Seven Lakes Cy Park TFA IQT Swing
2024 — Katy, TX/US
CX - In Person Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideBackground/other notes:
University of Houston (2023-current)
Jordan High School (2020-2023)
I am a former Policy debater at the University of Houston.
I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.
Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.
Don't call me "judge" -- call me Olive
Pronouns are she/her
Brief Overview:
Truth > Tech
I've read both Policy and K arguments on both the aff and the neg. Storytelling is at the core of debate and debate is just conversations about how we should interpret and act on the stories presented in rounds. I love fun new arguments and will vote on anything so long as your winning the debate and the story adds up. I did congress for 4 years, so subconsciously presentation matters to me a little more than it does maybe for other policy judges but in policy that just means I value respect in round that is balanced with passion. I also take IVI's very seriously.
General stuff: whether you are running a K, a plan, a DA, whatever you should be telling a coherent story throughout the round. Impacts need to be both warranted and visualized. I love evidence comparison/analysis when it comes to authorship and highlighting to illustrate what a card says vs what the team says it said.
Policy vs K: Responses to the kritik need to be thorough and happen at multiple levels (f/w, perms, link defense, the alt, impacts, etc.). I'm pretty lenient with letting the K win links because its rare that they don’t so the job of a policy aff then is to explain to me why the (typically) incrementalist, policy oriented approach outweighs the impacts of the K in the context of what the kritik is talking about. It comes down to telling me why the aff is either key for alt solvency or why the aff is a fundamentally better approach to change than the alternative.
K debates: I doubt I’ll ever be able to judge these that much but I love these debates. I’ll vote for any K aff if its debated well. explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.
General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.
T: Im gonna be so real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.
Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like "power-tagging" violations. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.
Congress:
good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.
A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.
The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.
That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.
If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.
I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.
Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.
Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.
Have fun, its congress :D
Name: Eric Beane
Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)
GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!
*Current for the 2024-25 Season*
Policy Debate Paradigm
I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun!
Specific Arguments
Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.
Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.
Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down. I think the "judge kick" is incredibly lazy. You need to appropriately kick out of arguments utilizing some semblance of strategy for me to evaluate what you are putting forward.
Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).
Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.
Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.
Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).
Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.
Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.
New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.
"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.
Other Information
Disclosure Practices - Debates are better when both sides are adequately prepared to argue against each other. I believe in good disclosure practices and that every varsity competitor should be posting their arguments after they are read in a debate. I will vote for disclosure theory, however, if you choose to read that argument you need to provide substantial proof of the violation. You need to have made all reasonable attempts at contacting the other team if their arguments are not posted before the debate begins. I will NOT punish novice competitors for not disclosing or knowing what that is, so please do not read disclosure theory against them.
Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.
Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com
High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "Go Coogs" in the debate (it can also be after a speech or before the debate begins) I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.
Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com
***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***
For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org
Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.
Judge intervention - My role as a critic in a debate round is different than my role as an educator as a teacher in a classroom. I think the debate round should be understood as a brave space, where creative perspectives are presented with the expectation of student-centered competitive rejoinder. If there are arguments that your opponent makes that you believe have racist/sexist/heterosexist assumptions, I would encourage you to interrogate those assumptions within your debate speeches. I am far more hesitant to intervene and stop the debate than I would be to stop micro-aggressions between students in my classroom.
Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.
Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.
Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.
Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.
Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)
Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).
Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.
I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.
Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.
Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)
If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.
Add me to the email chain:kkaraki08@gmail.com
I am the Coach for LV Hightower HS in Fort Bend ISD, Texas.
Whether it be a Speech or a Debate event, I'm very much about competitors having a positive experience before, during, and walking away from the tournament. S&D is about mastering technical skills and building relationships with both your teammates and your fellow competitors.
SPEECH:
My two biggest things that I look for in speech events are emoting (do you believe in what you are saying?) and timing (Your speech should not be too short/too long). My biggest Pet Peeves in Speech events are fiddling with keys or phones in pockets while speaking, or foot-tapping/swaying nervously.
DEBATE:
Across all debate competition: DO not present an argument that this world is a simulation, and therefore nothing matters. We are here to debate, not to waste each other's time. If you really want to concede, just say so.
