I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: 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 look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched 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.

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 on 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.

Ethan Wilkes once said:

Welcome to my debate novel.

I have experience in congress, LD, PF, WSD, and extemp. I mainly did national circuit congress and I tend to enjoy judging CD the most.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ashrafkuzbari@gmail.com

If for some reason I am your judge for policy, defer to my LD paradigm. I've watched my fair share of NDT rounds, not the most qualified policy judge but I can follow fairly well.

Congress:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is the perception of the event I align most closely to.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning. I will rank all bills separately then cume them all together to determine my ranks. If the chamber does 3 bills with a base 2 or some other unconventional organization of the debates, I will determine some equitable way of ranking the round, but forgive me because it really is difficult comparing two speeches on separate debates. I tend to rank debaters depending on how many good things they do rather than how little bad things they do. Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on congress:

• It is in your best interest to refute the best argument in the round from the other side. It is also in your best interest to meet burdens your side has not met (terminalizing an important impact, impact turns, etc.) What will determine my rankings the most is how strategic I think your argument is/what I think it does for the round.
  
  
• I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative's job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)
  
  
• I think philosophical/principle/value based arguments have a place in congress but I don't see them ran effectively very often. I'm not talking about unconstitutionality or 3 minutes of defense, I'm talking about the moral stance that a bill creates. If you're wondering what I think a good example of this is, watch Zach Wu from Yale finals 2021 on first bill. I default to evaluate impacts under util but I'm susceptible to buying implicit moral frameworks that are intuitive (Zach does a great job of this), think of this similar to a principled argument in world schools if you are familiar.
  
  
• Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yeah, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Below, I have the order that I care about weighing mechanisms in a congress round (it is purposely different than LD)
  
  
• Pre requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

• Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. (This does not directly factor into my decision, but I believe debaters can make more persuasive and well-developed arguments when they are not confined to a rigid structure)
  
  
• It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop.

LD:

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is fine but slow down on your analytics (especially later in the round)

Analytics are a great tool to use, I'm tanking your speaks if you can't explain your argument in cross without relying on your author, biggest pet peeve

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

the more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is -- if there is an easy way for me to toss a silly shell off my flow, I likely will

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

I will not vote on a shell that is about the appearance of your opponent (yes, this includes shoe theory)

Don't read "no i meets"

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, be my guest

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

not afraid to vote on a floating PIK as long as it's hinted at in the NC

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

Trad - 2

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 2

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs.

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, actor spec, etc are abusive, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Reading cards about how problematic certain authors/other IVIs are really compelling to me.

• Comparative world > truth testing
• Presumption affirms < presumption negates
• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

Speaker point challenges:

All of these challenges will give you +.1 speaks from what I originally had you at. I will also write on your ballot how many of these challenges you accomplished.

• Playing music before the round (-.1 if the music is bad, I don't like country music)
• Cute picture of your pet on the doc
• Spinning in a circle when you read a turn
• Ending a speech 30 seconds or more early (CAVEAT: this does not apply if you lose the round)
• Having 1 minute or more of leftover prep (Also does not apply if you lose)
• Putting all the analytics on the doc
• A good joke during a speech (It must be actually funny)

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

• The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.
  
  
• PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my perception, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).
  
  
• Collapse in summary!
  
  
• A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.
  
  
• The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.
  
  
• I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.
  
  
• Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it. (bad framing arguments make me upset)

Worlds:

I LOVE worlds. I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

• I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.
  
  
• Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks.
  
  
• I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity to say the least.
  
  
• Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.
  
  
• Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.
  
  
• Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.
  
  
• Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!

I am a new parent judge . The following is my paradigm as a congress Judge:

Welcome thank you for having me as your judge. I believe that a fair and respectful debate is crucial for a productive exchange of ideas and arguments.

I. Role of the Judge:

• My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments made by the debaters, determine the order of the winner of the round, and provide constructive feedback.

