"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if it's fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

I’m open to questions before and after the round via my email.

”I refuse to answer that on the grounds that I don’t want to.”

~ H. Specter

I’m mostly pref’d on K, Th, Phil, Tricks. Probably expect that if you got me in the back, I guess.

MarkABishopjr@gmail.com

**Conflicted to Clear Lake High School and Woodlands AH

The easiest path to my ballot (DEBATE)

Clear final speeches. Voters that link back into the way I should frame the round, be that through theory, a ROB, criterion, etc.

Not extending case fully can lead to a presumption ballot if content isn’t extended or permissibility if a way to frame the round isn’t extended. This means If you don’t extend your framework, you could lose even if you’re winning!!!

Judge adaptations and predispositions

I am a computer and will vote off anything. I do not need to fully understand something to vote on it, I just need to have a reason why.

Due to resolvability concerns, I have a few ‘default settings'. If these even get brought up in round, I become a blank slate and give no favor based on these defaults.

a. Presumption negates, permissibility affirms.

b. If an argument is conceded in the following speech, it will be treated as objectively true.

c. CX is binding.

d. Every argument is permitted.

e. If an argument is not extended, it is no longer on the flow. I do not shadow-extend.

Accommodations

If there’s a specific request given to me for anything pertaining to disability or comfort, I will do my best to comply.

If both debaters agree in wanting me to change my paradigm to fit their debate preferences, I will. My paradigm is not a set of my beliefs, but just my best attempt at being a blank slate that gives every argument a fair trial. Sometimes, even I do not like my paradigm, which is why I include this bit.

Speaks

Starting at a 29. I give a lot of 30s. I judge speaks off strategy. I am prone to boosting speaks to debaters that can make me laugh(I have a pretty crude sense of humor; my mind is a deep dark and cryptic place). If you send analytics for all speeches, I’ll give you a 29.5 minimum no matter what, no matter where.

Post-rounding

Do it, but please keep it to under 5 minutes per person. Everything else can be handled via email. I will ‘match your energy’. Private coaches count as part of the “person” of their debater, lol.

I think it’s good to have these conversations to make sure debaters can truly learn and get better after a round with me. I’m also more than happy to give a brief analysis of how I would have done things (differently), and why.

Comfortability/Experience

1 - K (All, from non-t k aff to idpol to cap or psycho. I used to debate non-t k affs and k negs a lot. Good for all your pess and performance K needs.)

1 - Trad (Every judge can judge trad, it's just a little boring. I do not like "subpoints".)

1 - T/Th (Comfortable, did it a bit, fan of judging it.)

1 - LARP (I LARP'd mostly for the first half of my debate career... then debated Ks... most ‘LARPers’ give me a 2 or 3 which only makes me a little sad, but I get it.)

1 - Kant/Korsgaard/Rawls/Butler (been judging it a lot, kind of a fan.)

2 - POMO (judged it a lot in late 2023 and early 2024.)

3 - Tricks (I have a good amount of experience with 'em. They're objectively dumb, but I don't really care. I have recently made this go from 2 —> 3 due to judging some traumatic tricks debates that got way too messy, blippy, and unintelligible. If I do not hear it, and there isn’t a doc, it DOES NOT EXIST. I’m a 1 if there’s less than 5 tricks, and 2 if less than 10. Else, 3. Some of y’all are ruining the fun of these for me.

2 - Other Phil (Deleuze, Derrida, Locke, whomever. I’ve started writing Phil prep for people. I mostly get it now, they’re just a bit annoying.)

For traditional/lay rounds

For LD, any arguments made after the 1AR, if new, will not be evaluated.

For PF, any completely new arguments made after both sides give their rebuttal will not be evaluated.

For CX, any new arguments made after the 1AR will not be evaluated.

Speech

Make me laugh, make me cry. I would much rather laugh, but those are the reactions I most value in a speech round of any kind. I care a lot less about proper form or movements or the little triangle dance thingy.