In general, I am fine with spreading, as long as it's done well. I would rather see that you have mastered the basics and are able to communicate clearly than have an overabundance of data info-vomited at 1000 mph. If no one in the room has been able to understand what you said, no one in the competition has benefited, least of all you. That said, it doesn't matter how many cards you have in your case - if you didn't READ IT, it doesn't exist, for the purposes of the debate.
Congress:
Follow the Robert's Rules of Order, be confident, and remain civil to one another. It's that simple.
WSD:
My main judging will come down to how cohesive your argument is, and how cohesively your team works together. I have yet to give a low-point victory in a WSD round.
PF:
Biggest no-nos for me in PF is team-mates speaking up or adding things to a Crossfire that isnot theirs. The first two Crossfires are to analyze THOSE SPEAKERS ONLY. There is no passing notes or whispering advice during those rounds. The Grand Crossfire is the only time for both teammates to be involved in the discussion.
LD/CX:
ALL NEW ARGUMENTSmust be submitted in your first or second Constructive speech.
By the time you get to your Rebuttal speech, we should be dealing with the topics already on the table.
DO NOT SUBMIT ANY NEW ARGUMENTS OR COUNTER-PLANS IN YOUR REBUTTAL SPEECHES.
IF YOU DO, IT WILL GO BADLY FOR YOU.
I am parent judge for Stephen F Austin High School.
Add me to the email chain : shobhank@gmail.com
I'm most comfortable with a moderate reading speed. No Spreading.
I'll vote for the logical argument.
Hello friends! I'm Kiran, I do policy debate at the University of Houston and help out Kinkaid in policy and PF when I can :)
Don't need to take prep for tech issues, sending cards, etc. but please don't end prep and keep talking to your partner about what you need to do in the speech.
Also, please be nice and a good human being during rounds (and outside of them!)
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: kiran.debate@gmail.com
General things:
I know very little about the high school topics argument-wise, but know quite a lot generally about IPR.
Do whatever and do it well! I read ev during the round but am not flowing off the doc, fine with speed, and I evaluate only what makes it onto my flow.
I won't vote on ad-homs or things that occurred outside of the round. I don't flow RVIs.
I vote on arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact.
You can insert evidence.
Policy v Policy:
These are my favorite debates to judge and the ones I'm best at adjudicating.
Default is judge kick but can be persuaded the other way.
There can be 0 risk of an adv or DA, but it is very difficult.
CP theory is better expressed as competition arguments.
Internal link comparison>impact comparison.
NEG leaning on condo.
Topicality:
Default is competing interps.
More persuaded by AFF flex than a big fight on precision.
Policy v Ks:
Prefer links specific to the AFF with good turns case explanations
Don't love big overviews that try to filter the whole debate, but more and specific examples that illustrate your theory of power are much better
I won't arbitrate a middle ground interp on framework unless it's advocated for
K Affs v Framework:
Pretty sure my record is 50/50 in these debates
Fairness is an impact, but I'm more persuaded by clash
Framework is the large majority of my 2NRs v K AFFs, but I am a lot less persuaded than most by a 2NR that does not mention the case
Need to know what the AFF does before the 2AC
K v K:
Almost never in these debates, not super familiar with the lit, if I am judging a debate where this is the strat-I need clear explanations and examples
Tricks:
No.
Speaks:
I start at a 28.5. Don’t ask me for a 30.
PF:
I largely evaluate PF rounds the same as policy rounds
Don't need big picture things, just explain why your thing outweighs the other team's
Defense is not sticky, I have no idea what that even means
I die a little every time a team paraphrases or spends 20 mins figuring out which cards to send after a speech, please do this before your speech or I will dock speaks.
Speeches are so so so short, you don't need to explain the entire story of your arg each time, just explain why it matters, what your opponents missed, and how I should evaluate it.
Feel free to send me questions, and have fun y'all! :)
*conflicted with BREAK LD (May ‘24-Nov ‘24), Seven Lakes, and Atascocita
Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com
Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:
PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com
LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com
CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com
Round should start at start time. The first constructive (not the tester email) should be sent by start time. If you cause the round to start late I will dock your speaks.
