CX:

I am a tab when it comes to CX. I only have a few set ideas on a couple of arguments. First, if you do no tell me otherwise, I consider theory to be procedural. Second, I am cool with framework debate in any capacity. Third, I will vote on anything; you just need to me what lens I need to view the round through.

LD:

I am a Tab judge and ok with any style of LD, whether it is progressive or traditional. With that being said, please tell me where I need to vote and spend time telling me the impacts of said voters. I like to see strong substance when it comes to showing how your opponent links into a particular argument. Thus, if you cannot put in the work on a particular link, it would benefit you to go on to another argument. When it comes to theory or any sort of topicality or observational argument, I consider this to be procedural, and I put it at the top of the flow; of course, you do have the opportunity to tell me why the argument is not procedural, you will just need to put in the work. When it comes to K's or any Kritik based arguments, I am good with those; again, just make sure you have a strong link. I would rather opponents not read Kritik based position when competing against someone unfamiliar with these arguments; while it might be an easy win on the flow, you are most likely not going to walk out of the round with good speaks. I am cool with C.P's and D.A's and really have no stipulations, but would remind you to garner the impacts you want from them and let me know what I need to vote on by the NR.

When it comes to a more traditional debate style, I am cool with anything you choose to run as framing. I view impacts through the lens of what your framework says is good; however, if you want to tell me why I need to view impacts through something else, I will vote there. Besides that, you are free to do what you would like, I just need to see voters so I know what to vote on.

PF:

I view PF through the lens of mechanics over substance, I like it when competitors can show me how arguments are interacting with one another in an offense v. defense manner. From this, I like to see competitors extend the offense they have and give me voters. If the mechanic's side of the debate is not handled well I will default to substance, this is going to be specifically what is happening on the warrant level of the debate and how it interacts with the impact level of the debate, basically, at this point, the debate has become one of persuasion rather than line-by-line.

Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com

Cabot '19

Baylor '24 - 3x NDT Qualifier

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

TLDR: Do what you want and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. I've almost exclusively done K debate so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Depth over breadth, if your strat is 7+ off Im probably not the judge for you. I'll always read ev and be engaged in the round but it's your responsibility to tell me how to evaluate the round/impacts. Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity, I usually flow on paper and if you want me to evaluate your args I need you to explain your warrants rather than just extending tags/card names. If there's disputes over what a piece of evidence says I'll read evidence but I shouldn't have to sift through a card doc to resolve a debate. If there's anything I can do to make debates more accessible for you, please let me know before round either via email or a pre-round conversation. Debate well and have fun!

TOC Update:

LDers: DO NOT ASK TO DO SPEECHDROP. READ THE FIRST LINE ABOUT PUTTING ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN

I honestly don't care what you do or say, just please have fun and value the time you have at tournaments; and don't say messed up things. I've been a 2n most of my career but I've also been a 2a at times. I've read everything from baudrillard to disability and performance arguments on the aff to cap, spanos, necropolitics, semiocap, set col, and hostage taking on the neg (this isn't an exhaustive list). I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've went for fw since hs (one time). This doesn't mean I won't vote on it, but it is to say I will have have a hard time being persuaded by "K affs set an impossible research burden" or "procedural fairness is the only thing that matters in debate." More thoughts on fw below. I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction. Please give me judge instruction. Write my ballot in the beginning of your final rebuttal and make sure to resolve the offense on the flow. I want to see clash, the more you clash with your opponents, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

K affs

Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine. I'm honestly down for whatever. Whether your strategy is to have a connection to the topic and a method that results in topical action, or you read your aff to impact turn fw I've done it and will evaluate anything. I tend to thing presumption is a strategic strategy against k affs that at least forces teams to explain what they are defending. Tell me what my role in these debates is, what the ballot does, and what the benefit to debating the aff is. If you do these things, you're good.

T

Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. Contrary to some belief, I will vote for fw and will evaluate it like any argument. I usually evaluate fw debates through the lens of competing models of debate but can be convinced otherwise. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness. Especially on this topic, I think having offense as to why debating fiscal redistribution is good would be beneficial for the neg. TVA's probably need to have at least texts, can be convinced they need solvency advocates too. I can be convinced affs make clash impossible, but if your only idea of clash is the politics da and the states cp I'll be less persuaded. In my opinion, the best way to go for fw is to win your interp creates a model of debate that is able to solve the affs offense (either through the tva or ssd). For the aff, its usually easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense. I enjoy creative we meet args/counter-interps. New, innovative approaches to fw are always exciting as these debates can get very stale.