World Schools “Debate”

I end up evaluating it like traditional debate. I value the things in my speech paradigm for "speaker points". Just be clear and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. Heck, give me a "first, vote on x. Second, vote on y".

Congress

I should not be here. If I am here, refer to my speech paradigm. I'm sorry for myself and you, but I will evaluate the round to the best of my ability. I value engagement and should be treated like a parent judge.

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

TFA STATE 2025 UPDATE:

i’m recovering from a concussion right now, so it would be very appreciated if you spoke slowly, basically treat me like a flay judge

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I value debate that is germane to the topic. Loosely connected theory shells or using "trick" debate strategies hold less value than those in which are directly relevant to the topic. I am looking for well researched and well delivered debate.

Spreading is frowned upon. In my opinion spreading ruins the spirit of debate. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points with fluidly.

Be respectful to me and your opponents at all times.

Tech>Truth

I'll evaluate any argument (K, LARP, Theory) as long as you warrant it out properly but I draw the line at arguments that are inherently immoral for example: Genocide good or Racism good. If you run any argument like this I will down vote you and tell your coach. I'll automatically assume that any argument dropped on the flow is true.

I'm okay with spreading as long as your 1. Coherent 2. Ask your opponent for consent before hand 3. Send me the case before hand

Make sure you're being respectful and give good judge instruction you should be telling me how to vote in round.

I generally won't give anywhere under 28 speaks unless you come off as incredibly incoherent or aren't being respectful to your opponent. I'm not very well versed on tricks so run it at your own risk.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

• Arguments: I'm most comfortable and prefer traditional arguments but will always hear you out and weigh things to the best of my ability. I’m more likely to appreciate arguments that engage directly with the topic, rather than abstract meta-debates, so it must be said; If you prefer more "creative" or less traditional arguments, maybe don't pref me.
• Quality over Quantity: I value well-developed, high-quality arguments more than the sheer number of points and evidence. I’m looking for depth, clarity, and logical consistency in your case. I want a focus on your argument rather than countless cards.
• Respect Between Competitors: Debate should be a respectful exchange of ideas. Personal attacks, condescension, or a lack of decorum will reflect poorly on you. Maintain a professional tone throughout the round.
• Spreading: I’m not the biggest fan of spreading. Don't get me wrong, speed is a natural thing, but I'm not comfortable with someone speaking fast to the point of super human. Keep your arguments clear and to the point. I want to understand your points without feeling overwhelmed or needing to ask for speech docs.
• Framework and Weighing: A strong framework is essential. Clearly establish how I should evaluate the round, and be sure to weigh your arguments against your opponent's case. Demonstrating why your impacts outweigh is crucial.
• Presentation: Effective delivery, including eye contact, tone, and composure, matters to me. Signposting is always welcome in your speech as it helps with the flow of the debate. I usually expect competitors to know timing of rounds and to time themselves.
• Disclosing: I typically do not disclose decisions in preliminary rounds. I like to move things quickly and put in feedback after in order to get going to a next round.
• Speech Rounds- Really the biggest thing I look for in speeches is the significance of what you have to say and can someone connect and relate to your message. Shock value isn't as important to me as relevance is.

I competed in speech and debate for 3 years at Jersey Village HS, primarily doing WSD for 2, and I have a decent understanding of most speech and debate events.

Be respectful. Discrimination or hateful rhetoric is an auto loss.

WSD:

tl;dr: be respectful, be yourself, be strategic, weigh and clash, and tell me why I’m voting for you.

- I'll evaluate arguments as they are given to me and weighed in the round as long as they are not blatantly false or out of pocket. That being said, I love creative arguments.

- Let your personality bleed through in your speech, whether through humor, narratives, or whatever makes your speech yours. Don't speak like a robot reading an essay to win me over stylistically.