__________________________________________________
Background/Important info:
University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), Seven Lakes HS (Assistant Coach ‘23-Current)
***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round (except disclosure) If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with tab before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue.
I will not be happy if you purposefully make the round inaccessible or do not make an effort to let the other debater engage (ex. you hit a novice/local debater and you spread 4 Ks at top speed and a-spec is hidden in between the cards). I will not hesitate to dock your speaks and/or drop you.
Try to minimize excessive noise during speeches and while the ballot is being written. This is basic etiquette, but it is particularly important for me since I tend to get overstimulated.
_________________________________________________
GENERAL (for all debates):
TLDR: primarily a policy judge, you can do whatever as along as you do it well
Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col > Identity Ks/Phil > PoMo Ks > Tricks/Friv Theory (strike)
Debaters work hard and I will always try my best to adapt to you, but my experience and knowledge of args varies. For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over-adapt. I am of the opinion that the judge's level of preround knowledge becomes less relevant in front of debaters who know their arguments well.
Tech > truth in most cases, but truth determines your burden of proof. Arguments that are less true will naturally require more explanation to be persuasive. A statement without a warrant is not an argument.If your primary strategy is to make as many terribly warranted args as possible in hopes that your opponent drops one then you should strike me.
Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing and judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I have to arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.
I will vote off the flow - I evaluate ev when it is contested. I think more debaters should be punished for reading terrible evidence, but I will not do the work for you. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will occasionally follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L).
Time yourself and your opponents
Things I default to but can be convinced to consider otherwise: judgekick, condo good, disclosure good, debate good, competing interps
-------
Specific Args:
I will always try my best to evaluate every argument objectively, but it would be dishonest for me to say that after years of being in the activity I do not have any predispositions that make me historically more likely to be persuaded by certain arguments over others.
LD, CX, PF are combined below. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it. Everything that is here is easily changeable via technical debating.
K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:
I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:
1. Unfamiliar with the lit bases - I judge these rounds often, but I have not read enough to know more than what debaters have explained to me in rounds. I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do ex. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt.
2. In round violence - I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but its implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hom is a losing one.
Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated.
Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Explanations that lean into the Ks interactions with the aff on the fiat-ed consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive from proximate violence impacts.
Theory (excluding T) ---
The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I tend to err towards the team answering theory. In policy debate there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in policy as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry and I’m more likely to err towards reasonability.
friv theory is stupid, I do not like when debaters are afraid of clash.
Disclosure: If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.
------
Extra notes for specific events:
PF ---
Read less and better args - I can no longer bring myself to vote on these horrifically warranted link chains that have 0 explanation in ff. Because ev practices in PF are so bad and no one reads warrants my ballot has increasingly been decided on purely which link chain I understand more. Better warranting and better ev will win you the round.
Please collapse in the ff. it is not possible for you to adequately explain 4 diff pieces of offense in 2(?) minutes.
if you go for a turn it must be weighed like any other piece of offense
Prioritize articulating full arguments - If you blip through arguments and don't finish your sentences I will have no idea what you are saying and it will functionally be as if you have said nothing.
Signpost when youre answering different contentions and moving between flows
Procedural stuff - If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks
You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.
No prep if there is not a timer running.
Weighing - I will judge the round like a policy maker under an offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.
I notice that in most PF rounds there is no clash on weighing. PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not contextualize the weighing to the rest of the round or do meta weighing.
K: You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes
Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.
Second rebuttal must extend case and frontline. I will not extend args for you just because they are dropped.
LD ---
I don’t judge LD as frequently anymore which means that I may be unfamiliar with various norms and arguments. You should slow down when reading multipoint blocks of analytics since it will take me time to process arguments I am unfamiliar with. Take care to implicate and explain more than usual if you are reading anything besides policy or Ks.
I read phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge.
what this means:
I tend to judge Phil like an LDer and everything else like a policy debater. It is important that you tell me how to evaluate the round since I do not have a strong opinion on whether LD should be about, for example, testing the resolution or comparative worlds.