K's

These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K debates tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing i.e. fw (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in these debates. Affs needs to explain how the permutation functions in the context of the alternative rather than simply extending a perm text as well as net benefits to the perm while the negative should equally spend sufficient time explaining why the aff and the alt are mutually exclusive. I don’t think the neg necessarily needs to go for an alt but if that's your thing you need to make sure you win the framework debate. Affs tend to do better when they engage with the actual content of the K and extend offense in addition to the case. If your aff obviously links to the K i.e. cap vs an innovation aff, you're probably in a better position impact turning the K than going for the no link/perm strategy in front of me. Aff teams would benefit from spending less time on framework/reading endless cards and more time engaging with the links/thesis of the K.

CPs/DA's

Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.

LD:

While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on your opponent conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements that don't mean anything I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you. I'm a policy debater at heart. I ultimately don't care what you do or say in round as long as it's not racist, sexist, ableist, or transphobic. Just make arguments - claim, warrant, impact - and tell me why you're winning the debate in the rebuttal speeches. I judge LD rounds slightly differently - I flow on my laptop. I first evaluate the fw debate which only ends up mattering when it does I guess? I then evaluate the 2nr/2ar to resolve key points of offense. I find LD debaters are often too defensive in their rebuttals and if that's you its not likely to work in your favor. Have offense. Be willing to impact turn your opponents position. I want to see ~clash~.

I have 40+ years of experience in the forensics world - as a competitor, coach, and judge. I don't miss much.

I will listen intently to your arguments and flow them all. I will judge the round solely on what is said in this and only this round. It is your job, as the debater, to present your arguments and tell me what to vote on. I am a Tabula Rosa judge.

Use debate jargon all you want, but assume I know nothing about the resolution.

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including docs) email me at apulcine23@gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me.

Speaks: To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize is PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed slow down on analytics if I dont have them. Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card. I'll give more leeway on this if what you're reading is in the doc but if not please slow down.

Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

LD: for larp / k everything above applies. Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect. Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit.I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T.

I am tab if a clear alternative evaluative framework is provided, otherwise, I default to policymaker.
What matters most is that you provide me with the easiest route to the ballot. Tell me what to vote for, how to vote, and why. Other than that, please extend things appropriately, provide me with overviews, and maintain the structure of the argument.

To the best of my abilities, I will evaluate the rounds based on the information I can flow from your speech. There should be clear extensions throughout the round, with an evident strategy. I expect a collapse in the 2NR into one or two positions instead of going for the entirety of the 1NC.

Speed is fine as long as you are enunciating. This is a communication event and speed should not be used to abuse the opponent. Unless there is sufficient cause for deducting points for hate speech or immoral arguments, a speaker's technical debating ability primarily decides their scores.

Collin Smith -- collin.smith8941@gmail.com

Most of my argumentation has been on the K side of things in debate. My research interests, however, are very broad, and I do not really care what form your arguments take. As a judge, I value specificity, evidence comparison, and in-depth explanation. I generally decide debates by identifying key points of offense and sifting through the evaluative mechanisms set up by either team to discern whose impact matters more, and how I should conceive of solvency.

Framework – I will vote for it, I will vote against it. I think neg teams win these debates when they win clash/debate-ability as an internal link turn to aff and some type of procedural impact, but I see the utility in switch-side or topic education arguments in some contexts. Neg’s also need to win a framework comes first/case doesn’t matter argument. I think the aff is set to win these debates when they win an impact they can solve, an impact turn to the neg’s interp, and apply that disad to the 2nr’s arguments. I do not think a counter-interpretation is necessary, though often it is quite useful.

Case/disads - I really enjoy a detailed, specific case or disad debate. I am willing vote on well-executed defense to mostly minimize the risk of an advantage or disadvantage.

CX (Cross-Examination): As a policymaker judge, my inclination is towards evaluating arguments based on their policy implications. However, I am open to various argument styles and will not dismiss them solely based on personal preference.

