I only value arguments on the affirmative that affirm the resolution itself and arguments of the negative that reject the resolution itself.

Plans: I generally am comfortable with plans if they are within the scope of the resolution.

Counterplan: I am okay with counterplans on the neg that are still negating the resolution. I don't like Counterplans that are just affirming the resolution in a different way.

K arguments: Topical K's to the resolution are generally okay. I don't value non-topical K's and am not a big fan of Language K's.

Theory: Theory is fine as a mechanism to argue against abusive tactics in debate.

Relax, Breath and Have FUN!!

You GOT this...

Background:

I am currently a volunteer with Mrs.Wendy Curran Meyer at The Colony High School! I am VERY excited to be working with her and ALL of the GREAT TCHS Speech/Debate Students!

I have 30 + years of experience in the Speech/Debate/Theatre Arena as a Coach/Teacher in North Texas (UIL, TFA, NFL, Etc.).

I have 6 years of experience as a competitor in HS and College. Competing in Invitationals, District, Regional, State & National Tournaments!

Remember:

I must be able to UNDERSTAND you...

I must be able to HEAR you...

Flow smoothly...

No racism, hate speech, homophobia and/or sexism will be tolerated! Have respect for your audience, judge and each other.

Thank You & Good Luck to ALL!

Please, feel free to ask me any questions!

Policy Maker/Tab

I view the round more or less as a Tabula Rasa judge, but you can run just about anything. I'm pretty flexible I just need to know what your talking about, why its important, and what impact is has in and out of the round. Pen down means your judge isn't following your argument. Spreading at a speaking event makes no sense, but I'll listen to it as I grew up with it in round. Spreading Theory blocks I listen to a lot because this is a speaking event and I have to give you speaker points.

Theory

I'll vote on it, but it has got to be obvious and perfectly executed. The logical ground work must be there as well as standards and voters. If you go for everything AND theory in the end with no strat, expected to be voted down.

The K

I'm more of a realist, so abstract Alts are just that to me... abstract. real world Alts are good. I'll definitely listen to and vote on the K because I'm a bit of a games player judge but it must be ran correctly. Be sure you give me framework and do the logic leg work.

Stock Issues

I like a clean clashing rounds. If you can give me that, more quality evidence over quantity, and have a good strat and build in the 2NR (no shotguns), you can have the ballot. I WANT SUBSTANCE!

T

Topicality is a necessary portion of debate, but one thing I really hate is time suck T's. Although, if the other team is obviously off topic, you better throw a T.

CP
Love them. You should definitely do it, ill bite on condo, or no condo, ill literally take anything here, just make sure its run well. No Net benefits means no vote from me.

DA

Love disads because many of the time they actually make sense. Humanity is consequentialist by nature so this is the most accepted argument for a reason. I am ok voting for a generic disad if you can make it stick. The more specific the better though. Practical impacts are better than the oh so common, nuclear war scene, but I will vote on nuclear war if it sticks in the round and you actually pull its weight across the debate. Just saying "drag across the impact of nuclear war" isn't going to cut it. GIVE ME SUBSTANCE, GIVE ME THE STORY.

Performance

I can work with performance debate. I will vote on a K AFF if its executed well. Make sure it makes coherent sense to me and your audience and its content is clearly expressed.

Paperless/Prep

Flash Drive out of the computer and then we stop time. Hands off mouse/computer while opponents get the files up. TIME YOURSELVES! I'm ok with Speech Drop but you shouldn't be prepping while partner is dropping speech.

Have a good time... Speaker points go down if you're brash, nasty, and being uncalled for. Explain yourself well, play the game when you must, and also use this time to prepare you to become a well educated and fluent speaker. You control how the debate works, not my paradigm. Lets talk Policy and debate well!

In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized cards or speeches. I also value communication. If you talk too speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.

IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.

And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.

I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.

Good luck, all!

I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have coached some CX, and I married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.

LD Debate:

I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

PFD:

See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.

CX/Policy:

I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.

EXTEMP DEBATE

This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.

General Debate: I follow clear line-by-line arguments, I should not have to work hard to follow your arguments or understand what you are trying to prove. Clear extensions with solid analysis will win the round, but being rude won’t. If your plan to win is to interrupt your opponents you are going to have a tough time. I'm good with speed, just slow down in tags, dates, and authors. Just because it’s on your doc doesn’t mean you read it. If you set up an email chain my email is alyson.spencer@kellerisd.net. I have experience competing and judging in LD, CX, and PF so I know how the game is played. Let me know if you have any questions.

Case: Clear arguments that are well laid out are the way to go. I prefer the quality over quantity. Your goal should be to win because you have a better case not smother your opponent in arguments.
T: This is important. I don’t care how much of a positive impact comes from your case, if it doesn’t link in it will not win. Proving this sooner rather than later is key.
DAs and CPs: Do it, I’m game.
Ks and KAff: Prove that it is true and relevant and you got it.
Theory: I don’t buy theories that waste my time. If you are going to run a theory make it worth my time and energy.

Hi, I'm Lylliam! (She/Her)

I graduated Aubrey High School in 2021 and am now at Texas Woman's University until Dec 2024.

I debated LD for 2 years and then switched to Policy CX Debate for my last two years of high school. I competed in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and TOC tournaments and have qualified to TFA state, placed (3rd) at UIL state (4A CX), and have won a district championship in CX debate. I also competed in Extemporaneous speaking for all of my high school career and qualified to regionals several times.