- Phil: while I know phil lit. bases I have not thought about them extensively in the context of debate arguments. This means that you may have to slow down a bit and do more explaining. I have a pretty good background content wise for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.). I prefer substantial over tricky phil.
________________________
Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear and signpost, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.
Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there
Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space
Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep
LD and CX:
If it'll make it simpler, consider me a relatively traditional/lay judge.
Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.
Not a fan of plans in LD - find a friend and do Policy instead.
PF:
Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.
Congress:
I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.
Speech Events:
I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).
Interp Events:
With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.
Education
Niceville High School - Class of 2001
University of West Florida - BA - Organizational Communication - Class of 2005
Lamar University - M. Ed. - Teacher Leadership - Class of 2025
Coaching Experience
Head Coach at Channelview High School 2009-Present
Competitive Experience
3 years of middle school (Prose, Poetry, Duo)
4 years of high school (Policy Debate, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Duet, Group Interp Florida State Champion 1999, Original Oratory Florida Blue Key Grand Champion 1998), Declamation)
4 year of college (Prose 6th Place NFA Nationals, Poetry, Duo 2nd Place NFA Nationals, After Dinner Speaking Nationals Semi-finalist, Oratory Speaking)
I coach all NSDA events - all debates and individual events.
My team competes on all circuits including TFA, NSDA, UIL, and NCFL.
10X UIL CX State qualifier
9X TFA State Qualifier
1 NSDA Nationals Appearance
Paradigms - Debate
I am mostly fine with everything a team can throw at me. Speed is fine if I can understand you, but it doesn't make you "look like a better debater." If anything, I prefer speed AFTER the 1AC and show me you know how to argue a lot of points and can give a solid line by line. If I have to depend on your SpeechDrop docs to flow then you will not get top speaks and could, ultimately, lose the round. I don't like T and I won't vote on it (ok, I'm lying, I will. BUT it'll be tough hill to climb). I love a good K but it needs to be connected really well to the aff. I'm a numbers person and impact calc is one of my main voters. Don't be cocky during CX unless your opponent deserves it. During the last 2 rebuttals I need both teams to clearly display to me that they know why "they won." Do not make me figure it out - you tell me. I prefer a world view analysis but a line-by-line is fine if you know you can win based off arguments.
Paradigms - Speech
I look for mechanics. I typically don't pay much attention to the actual story line of your selection so be prepared to have poise, quality hand gestures, eye contact, focal points, facial expressions, vocal inflection, and body position to the audience. Please enunciate well. If you are in a book required category I will pay special attention to your book technique, page turns, and usage of it as a prop and/or extension of your piece. Show me you know how to compete from the time you walk in to the time you leave. If you are on your phone during a round I will NOT place you first no matter how well you do.
My name is Jose Ortuno and I am a political science major at the Univerisity of Houston. I am happy to be a part of UH's debate team and hope to compete in many rounds for them in my final year of undergrad. I am a novice debater who had no prior experience with debate until the fall semester of 2021, but I am looking forward to being able to apply my knowledge to future tournaments as both a judge and a competitor.
My email is j133ortuno5c@gmail.com for e-mail chains, document forwarding, etc.
As previously stated, I have limited experience, but I a fan of organized, well-structured arguments that are able to leave me with a strong impact. Conciseness is key to me. Thank you.
Debate:
I want a clean debate, no spreading at all. Please make sure to speak clearly and slowly.
If a debater asks for evidence, show me the evidence as well so I can cross-verify.
No crazy arguments or defending clearly bad viewpoints, I will probably down you if you do so.
Speech:
Speak clearly, I must be able to understand you.
I do think that body language is also a key part of speaking, so keep that in mind when giving your speech.
Don't go too over the top with emphasis, but don't be dull and boring either. Use the right amount of inflection.
If I'm judging a limited-prep event (Exempt/Impromptu), please give me the topic that you have before speaking, and time yourselves please.
If I'm judging any other speech event, please give me the title of your speech before speaking.