- Organization is important. Your speeches should have clearly signposted arguments and responses. Team organization is also crucial. Extend arguments throughout the round. As the round progresses, your team should be collapsing on and weighing the most critical path(s) to the ballot.

- Make your POIs strategic. They should be given and accepted in moderation.

- Weigh both worlds and be comparative throughout the round. This is extremely important to my ballot.

- Clash. If you never engage with your opponent’s case, then there is no way for me to evaluate whose world is preferable.

- Be charitable. Give reasonable framework and definitions. If a framework debate occurs, try to resolve it quickly (by being charitable) so the content of the debate can be discussed.

- Tell me why I’m voting for you. Clearly show me your path to the ballot, and don’t leave me to guess why I should vote for you– tell me.

If you have any more questions about my judging preferences, please ask!

Other debate events:
tl;dr: be respectful, engage with your opponent's case, tangible impacts

Although they were not my primary event, I have at least a base-level understanding of CX, LD, and PF. My ballot is won by engaging with the opponent and being comparative. I also strongly prefer tangible impacts over the stereotype “xyz so nuclear war”. Unless you have some good analysis behind it, it will be difficult for me to buy “tensions rise so nuclear war” with no more justification. As for my in-round preferences, I don't mind some speed, just not your maximum. I'm fine with most arguments, but if they are less traditional try to frame them with limited jargon.

If you would like answers about more specific preferences, please ask!

LD -

• Traditional judge - do not mix LD with Policy debate
• Framework - make sure that your v and vc are upheld throughout the entire case
• Moderate speed is fine; remember that if I cannot flow your case then you will more than likely won't do well in the round
• I want to hear impact not an overwhelming amount of cards - how do you interpret your cards for them to uphold your case's stance on the resolution?

PF -

• Absolutely no spreading
• This is a people's debate, please make sure that your case displays a cohesive development of your critical thinking skills
• In this debate, you are speaking to an average person, do not treat like I am an expert
• Second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal

Speech -

• I value a clear and organized speech that contains strong and profound analysis.
• Creativity is another important aspect as well. Let yourself shine by delivering your speech in the most memorable way to make yourself stand out.
• Citations!! Please do not give me a speech about a topic that is not cited. How do I know your analysis is credible if it is not supported by a source?
• Your critical thinking skills should stand out when performing; meaning that the topic chosen should be developed progressively rather than having points that sound repetitive or do not correlate to the topic at hand.
• Remember that the time of the speech does not matter when the content of the speech has given nothing.

A few general points -

• I do not want to be on the email chain
• I will not disclose during prelims
• Do not ask me about speaks
• Please treat your opponents and judge with respect and integrity; this is supposed to resemble a professional environment meant to develop your communication skills
• If you bring spectators to round, please make sure that YOUR spectators respect the flow of the round. Once you enter room, they are there from start to finish. I will not tolerate an interruption of the concentration and flow of the participants and the judge. I will leave a note on your ballot for your coach to review or speak directly to your coach.

I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. I will attend only to the arguments presented in the debate when making my decision.

I am a lay judge, so please don't go above 220 words per minute.

SLHS '25

4th-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, 2x state qual in pf, 1x gold toc qualled, broke at nationals in policy!

I mainly do pf now

Please ask me questions before the round!

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!
  
  

• I heavily prefer ev>presentation- just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy (realistically they’re on the higher end).
  
  

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.
  
  

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.
  
  

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).
  
  

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|
  
  

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).
  
  

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.
  
  

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.
  
  

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.
  
  

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.
  
  

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.
  
  

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.
  
  

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.
  
  

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.
  
  

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.
  
  

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.
  
  

• Progressive debate:
  
  

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)
  
  

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)
  
  

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!
  
  

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.
  
  

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)
  
  

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus
  
  

• No substantially new arguments in both
  
  

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more
  
  

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.
  
  

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides if the tournament permits it.
  
  

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

TLDR: I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool! Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).
  