• I will not show any bias towards any particular debater or team and will judge solely based on the arguments presented in the round.

II. Evaluation Criteria:

• Quality of Evidence: Debaters must provide credible, relevant, and well-explained evidence to support their arguments.

• Relevance: Arguments must directly address the resolution and be relevant to the debate topic.

• Organization and Clarity: Debaters must clearly articulate their arguments and structure their speeches in a logical and easy-to-follow manner.

• Delivery: Debaters must present their arguments in a clear and confident manner, using proper debate etiquette and avoiding any personal attacks.

III. Points of Order and Decorum:

• Debaters should follow the rules of proper debate etiquette and refrain from making personal attacks or interruptions.

• If a debater feels that their opponent has violated the rules of debate, they may raise a "Point of Order" to bring it to my attention.

I would like to thank the debaters for their participation and efforts and I wish you all the best of luck and I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Hi! Chances are if I'm judging you it's for Congress so I'll attach that paradigm below.

Overview:

- (I don't think this needs to be said, but please be kind to each other. I will immediately drop you for being racist/sexist/derogatory etc.)

- I think the first thing any great "Congressional debater" needs is speaking skills. There's a level of fluency and cohesion your speeches need to have to be ranked on my ballot. This comes before any great or round-winning argument. Simply put, if I can't understand you, I can't rank you.

- I truly believe any speaker in round (doesn't matter if it's a sponsor, crystal, or mid round speech) can get the 1. Do your job right and it'll be rewarded.

- Strong argumentation will always be rewarded (clear claims, links, warrants, etc.)

- If you’re POing, I’ll rank you at the minimum rank needed to break out of the round. If you do a goob job, you’ll get moved up, if you do a bad job (2 or more errors) I will drop you.

Miscellaneous:

- Don’t steal speeches, ever.

- The louder you are in questioning, the less likely I’m inclined to hear your argument.

- Cards should generally have a source and year.

- Be nice to each other in and outside of round. Like anything else in your life, Congress is just a high-school/middle-school extracurricular.

I’ll do my best to flow/take notes during the round to make a proper judgment. I have 2 years of national circuit experience so I think I can get the job done.

Plano East 24’ & UT Austin 28’

I compete primarily in Congress but I have also qualified to TFA State & NIETOC in Extemp. If you have questions about the round or how you can improve feel free to text me after the tournament. (817)-691-9094. I love teaching debate so don't be shy to reach out :)

Congress:

I am a competitor that finaled national circuit tournaments like FBK, UT, Stanford, and broke at championship tournaments like the TOC and TFA State. You will be ranked well if you:

1. Make arguments that WIN the debate. Ethan Wilkes articulated this perfectly when he said, “The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.”

2. Frame your speech within the rest of the round. Zach Wu once said, “Congress involves many different debaters spewing many different facts at the judges -- the best debater is the one who can provide the judge with a coherent and advantageous arrangement of said facts.”

3. Say more with less. You have only three minutes to convince me you are the best. I don’t care how you “structure” your speech so long as it is signposted and easy to follow. Every part of your speech should be thought out and fit together. AGDs should flow throughout your speech and be tied back at the end. The “smartest best-delivering” speaker will get my 1.

Presiding Officer - If you make mistakes you will not break. If you do not make mistakes, you will break. If it is finals and you do not make mistakes expect a rank somewhere within my t6. If you are truly exceptional and/or no speakers stand out, you could get the 1.

Oral Interpretation:

When ranking an OI round, these are the things I consider (most important first):

1. Real emotions

2. A piece with good plot structure

3. Unique and good blocking

4. An intro with a universal message

Extemporaneous Speaking:

You will get my 1 if you do the following -

1. Answer the question well

2. Have zero fluency breaks

3. Include excellent structure and analysis

4. Are the “smartest best-delivering” speaker.

Hi! I'm a junior at FAU HS and this is my 6th year competing in congressional debate.

Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death -- this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the nation and the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.