Congress:
11/22-11/23 (Big Cat only): I have never judged congress before, but I am registered for this event as per judging obligations. I am trying to learn how congress works, but if I am in your chamber (especially if you are the PO), please help me out as much as possible so I can do my best to judge everyone fairly.
Hey gang,
he/him - You can call me Justin
Email: schnitzdebate@gmail.com
Add me to the email chain
The University of Houston Policy Debate Fall 23-Current
Langham Creek High School Speech and Debate Fall 21- Spring 23
Philosophy brought to you by: Eric Lanning and Eric Beane
Cougar Classic Update
I have judged 0 (zero) rounds this year. I will look up what the topic is before the round for purposes of topicality. Do with this what you will.
Who am I?
Current student at UH. I run the debate team's social media pages which is a cool fun fact. I started LD my Junior year of high school, Policy my senior year, and am currently doing Policy at UH. I also did INFO and DX.
I've always done a mix of K and Policy things. On the K side mostly Antiblackness, Critical Disability Theory, and the Cap K. Also done some Queer theory (Puar). On the Policy side it's just... Policy.
I'm more good at impact weighing, less good at big theory debates. Do with that what you will.
Prefs Guide
I know this is what you really care about
"I am running a K-aff, should I rank you high?" Probably not. "Should I strike you?" Probably not. I don't hold a huge preference either way.
"I hate the K and will run framework and cap good will you vote on that?" If you win the debate I'll vote on it. I have become more partial to this, but still think capitalism is probably killing the planet. The alternative feels like we wouldn't have hospitals, schools, and roads though.
"I like to run a bit of policy and K stuff where should I put you?" This seems like the area I'm most competent in
"Wait, so should I run the Cap K or framework?" Whichever you are best at. Quite honestly I agree with both on some level, but will only vote on it if you win it
Speaks
It has been pointed out to me my speaker point allocation has been below average. Going forward I will try and do something like this.
28.5-28.6---Below Average at this tournament (GIVEN THIS ROUND). If you're below this you probably messed something up.
28.7----Average at this tournament (GIVEN THIS ROUND)
28.8-28.9---I think you might break (GIVEN THIS ROUND)
29+---I think you should break (GIVEN THIS ROUND). The higher speaks past this, the better I think you should do.
Debate Stuff
tech>truth
tldr
I will vote for who wins arguments and also wins those arguments being important and also wins those arguments being procedurally allowed.
I'm not opposed to any argument and will flow every speech (on paper (Unless I don't have paper)) along with doing my best to give a helpful RFD.
My decision will be based on what I feel the easiest path to the ballot is. If there is a dropped argument that the last speech and the 2N/2A really blow it up and tell me why it should decide my ballot, there is a good chance that will be my ballot. If I'm not convinced it should decide the round, it will at least weigh my decision more in your favor.
Please don't drop a nuclear bomb on novices. Not every school can fill a novice and jv pool. Be nice.
Procedural Preferences
Prep ends when you're done prepping. That does not need to include sending the email, but go out of your way to indicate you are not prepping. Hands off the keyboard. Don't abuse this.
Asking "did you read this" generally feels like "I wasn't flowing" Not to say don't do it but, will probably result in lower speaker points. This is moot if they really are not clear, in which case I might appreciate the clarification.
No out of round stuff. I literally cannot weigh it in an objective and fair manner.
Case/DA/CP/T
Do it. No judge should have a preference against this. Make arguments and make them well.
K-AFF/FW
I think having a topical plan is generally good for neg prep and policy education. That said, I have run planless affirmatives before (Critical Disability Studies, Antiblackness). I think that there are things outside of USFG action that are important to talk about, convince me debate is the place to do it.
That said, maybe not so much for performance. Not that I won't vote for it, but it'll be harder.
I assume every person is reading an argument to win a round. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation otherwise. You don't need to prove you are personally impacted by the reading of the 1AC to win a round, however.
K on neg
Do it. I have a lot of experience running negative K arguments. Make sure you win framework or turn it into a DA in the 2NR. Your choice. Probably shouldn't go for both though
Phil
Less experience. Generally familiar with philosophy outside of debate, but not so much within. Not saying I won't vote on it, but don't assume I know your arguments.