  

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.
  
  

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).
  
  

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be
  
  

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!
  
  

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)
  
  

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.
  
  

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.
  
  

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).
  
  

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.
  
  

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.
  
  

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point
  
  

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.
  
  

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge but will try my best to adapt and evaluate everything.

Background

I debated for Cypress Woods highschool in Houston in LD for 3 years, and dabbled a little bit into policy my senior year. I primarily went for the Ks and LARP throughout my career, but did all forms of debate.

Short Overview

sophia.a.larsen@icloud.com - email chain

Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating.

Spreading is fine.

Read whatever you want!

UPDATE: ive judged almost every bid tournament this season including some elims so dont be afraid to run things.

tech > truth

Prefs Shortcut

LARP - 1

Less Dense Ks - 1

Phil - 2

Theory - 4

Dense Ks - 4

Tricks - 5

Specifics

k's:

I specialized in the Fem K and know most about that field of literature. I read it on both aff and neg. I also read other kritiks like the cap k and abelism.

k v k debates

• these are my favorite form of debate. I LOVE a good k v k round where both debaters know what they are talking about and go down the flow well.

pol v k

• I really like this form of debate. A lot of things that go missing in this debate is either why the k is necessary to solve and or why the plan solves the impacts of the k.

TO NOTE: I will NOT vote on kritiks involving social death if you are not from that identity group

LARP

• I will vote on almost any impact IF AND ONLY IF it makes sense and isnt abuse.
• I like this form of debate. make sure there is a clear link chain and impact weighing. make sure your clear down the flow. Ive seen a lot of debaters this season forgetting their solvency claims and or dropping impacts. be careful.

Phil

• This form of debate is fine. if you are going to run philosophers like DNG make sure you explain it well to me.
• I did a lot of research on philosophers like Kant, Rawls, locke, etc.

SPEAKS:

I was screwed a couple times in my career due to low speaks so I tend to give higher ones. I will give you additional points if you win the debate and sit down early, but dock points if you lose the debate and sit down early.

Wazza! If you are reading this, you are most likely about to get judged by me and if you are reading this as you are getting judged by me I salute you as a proud member of the procrastination nation. A little introduction about me, my name is Fadhil Lawal, I graduated from Seven Lakes High School in 2024 and I now attend Vanderbilt University. I competed mainly in Congressional Debate during my four-year career, however I did a little bit of PF, and a bit more of speech. Some of my notable achievements include winning Nationals (House), TOC, TFA, Emory, and Glenbrooks (2x). Here's how I judge.

PF - I judge content only, I will not evaluate theory and Ks etc. Stay topical.

Email: fadhillawal06@gmail.com

Coming from a Congressional Debate background, clarity in all aspects is the utmost priority for me when it comes to judging . First, clarity while speaking. I should not struggle to hear what you are saying because that takes away focus that I can be using to evaluate the round better. Please speak clearly. I am opposed to spreading because most of the time whenever it is done I end up not being able to distinguish the words competitors are saying, as a result I cannot properly evaluate you as a judge and that will negatively impact your performance given that I cannot hear your argument. You can speak fast, but you cannot spread. I will give you 3 warnings throughout the round concerning clarity. I will say "CLEAR" 3 and only 3 times. If you do not adjust I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but at that point I think I have done enough to try and help you to help yourself. Second, clarity while arguing. I am not opposed to jargon and know the majority of the PF ones but remember I did Congress, not PF, so travel at your own risk. The more high level the jargon is the higher the probability that I will not understand it, an example of this is an RVI. Additionally, keep argumentation clear and clean. Keep the debate organized so I can more easily evaluate it. Don't just drop cards on me, the analysis/warranting on those cards is also important so don't forget that. Provide an off the clock roadmap for rebuttals etc. AND follow them please, otherwise you make me even more lost than I would have been without it. I like rhetoric so do with that as you will. Extend your arguments, don't bring up new stuff when you're not supposed to and make more sense than your opponents. Last but not least,I read case, if I find evidence that is horribly cut you will be penalized for it and if I find that your case is a patchwork of cards that do not rlly contribute towards the argument that you are making you will also be penalized, don't try any sneaky doo doo and have a fun round!