"Principally!!!" is a trendy new filler word in congress
I WILL mark you down for saying this. It adds nothing to your content and does not make you sound smarter. Also a nice little litmus test to see if you actually read my paradigm lol.

Speeches & style -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.

If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.

No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.

Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis. Telling me why your arguments are true and why they matter are different things entirely. Don't mix em up!

In terms of congressional debate, most rounds have two issues: the debate is surface-level yet pretty damn confusing. I love speakers who can cut through to the heart of a topic and implicate that back to the debate as a whole.

I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!

Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

OK so people have started using iPads a lot more since I first wrote this paradigm. For context, I don't know anyone who has been using an iPad for longer than I. If you use an iPad, you need to look and sound like a fluent speaker with a legal pad. Bulky cases will weaken your performance. Having to hold the iPad in front of your face the whole time will weaken your performance. Pad dependency, as always, will seriously count against you. The iPad is a tool, not a crutch.

Laptops are a flat out no. You won't get a rank from me speaking off a laptop.

Love padless performances, they're impressive af.

Presiding officers
POs are the worst part of congress. There is no way to fairly rank a room of speakers against someone whose entire job is to update a spreadsheet and bang a gavel. If I had it my way, every round would have a tournament-provided PO. But don't worry. I have a fair way to evaluate POs regardless of anything else: Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.

A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.

I rank POs in final rounds differently. I don't think POs deserve to champ unless they do something brilliant or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I've never seen a final round where I thought the PO deserved to champ, even though they often do. I will never give a PO the 1 in a final round. Think that's unfair? Not really. POs often champ without getting a single 1. If I'm judging a debate tournament, I'd rather give the 1 to a debater.

If you're a PO and get no feedback from me, that means you did a good job. Fret not.

Other stuff
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.

Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.

Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. If someone starts yelling or talking over you in cross-ex, let them. I promise it's more strategic to let them look bad and perhaps call them out for it, compared to fighting fire with fire. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.

I see all the politicking for what it really is

As a judge, my goal is to provide constructive and fair feedback that will help debaters improve their skills. I believe that all debaters should be treated with respect and should feel free to express their opinions without fear of judgment. I also believe that debate should be fun and enjoyable for all participants. With this in mind, here are some things you can expect from me as a judge:

• I will listen carefully to your arguments and give them the consideration they deserve
• I will evaluate the arguments based on their merits, not based on my personal beliefs or opinions
• I will give clear and concise feedback that will help you to learn and grow
• However, I am not a fan to fast speaking. While I understand that you may feel pressured to speak fast, I ask that you slow down and speak clearly so I can better understand you and for the sake of your arguments
• And lastly I want you to know that I am here to support you and help you improve.

Thank you for trusting me to be your judge.

Welcome to my debate dissertation.

John Paul Stevens '23 + UT Austin '27 (Math)

I mostly did congress during high school but find myself usually judging circuit(ish) LD. I now occasionally do APDA (college debate) and run a debate camp.

I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. You choose what you do with the information in this paradigm. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, you are welcome to post round me. As long as you remain respectful, I am always willing to have an educational discussion that can improve both my judging skills and your debating. However, if the tournament directors get upset, that's on you.

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

Now for the fun stuff. Buckle up cause I'm a yapper.

Congress:

The round starts in 5 minutes and you’re asking “is the judge flow?”: The easiest path to my 1 is for you to stop making arguments that you think are decent or good and start making arguments that you think will WIN the debate. There is a very key difference. Answer that argument nobody else will and defend your side's winning condition if you want my 1.

The long version:

Zach Wu once said, "[Congress] is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you." I find this is to be the perception of the event I align most closely to.

Controversially, I am fine with you speaking with an ipad or laptop for accessibility purposes. I believe that being discreetly anti-technology in congress is inequitable, so if this is an accommodation you need it will not harm your ranking. With that being said, you should still not be reliant on reading off of whatever it is you bring up with you to speak.