Theory
I probably won't vote on theory unless its a clear winner or there was some actual impact. If you plan on going for it, make your first block an actual argument, not blippy buzz words. If its not a real argument, I am very persuaded by short negative responses which point this out. If the negative doesn't respond, I am slightly persuaded by "2AC argument was fake and too short to be meaningful, if we didn't catch it that proves, we get new responses since there weren't any real arguments in the 2AC"
Disclosure good, condo good, the answer to most arguments is get better at debate. That said, I'll vote on it, but begrudgingly.
If they are truly doing something bad for debate though (10 off, perm theory, cardless CP, consult CP and all of its friends) I am more inclined
If judging novice, I will almost certainly not vote for theory if any response is given. This is not a productive way to learn debate.
Can I run death-good/spark/wipeout/another edgy argument? I don't care. Your opponent might though and I'm willing to vote on it either way. Also extinction good just isn't very convincing to anybody so probably fighting an uphill battle on this one.
Can I run silly arguments my coach hates? Sure lol.
If you go the same speed in analytics/tag that you go in the card itself I will probably not be able to flow it as well and will give you lower speaker points. You should also go slower in the 2nr/2ar.
Extra speaker points if you can find a card that says "Don't say adopt outside of child adoption" that isn't written by a racist white lady.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Feel free to email me at justinschnitzer22 (AT) gmail if you have questions you think of later.
ASK ME ABOUT THE TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE AND/OR THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP
EMAILS - yes, “at the google messaging service” means @gmail.com
All rounds - esdebate93 at the google messaging service
Policy - dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service
LD - dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service
QUICK GUIDE- My preferences/self-assessment. You are free to decide that I am great/terrible for any given form of argument.
Policy - 1
Kritiks - 1
Topicality/Framework - 1
Philosophy - 2
Theory - 3
Tricks - Strike
ABOUT ME
I am currently the program director at Dulles High School, where I also teach AP Psychology and AP Research. I primarily judge Policy and LD. I've been in debate since 2007 and have judged at every level from TOC finals to the novice divisions at locals; you are not likely to surprise me. I have no significant preferences about the content of your arguments, except that they are not exclusionary in nature. I like research dense, content heavy strategies. As such, I am best for Policy v Policy, KvK, substantive phil debates, and Clash Debates. Quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence for me. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo (this can be the state of the world, the state of thought, the state of debate, or something else) and propose some method of solving that problem. I believe that Neg teams, regardless of style choice, must disagree with the viability, desirability, and/or topicality of that method.
DECISION MAKING
I am deciding between competing ballot stories in the 2NR and 2AR, evaluating their veracity and quality using my flow. Tech > Truth, but blatantly untrue things are harder to win. Spin control > me reading a card doc, but I will read evidence if the spin is roughly equal in quality. Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate. Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. 30s should be rare, it is unlikely you earned it. Don't ask for one.
THINGS I CARE ABOUT
-
Respect for Others - Don't be a jerk. Use people’s preferred pronouns, provide accommodations when they are requested, be prompt and ready to go at start time, and be mindful of the power dynamics in the room. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation should an issue arise. If I’m not picking up on something, let me know.
-
Investment - Apathy sucks. Caring about stuff is cool. Whether you’re more invested in saying stuff that matters or chasing competitive success, I just want to see that you care about some aspect of the thing you are giving up a significant amount of time to do. Take notes during feedback and ask questions.
-
Transparency - I believe that disclosure is generally good, as it enables people to read, think and prepare better (obvious exception for when it raises safety issues). Don't be a jerk about it with people who don't know better. Shiftiness and lying are bad. If you are reading arguments that implicate the desirability of transparency, that is perfectly fine. This is just a starting point.
-
Flowing - Do it. Preferably on paper. Definitely not in your opponent's speech document. If you answer a position that was in the doc but was not read, your speaks will be capped at 26.5. There is no flow clarification period. If you're asking questions, it's CX or prep time.