I have been judging all kinds of speech and debate events for over three years now. However, I mostly judge CX debate, LD debate, and Extemp speaking events. I judge several invitational and district tournaments in UIL (3A-6A), TFA, and NSDA circuits.

I have 7+ years of experience combined (4 as a competitor, 3 as a judge).

GENERAL STUFF

Be nice, respectful, and professional to one another. Don't create hostile spaces. Trigger warnings, no slurs (without agency to use), etc.

Be courteous and don't steal prep, or use the internet when you're not allowed to, or clip. Just don't compete dirty.

Your speaks will take a dock if you do any of the above.

Do not read anything anti-immigration in front of me under any circumstance please and thank you. The same goes for anything racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic etc. Use common sense, don't be hateful, and be good people.

DEBATE

Please add me to the email chain- lylliamo@gmail.com

Speech drop is also good.

I expect you to keep your own times (especially in varsity).

If you're spreading some long typed out analytics and/or pre-written blocks please send them in the email chain or in speech drop it makes life so much easier.

I read K's and competed against K's during high school, and have also judged several K rounds. So yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER don't assume I, or your opponents, know of your specific literature and are aware of all the jargon. Please don't assume I'm smarter than I am, explain the terminology and why your lit matters in today's round and all that good stuff. I'm probably most qualified to judge queer theory K's since I mostly read queer abolition in high school. I love a good K round so do it well and make me happy! :)

However, be mindful of Performance K's and Theory in front of me, I don't feel I am qualified to evaluate these rounds.

Policy v. policy rounds are perfectly okay, I truly do appreciate a good policy round.

Compete in what you feel most comfortable with, and what you do best.

Progressive LD is good!!!

Also I enjoy FW debate.

I don't like wash debates, don't make me vote on presumption.

Also I hate personal anecdotes in debate.

!!!WARRANT OUT ARGUMENTS AND EXTENSIONS!!!

ROB/ROJ arguments are great.

Open CX is okay.

Stand/sit wherever you'd like, be comfortable.

Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices.

Love, love, love voters in rebuttals.

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps.

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I seek to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Hello,

I am a husband, father of five kids, and supervisor in the insurance industry. I enjoy reading and applying contract language, hearing arbitration disputes, and coaching my direct reports on how to achieve their greatest potential. When I was in high-school I enjoyed dabbling in both debate and theatre. Now that I have high-school aged children, I'm excited to see them (and you) practice the valuable skills of critical thinking and communication. I am fairly new to judging these tournaments, but I'm excited to share in this journey with you.

A final note: as you communicate, please remember the dignity of those you interact with. Failure to treat others with dignity will lose you ethos points with me.

Sincerely,

Justin Sterenberg

I am a high school science teacher and speech and debate coach. I've coached speech and debate for 9 years. I competed in speech and congressional debate in high school, then some speech in college. I am very passionate about the power of communication. Above all, it is extremely important to me that you articulate and enunciate well. This can still be accomplished with reasonable speed. Take care to explain your arguments well. I strongly prefer constructive speeches with resolutional analysis, framework, key definitions, and a standard that I can use to weigh arguments. I should have a solid understanding of what you think are the most important issues in the round. Please use voters! If you want me to vote on it, please make sure it is in your final speech and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.

Arguments

Argue on logic, not emotions. Construct well-impacted, well-supported arguments. Quotations have no meaning without explanations. Therefore, always explain the significance of your evidence. The debater that most clearly presents a logical argument AND effectively refutes the opponent will be the victor.

Evidence

I may ask you to post your case or cards, if a virtual tournament. I may call for cards if your opponents ask me to, if the card is widely disputed during the round, or if it sounds exceptionally sketchy. According to NSDA rules, you can also access the Internet during round if you need to show your opponent the full citation.

Speed and Flowing

Anything below spread speed is fine. If you go fast, you should: SLOW DOWN when using tag lines and signposting. Give clear citations. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow (off time roadmaps). Please look out for physical cues if you are speed-talking. If I look visibly confused or if my hand isn’t moving, that’s probably because I can’t understand you. While I don’t flow crossfire/cross-ex, I’ll remember anything exceptionally witty or smart you say. Make sure you repeat anything significant from crossfire/cross-ex in your next speeches. Rebuttal speeches should be well organized. Please go straight down the flow.

Behavior

Don’t be mean. If you’re mean, my brain will naturally find a way to vote against you. Being assertive is valued. Being aggressive is unnecessary. There is a difference between a passionate debater and an abrasive or condescending debater. Crossfires/cross-ex needs to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I enjoy good clash.

Specific to LD

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing value and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Impact all your contentions back to your value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross examination will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Speaker Points

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible (I think this is especially true for theory arguments). Keep in mind that it's been a while since I've flowed high-speed rounds. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. The lit bases that I am the most familiar with include the following: Neolib, Baudrillard, and Set Col. Please do not assume that I am an expert on the literature of your choosing. It is not my job to become an expert on it in-round either. Instead, I believe it is your job to clearly articulate what your literature means in the context of the round. This does not mean I can't follow other kritikal arguments; just that arguments that are outside of my wheelhouse might require more explanation. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you.