Just like everyone else, I don’t like rehash, I don’t think you should give a constructive last cycle, I like refutation, etc etc. The remainder of this paradigm will be directed towards less obvious and more specific parts of congress.

I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning.

Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on congress:

• I seriously dislike when debaters rely on evidence without providing the logical warrant for their argument. It’s like when your math teacher tells you to show your work, if you just read a piece of evidence without explaining why your argument is true, I have no idea what you’re thinking. If you want to be most persuasive to me, make sure you explain the warrant for your argument. Evidence is supplementary.

• I also seriously dislike when debaters do a poor job of impacting. I would like a very in depth explanation as to why I should care about your argument both in the real world and in the context of the debate.

• Don’t just refute arguments willy nilly, refute the BEST arguments on the other side of the debate. It’s really obvious when debaters try to take the easy way out by refuting the arguments at the bottom of the barrel or making arguments that are not well thought out. Responding to the best ground of the other side is the best thing you can do to make your side win the debate.

• I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

• Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yes, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Remember, weighing must also serve a strategic purpose in the round. Weighing for the sake of weighing will not really give you many brownie points on my ballot.

• Have fun with structure -- Run one point and I'll think you're cool. Drop 5 warrants with no claims and I'll probably think you're even cooler. Forcing yourself to a rigid structure can seriously limit the potential of your argumentation so get creative!!!!

• It is rare that a PO will be deserving of my 1. It takes an incredible PO and a really rough chamber for me to even consider it. POs usually sit between my 3-6, but I may adjust it depending on what the break is for the round. It is also pretty rare that a PO will get my 9, but if I feel like the round was a total mess, I will consider the drop. But I generally just believe a PO should be in the background and do their best to make the judge and debaters job easier. I’m also not a big fan of flexing your accomplishments in your PO speech.

• I will always be in favor of stretching the norms of congress. What this means is up to you, but by no means do I believe that congress should be done in a specific way or that our norms are stagnant. Do things that have not been done before and make me rethink the way I view this event. I'm worried that competitors, coaches, and judges are getting bored of congress so any attempt to be interesting will be fairly evaluated.

LD (and policy):

I like good arguments and dislike bad ones...

Just kidding.

I vote for bad arguments all the time.

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, speed is cool as long as you slow down on anything that isn't on the doc

I’m trying to become a fully tab judge robot that evaluates debates with no intervention or bias. I know I am delusional.

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

The more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is. To be clear, I will still evaluate any shell with the single exception that it is not about the appearance of your opponent.

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise). I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

It can be really difficult to keep track of the line by line on these analytic heavy theory debates so please either slow down or put the analytics on the doc :)

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T-Fwk, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N. I truly dislike poorly prepped K debates but truly love in-depth, prepped K debates.

I really don’t like vague alts: I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to strategically kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, I’m here for it

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, spark, dedev, etc. However, I am NOT willing to vote for death good.

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with: set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

There is a serious issue with neg K teams making an argument that nobody understands then clarifying it in the 2NR and saying the 1AR mishandled. Please just be a good sport and don’t do this, explain the argument honestly if you are asked during cross.

Trad - 3

I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can. Do not feel the need to debate "progressively" because you think that will be the most conducive to me. I will adapt myself to the round. I will say though, framework is often extremely silly in these trad debates because they are usually comparing something very similar (util vs. maximizing expected well being) or it is never implicated into the debate (framework is a lens I use to evaluate debates, not a voter in and of itself).

LARP - 3

I feel like CPs should be competitive with the plan, i guess it's fine if they are not but I find myself just buying the perm against these uncompetitive CPs the majority of the time

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, etc are good/bad, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" and nothing else will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow, but I generally treat perms like a test of competition rather than an advocacy itself

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your generic spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

Here’s how phil debates work: the AC riffs off 8 warrants for the cateogorical imperative (they are all one line and have no warrant), the 1N does not line by line them but the 1AR doesn’t extend them? the strategy in these debates never makes sense to me

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Of course you should put ink on both, but generally contention level debates are much less of a crap shoot. I would hate for you to lose the entire debate because you didn't respond to subpoint F of warrant 6 for induction fails.