-
Clash - Compare warrants and weigh. Rehighlights are fine, but your speech should explain why it matters. I am not sympathetic to strategies that attempt to dodge clash, like tricks. Specific links, counterplans, topicality interps, etc. are way better than generics. K links should quote the aff.
-
Line by Line Organization - The negative team sets the order for arguments on the case page. The affirmative team sets the order on off case positions. Number or label your arguments as you go down the flow. Overviews are fine, but your whole speech should not be a blocked out overview with no attempt at line by line argument/evidence comparison. Jumping around between pages is extremely annoying and will impact speaker points.
-
Debating the Case - Both the affirmative and negative teams should center the case. If you’re aff, the case should go first. If you’re neg, don’t treat the case page like an afterthought, and certainly don’t focus solely on the impact level. Contest uniqueness, link, internal link, and solvency claims. Making the case page K 2.0 with nothing but cross-applications is both boring and unstrategic.
-
Judge Instruction - The top of the 2NR/2AR should be what you want my ballot to say. Tell me how I should be thinking about arguments and their interactions. Tell me what matters most. When Neg, anticipate 2AR arguments, prime me for skepticism, and tell me where which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I'm voting Neg, figure out why I would vote Neg, and beat that ballot.
-
Complete Arguments - Arguments have a claim, warrant, and implication. I will evaluate arguments, not isolated claims. If you make a warranted claim without explaining the implication for the debate, you invite intervention.
-
Projection and Enunciation - I like fast debates, but if you are unclear I am not going to pretend like I understood you and flow it.
Other than these 10 things, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well. Feel free to ask any questions you have before we start, and I'll do my best to answer.
debatesheff@gmail.com
If policy ALSO add lcandersoncx@gmail.com
If LD ALSO add breakdocs@googlegroups.com
Policy debater at the University of Houston '26
Coach for Seven Lakes HS and Break Debate
Update for Durham (1/17): I don't judge PF a lot and a lot of the norms confuse me. That being said, everything in this paradigm applies to PF. You should make a conscious effort to label arguments and number your opponents responses on the flow. You will not win if your ff is just "aff can't solve", to win debates you require offense. Not everything is a turn. Defense is not sticky. Do judge instruction, your final focus should be telling me what parts of the debate are the most important and why you are winning them. My hands will not be on my keyboard if you make an “IVI” or read non-resolutional theory because if something so egregious happens that it makes a debater feel unsafe I will either intervene or ask you if you want to take it to tab, or the argument is bad and should not have been read in the first place.
I hate deadtime in debates. It makes me increasingly frustrated when there isn't a timer running and it seems like no one is doing anything. To reduce this please have the email chain with the speech doc sent AT START TIME.For every minute past start time without a doc sent i will deduct .2 speaks.
Stop asking for marked docs if they didn't mark any cards. Learn how to flow. Asking for what cards were and weren't read must be asked with a timer on whether it is Cross or flex prep.
Be clear, especially during cards. I should be able to hear every word. You get two warnings - after that, I will immediately stop flowing. I am not going to have docs up during your speeches, so make sure you are debating like a human and not a spreading robot.
I consider myself tab for arguments that are in Policy, but I am not great for LD shenangins outside of things like basic phil arguments. Regardless, conditoned on my biases listed below my decision will be determined based on my flow.
K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate
Inserting rehighlightings is fine as long as you explain why it matters in the speech. I usually read ev while making decisions.
Condo is good and the negative can read as many as they want to. I default judge kick but that can be debated. This is not to say I will not vote on condo, but it requires substanial mistakes to be made by the negative in order for me to get even close to think 2AR on condo is a good option.
Most CP theory arguments are better made as competition arguments. I lean neg on most CP theory questions besides things like Object, private actor, or multi-actor fiat.
I will not adjudicate anything that didn't happen in the round including out of round violations.
I have a disdain for argumentative cowardice. You should not pref me if your entire strategy is based on arguments like tricks, RVIs, or frivolous theory. I will not vote for you.
Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.
Answering a 1NC position that wasn't read is an auto 27.5. I don’t care. Flow.
Stolen from Pat Fox: When debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice on anything else, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.