TLDR: Speak clearly and assume I am a flay judge with a decent amount of argumentative experience.

Congress -

In General: I am a 50/50 judge. 50% content, 50% speaking. On content, I search up every piece of evidence I hear within a round. If I find that you are lying, you automatically will get a 9 and I will report you to the tournament. Congress is the only debate event where your competitors are trusting you as a competitor to debate in good faith. If you cannot uphold that trust, you do not deserve to advance nor compete in the rest of the tournament. Obama Mic Drop.

Sponsorships: Pop off. I love a good sponsorship. Give me and the rest of the round a good baseline for the debate. Make sure that you are hitting the meat of the debate in your speech, if you are not, you shall not rank highly as you have failed. I shouldn't have to learn about your bill from other people in the round, I should be learning that from you.

PO: Unless you knock the socks off my feet, buy me Chick-fil-A, and propose to me, you will rank no higher than a 4 as a PO. I believe that at its core PO'ing is an unfair aspect of Congress that should be abolished. You are hitting a gavel on a table. I literally cannot rank you the same as someone who prepared for hours, paid attention during the round, and braved their nerves to speak in front of others. I can't. DO your job and you will get a 4.

I am a parent/judge. I value fairness and equity, and in the case of competitive debate, good sportspersonship.

I am a traditional judge and listen for structure in argumentation.

I highly value clear communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically, with well-structured speeches. Signposting and clear transitions are crucial for guiding me through the flow of the round. Avoid rapid speech that sacrifices clarity for speed. Analytical depth, backed by evidence and examples, is essential for winning. Show me how your arguments interact with those of your opponents. I prefer well-researched and credible sources. Maintaining a respectful demeanor towards opponents, partners, and the judge is crucial. Avoid personal attacks, derogatory language, or any behavior that undermines the respectful atmosphere of the round. Politeness and courtesy are highly valued.

The primary role of my ballot is to determine which team presented the more compelling case and debating skills. My decision is based on the arguments presented in the round and not influenced by personal biases. I am open to various debate styles and appreciate creative and effective strategies.

Hey guys!! I am a junior and this is my second year of varsity debate. I have done varsity PF and LD but in my novice years i competed in literally every event so don't play with me.

PF/LD

• if you don't stand or ask to sit and just sit and act like it's okay your speaker points are going down. If you ask to sit I will allow it. But I know you didn't get all dressed up just to sit there and stare at a computer screen like my 7 year old ipad kid of a sister
• run wtv you want I don't care just be respectful
• don't tell me your opponent conceded something when they didn't... that would pmo.
• don't ask a question just to cut someone off
• if you're spreading to the point where I can't understand your contentions, that's on you i will not try to flow that- it's above my pay grade (i'm not getting paid)
• I will give you feedback after the round and maybe disclose - depends on the tourney
• PLEASE speak do not take long pauses, concede extra time, or just stand there and say nothing
• if you have any questions abt my paradigm pls just ask :) i'm friendly i swear

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Speech Events: I look for a clear preview of your main points of analysis, integration of multiple sources, effective use of gestures and a speech clear of fluency breaks. Nonverbal cues are important and help make your analysis more effective.

interp Events: Great performances will feature clean transitions between characters that have distinct voices for unique characters. I look for students/teams that are well prepared and jive well together. Your personal analysis in the teaser should be easily tied to your piece and a greater theme throughout.

Debate: In all forms of debate I look for a clear impact calculus that sets your impacts apart from your opponents. You are safe to speak at a brisk pace but if you spread I won't be able to keep up well. I'm not a great judge for theory debates, though I understand the basics of topicality. Try your best to persuade me and I will consider any argument.