Topicality (T): Topicality arguments are acceptable if they are well-structured and avoid sloppiness. While I appreciate topicality, stacking multiple topicalities is not preferred as it may lead to confusion and a less effective debate.

Disadvantage (DA): Disadvantages play a crucial role in shaping the debate. I expect DAs to be specifically tailored to the affirmative they are addressing. A well-articulated DA can significantly impact the overall debate.

Kritik (K): I advise new debaters to approach Kritiks cautiously. However, I am open to well-founded K arguments that make sense and are presented efficiently. I am yet to see a strong K argument, so surprising me is encouraged.

Framing: While not a strong advocate of framing arguments, I am willing to consider them if presented coherently and effectively. Convincing framing can influence how I evaluate the entire debate.

Case: Case extension through each speaker is crucial. Lack of repetition may be interpreted as a dropped or unchallenged case. Thoroughly addressing and attacking the case is key to securing an advantage in the debate.

Counterplan (CP): Counterplans are welcomed, but execution is paramount. A well-run CP can enhance your position, while a poorly executed one may result in skepticism and reservations on my part.

Speaking: Speak at your desired pace, but clarity is essential. If your opponent struggles to understand you, it is their issue. However, if I, as the judge, cannot comprehend your arguments, it becomes a problem. Effective transitions, clear plan/case statements, and optional roadmaps contribute to a more favorable evaluation.

Sidenote: Fairness is fundamental. The UIL circuit allowing internet means diverse and unique cases are acceptable. However, more experienced debaters are likely to have an advantage, and adherence to rules, such as no side-coaching, is expected.

Flowing: Explicitly stating the flow and reasons for doing so is mandatory. Failure to do so may result in issues with my understanding of the debate. While roadmaps are not obligatory, they can significantly aid in maintaining a structured and organized debate.

Spreading: If you are a spreader, providing a copy of your case is preferred. Failing to comply upon request may impact your speaks. Keep in mind that I cannot effectively judge without access to the necessary materials.

Overall: My role as a policymaker means I prioritize arguments with tangible policy implications. Effectively highlighting the strengths of your case or demonstrating the counter-productivity of the opponent's case is crucial. While I consider various argument styles, proving the validity of your claims is imperative for a favorable decision.

LD:I've done LD for a year, but I am not as familiar with it as I am with Policy... That being said, everything I said above also applies to LD. If you run tricks, I will probably not enjoy it (99%), but feel free to surprise me. If you run philosophy, please just don't. Treat me as that policy judge who doesn't like LD. Give me mostly Clash pls and walk me through everything.

General

neonzheng41@gmail.com

Put me on email chain if possible

University of Texas at Dallas

Debated for 3 years at Midway High School

Judged for 2 years

He/Him

Debate well, have fun, be respectful

Quick Stuff

I am ok with spreading as long as you go slow on the tags

I do not flow CX

If you have any questions, feel free to email me after the round or ask before the round starts

I won't keep time

Non-negotiables

Blatant racism/misogyny/homophobia/any other kind of discrimination is ground for 0 speaks and an L

Presumption always flows neg by default

General Preferences

Argument = claim + warrant + impact

Tech over truth, cross apply evidence for me, I will not do it for you when looking at my flows

Specific evidence > general evidence for any argument

T

if you have a graph, I might not be able to see it on my screen, so assume that I can't see it

AFF:

Have a caselist of affs excluded by T

Try to have a plan specific counter interp

Neg:

Have an overview of what is on the T going into the neg block

Counterplans

Any CP is fine, but CPs with warrants are not i.e. CPs with only a plan text

Default is that CPs are textually and functionally competitive

Disadvantages

Will vote on any DA as long as there is an uniqueness, link, and impact

Turns case and impact calc are very important in the neg block for a good 2NR

Analytics for DAs are good, just go slower if you want it on my flow

Case

For both sides, articulate your cards. Don't just restate the tag of the card and for me to understand the implications of the card to the round

Dropping case in 1NC is an aff win in most cases

K's

I understand Cap and the gist of Baudrillard. If you want to run K's, by all means go for it, but make sure I understand what is going on during the 2NR/2AR.

Theory

Not too familiar with this area, will vote on it if you decide to go for it