My defaults:

Comparative world > truth testing

• Presumption affirms < presumption negates

• Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

PF:

I will still probably evaluate about anything but I tend to prefer a good, fundamentally sound and traditional PF round. My other thoughts include:

• The main exception to the rule above is that I believe theory should be used as a tool in PF to set better norms. Theory by far is the non-traditional argument I am most susceptible to voting for in PF.

• PF K debates are a little silly in my eyes -- most teams are either reading surface level literature just so they can say they're reading a K or they're under-explaining more complicated literature so the debate usually becomes uneducational either way. However, if you take the risk and run the K but manage to change my perception, I will give you 30 speaks (you'll likely win the round too lol).

• Collapse in summary!

• A lot of judges want you to weigh early but I actually don't really care, as long as you weigh at some point.

• The team second speaking should frontline in rebuttal.

• I will not read evidence unless you tell me to in summary/final focus.

• Good framing arguments make me happy but don't feel the need to make any just because you think I'll like it

Worlds:

I competed pretty extensively on the international circuit. I mainly gave the 2/4, but spoke everywhere at some point. I sometimes compete in APDA in college which is basically worlds but a lot quicker and more technical.

I'd like to say I'm as tech as they come, but it truly is very difficult to evaluate these debates with 0 intervention. This is mostly because it's against the norm for you to kick arguments which makes my job a bit difficult. With that being said, I try and be as tab as I can, but forgive me if I make mistakes. My other thoughts are listed below:

• I find myself really confused with what I'm supposed to do with principled arguments on my flow. Maybe I'll evaluate it if I think the practical debate is a wash? Maybe it's how I'm supposed to weigh practical offense? Maybe it functions as a priori offense? I'm not really sure. So, if you decide to go for a principled argument, please tell me what I'm supposed to do with it on my flow and why.

• Rhetoric is SUPER cool and fun as long as it is good. This will probably not help you win the round but it will make me happy and boost your speaks.

• I think the opp block should coordinate on what they go for. Depending on what is more important in the round, one should probably dedicate a lot of time to defense, the other should be much more offensive. An 8 minute opp whip followed by a 4 minute opp reply that just summarizes the opp whip is a missed opportunity to say the least.

• Third subs are not required but can be very strategic. I usually found that when I went for them, it would rarely ever be brought up in the OA/RFD, even if it was basically cold dropped. I find many third subs to be very good if they are independent offense from the central clash of the debate. They will absolutely weigh on my ballot just like any other argument would.

• Structure speeches however you would like. Don't feel binded to some two/three question speech, I will just flow what I hear.

• Focus on the line-by-line! Win individual links and then implicate them as a larger voting issue in the round/run me through the strategic implications of the argument. This will make the round easiest for me to evaluate and will give you the best chance of winning my ballot.

• Do not be afraid to kick arguments/collapse! Very much against the norm in worlds but I would rather you do all the frontlining/extension/link work necessary for one argument than to poorly cover 3 arguments.

Extemp:

I throw away most technical argumentation factors for this event and will judge it like your AP Lang teacher. Logically sound arguments will be more important than speaking/rhetoric/jokes, but that doesn't mean they'll completely determine my ranks. Evidence is important, but not as important as people like to pretend it is. I would rather you give me no evidence but your argument makes logical sense than dump fake evidence. Also, unconventional structure is awesome and I will probably heavily reward it.

I have SO much respect for people that can do this as their main event for a long time. This is one of the most, if not the most, mentally draining events...so PLEASE take care of yourself. Drink water, eat good meals, and take breaks. This is true for every event but especially this one.

Good luck and fun debating!