Highlighted Qualifications:

I graduated high school in the spring of 2020. Throughout my 4 years, I was heavily involved in my school’s speech and debate organization. My competitive experience is in interpretation events, though I made sure to become as well-rounded as possible in order to try to keep my school’s team alive while I was a student there. I was also very involved in the school’s theatre program as an actor, participating in 10 school productions.

Moving into college, I participated in the Lone Star College Honors Research program and a Chancellor’s fellow, taking honors level speech & English courses, taking part in LSC-UP Honors National Model UN, alongside taking acting courses and acting in UP Drama Department productions.

I have been judging local high school debate tournaments since 2022.

General Paradigms:

Presentation is generally very important to me across the board, I think catering your presentation of pieces and information to be as affective as possible in your given setting is a very important skill. I also value the creation and maintenance of interest in any given presentation. Regarding content, I want it to be recent, relevant, consistent, and well summarized when needed.

Regarding debate events:

I’m not a fan of spreading or excessive speed in debate rounds because it does not show mastery of many communication skills that are applicable outside of a competitive debate context. I think part of the challenge of these debate events is being able to curate your research to the point where what you are bringing to the round is the most relevant and effective subjects on the given topic. The superior debate student is articulate enough to need only the given time in order to sway judges to their side and present detrimental information in a clear and concise manner, while maintaining good presentation practices, without the need to speak too fast to be understood.

I am also always on the look out of solid logic, lines of reasoning, and contradictions within a case.

Progressive debate strategy is fine by me, as long as it is not presented in an overly- abusive manner.

Regarding speech/ interp events:

In performance events I look for intentional choices and character building that contributes to an overarching meaning or theme of a piece. I strongly value variation of voice, emotion, and other performative elements in order to show progression throughout a piece and to keep the audiences attention.

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

Last updated: 12/8/23

Institution: Stephen F. Austin HS '25

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Add me to the email chain at: elenanutzman@gmail.com

Shortcuts:

Phil: 1

LARP/K: 2-3

Theory: 2

Tricks: 4

Time yourself and your opponent please!

Overview:

I am tech > truth and will evaluate any arguments you present to me to the best of my capabilities. That said, please warrant all claims you make and crystallize in your last speech.

Please make the ballot simple for me. Voters help with this- and make rebuttal speeches more understandable.

Spreading and flex prep is fine.

The debate space should be safe for everyone- do not make problematic arguments that would jeopardize this. I will vote you down.

How to win:

Impact weighing and meta weighing helps me contextualize the round and know what I should prioritize.

Framework/ROB/ROTJ/Framing mechanisms should be utilized to help me determine how I should evaluate the round. Don't make the debate cyclical- Make args that refute your opponents claims and defend your own.

DA/CP/Topicality: Comfortable with these.

Kritik: Not familiar with all K literature, but enjoy Kritiks a lot. Make sure to explain your alternative well, and explain your method.

Phil debate: Enjoy a lot. Feel free to read in front of me, but keep in mind that I might not know your literature base, so clarification in rebuttal speeches is important. I am most familiar with Butler and Deleuze.

Theory debate: Love a round with good theory clash. Make sure to run complete shells so I know how I am voting.

Tricks: Tricks are fine, but I think tend make the round difficult to evaluate and are abusive. I have a low threshold, but will evaluate.

Extra .5 speaker points if you bring me a snack.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas debater. I warrant a clash of values, and criterion within the round. The framework of arguments should be concise; and signposting is expected. Do not spread.

Policy Debate

...

Extemporaneous Debate

The speech should be organized, and a clear statement of sources should be expected. The execution of your speech should simplistic, and engaging with the audience.

I am a more traditional LD judge. I listen for solid framework, outweighed value/criterion packages, strongly linked contentions, and sound line-by-line rebuttals. Speed that does not interfere with my understanding of your case and why it better upholds your side won't bother me, but if it does, and I'm lost, you've lost.