East Chapel Hill HS ‘25, did pf for 1.5 years and ld for 1.5

Email: andrewxu4321@gmail.com add me to the chain, fileshare/speechdrop are faster but email is fine too

Trad paradigm at the bottom

Fine with speed but please go 70% of your speed if online and be clear -- I'm really not the best flower esp if online.

Paradigm is work in progress — I’ll add stuff from time to time

Be nice and read simpler stuff and/or go slow against novices/lay debaters for +0.5 speaks

Tech > truth, but truer args have a lower threshold for warranting and more tolerance for new explanations toward later speeches.

Read anything and i’ll vote on anything just dont be problematic.

Give judge instruction pls

I like innovative arguments but please make them make sense and have real warrants

I read mostly larp + theory + psychoanalysis, and some cap k + baudrillard + setcol (wiki https://opencaselist.com/hsld23/EastChapelHill/AnXu). More specifics below.

Very very very bad for phil (except determinism) and substantive tricks (paradoxes & logic stuff), moderately bad for dense k's.

Defaults (easily changed):

Competing interps no rvis dta

Judge kick is good but only if you tell me to

Insert rehighlighting is fine

Larp

Zero risk in policy contexts is probably only possible if the linkchain is incomplete/bad/doesnt make sense. Otherwise I’m willing to buy marginal risks of offense if the only responses are defensive

Cheaty cp’s are fun — read them but be prepared to answer objections

Might need more explanation for competition debates

Link weighing is underrated

Turns are strongest when they come with defense and uniqueness flips

Topicality

I try to evaluate T as tech as possible and won’t gut check vote on something just because it feels non-T or because the shell feels dumb.

“Circuit norms” is probably not a real argument

Reasonability on T is fine — just have a brightline and explain what it means to be reasonable

I don’t get the hate for nebel/leslie

1ar should probably take some sort of stance on semantics vs pragmatics -- otherwise it would be too new in the 2ar

Try to give good judging instruction -- T debates sometimes hurt my brain for some reason

Theory

I read theory a lot, go for it

No such thing as friv theory

The side reading the shell has the burden of establishing a violation

Always good to clarify the violation from the start unless it’s obvious, debates where the violation is unclear and the other team contests it are hard to resolve

I like good and smart paradigm issues debates

High threshold for dtd or at least give a coherent reason — “deters bad debates in the future” or "this argument encourages clash evasion" isn’t rly a reason to dtd, just answer the argument. Ig I'll vote on it if dropped but for those kinds of shells dta is very persuasive

K

I’m familiar with cap, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, a little bit of setcol, also comfortable judging identity stuff that doesn’t have complex lit. Anything else you should probably overexplain.

LBL and techy debate > long overviews -- I'll probably zone out if you're just yapping. I listen to cx, use that information as you will

I’ll write more here

K Affs

More familiar with identity, cap, and baudrillard affs, less so for other ones

TFW intuitively leans neg for me, if you’re aff please explain out of round impacts that are unique to your model. I find arguments like “fairness and limits preludes testing of your strategies” and "presume the aff false bc abuse prevents me from contesting it" persuasive

Phil

Honestly I don’t rly understand most phil I’m not the best judge for it but determinism is fine

Slightly less bad for kant

Cards are cool

Focusing on big picture things is more persuasive instead of being caught up LBLing everything

Tricks

Theory tricks are fine

Paradoxes/logic aprioris/truth testing tricks -- pls dont, they hurt my brain

Trad

Trad is lowk boring — speaks will be high if you read interesting or innovative arguments and execute them well.

I don’t care about your presentation — I vote off the flow

Have good evidence and warranting pls, I like when people extract key warrants from cards

Link defense and link weighing are underrated

Don’t just extend — implicate in the context of the round and explain why that means you win

Don’t waste time debating the value — morality and justice are the same thing ffs — most fw debates should be at the criterion level

Cross apply everything from the larp section if it’s a util debate

Parent judge.