I also prize good sportsmanship in a round. Don't simply dominate your opponent; add value to the round with sound reasoning and crystallization in the final speech in a way that we all know who won the round at the end of it.

Regarding speech events, I prioritize a powerful, varied delivery; effective organization; and compelling ideas presented with relevant and persuasive evidence.

Interp events should be able to impactfully execute the same characteristics but through believably authentic characterization and blocking.

Background:

I debated in HS for 3 years. In that time I attended the TOC, TFA State, UIL Regionals, and circuit debated primarily in LD. I did dabble in student congress, CX, and PF as well. While I primarily focused on debate, I did also participate in several speaking events. After leaving HS in 2014, I went to college and began mentoring for HUDL, assisted in coaching, and became a private debate tutor. I have been judging and providing support since. I graduated from the University of Houston in 2019 with a BA in Philosophy/Minor in Political Science. As of SEPT 2024, I have accumulated 14 years of experience. At present I am a certified Human Resources Manager working part time on my legal degree. Why do I continue? In short, because I enjoy the continued mentorship and serve as a continued mentor/tutor for under served schools in greater Houston.

All debate: Quality over quantity is requested. I will be making a decision wholly based on what is presented to me within the round. Do not expect me to jump to do the heavy lifting for you. I will be considering quality of arguments, speaking style, decorum, unique perspective, and case strength with emphasis on arguments extending across the flow through the round. Speed of speaking is no issue for me to track so long as contestants are articulate. HOWEVER, spreading, to be clear, is not encouraged by any means unless it is a policy round. All contestants are expected to keep their own time and strickly adhere to it. Overages in time will not be tolerated.

CX: Preference given to line by line in closing speeches. Strongly opposed to cases focusing only on kritiks. I am not as familiar with CX as with other styles and require more hand holding through the round if you want me to track along.

LD: Strong value/criterion are a must in all cases. Contestants will be judged on their ability to support their value/criterion with relevant arguments within their case, as well as direct arguments towards their opponent. Kritiks and counterplans will be strongly opposed as valid framework for your case. I will often vote you down if you insist upon these strategies. I won't go as far as saying all hope is lost, but you have quite a bit more ground to cover if you insist on using policy strategy. All constestants are expected to bring arguments and voting points across the flow for consideration. I will not flow if you spread. Do not spread.

PF: No preference in style/presentation with exception given to spreading. Spreading is not preferred - contestants will be judged on the quality of arguments in relation to their opponents. Arguments made in crossfire will not be voted on unless they are extended to rebuttal. Arguments extended in summary speeches will not be voted on even if they are introduced in crossfire (if they were not previously in rebuttal speeches).

Congress: All contestants will be ranked based on the entirety of their participation in the session. This includes quality of questioning, participation in speeches, quality of speech presentation, ability to cooperate with others on passing or failing legislation, ability to stay within speaking time, and quantity of participating speeches. Presiding officer will be ranked based on their ability to adhere to Robert's Rules of Order, proper lingo, ability to keep session organized and timely, creation of the docket, and ability to be fair and impartial in selection of speakers.

For debate rounds, I vote for whoever has the better argument in the round.

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

2024-2025 Season

Howdy! I've been actively judging every year since I graduated in 2018, so this will be year 7 of judging for me.

PF/LD General:

- NO EMAIL CHAINS. If you ask me to be on the email chain, this indicates you have not read my paradigms.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to pre-flow or take forever to get set up, I WILL doc your speaks. Pre-flows, bathroom, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will usually use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to make sure you're not lying about how much time you have left. When someone asks for cards, please be quick about this because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

-I will not disclose. Info will be on the ballots.

-Please be respectful in round and have fun!

PF: Truth > Tech. I will vote for a more moral argument, I do not want to hear a lot cards being dumped throughout with "Judge vote us because of XYZ cards." Show me an argument that makes sense. Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.

Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.

LD: Traditional debate is what I would like you to do. Conceding framework throws away essentially the validity of LD debate. Framework is what I value the most in a round, please uphold it throughout the round. Spreading is not allowed, moderate speed is fine. Do not ask me about K's, Tricks, etc. I'm trying my hardest to figure it out like y'all are in round.

Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.

PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.

Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.

Speakers should speak clearly. I am not okay with spreading. I need to be able to understand your framework and I cannot do that if you spread!

In terms of LD, I will reward creativity in argument as opposed to one that I hear every round. Persuasion and clash are necessary. I will not evaluate non topical arguments. I expect all debaters to treat their opponents with respect.

The Kinkaid School, Vanguard Debate

'24 NDT Doubles

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

HSLD: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Basics

1. I will flow on paper and then decide the debate based on the arguments on said flow, conditioned by the caveats and biases delineated further below. If I do not have paper, I will flow on Excel.

2. My hearing is bad. Clarity is extremely important. If you're unclear, I'll yell "clear" twice, and then play games on my phone.

3. I prefer clash. I detest tricks, RVIs, and most non-resolutional theory. If you're wondering whether your argument constitutes a "trick", you probably shouldn't read it.

My desire to vote for you goes down the more I believe you are just trolling. If you don't care, I won't either.

4. If you ask for a 30, I will give you the lowest speaker points permitted by the tournament.

5. Introducing a callout, character assassination, or otherwise unverifiable beef will result in an auto-loss, the execution of rule 4, and the contacting of Tab and/or coaches.

6. There is no flow clarification period. Asking for a marked doc or "what was X argument" is CX or flex prep.

7. Inserting is fine until someone makes an argument about it.

Plans

Your advantage(s) are probably bad. However, the neg rarely takes time to explain why, and frequently opts to only meekly extend impact defense. A neg that can exceed this practice will be rewarded.

Counterplans

Judge kick unless argued otherwise or the CP is unconditional. "Conditionality bad" is a non-starter and will be met with a verbal interruption.

Fine for both "must compete functionally" and "must compete functionally and textually". Textual competition seems difficult, but I am not diametrically opposed to it.

I dislike recycling. Most process CPs probably fail to resolve their net benefit, solve case, and are structurally incoherent.

Theory is best when couched as a competition argument and is never a reason to reject the team. I am frequently persuaded by neg appeals to arbitrariness - "process CPs bad" is untenable. "Must only fiat the resolutional actor", however, is fine.

Intuitive analytic advantage CPs are under-utilized. The glaring lack of "plan key" is astonishing and should be punished more frequently.

Disadvantages

Your politics DA is likely an incomplete 1NC argument and can be quickly vaporized with well-informed analytics.

Impact calculus is, by definition, comparative. Explaining your impact and sprinkling in terms like "magnitude" without referencing the advantage probably does not constitute comparison.

Topicality

I don't have a strong opinion on reasonability vs. competing interpretations. Reasonability should have offense that can outweigh the neg's gut check/arbitrariness standards.

Kritiks

I am very bad for "middle ground", but good for either "no K" or "no plan".

The neg should explain how they generate uniqueness for their offense, whether that is via an alternative or framework argument. However, I can be persuaded by "reject things that are bad".

The aff frequently forgets that they read an advantage, which causes the 2AC to debate on the neg's playground. Less generic card reading and more leveraging the aff vs. their theory of power, links, alternative, and framework arguments.

Planless Affs

Framework is an argument that demonstrates the utility of debate, i.e., why debate is good (and ideally, why it is good for the aff).

Fairness is good, but there is no reason it should be the entire 2NR. The substantive justifications for fairness are compelling, but are too simple to require 6 minutes.

I think about framework very similarly to a disadvantage - the opportunity cost to voting aff is topical debates. The neg should utilize turns case language, which is best accomplished via skills, not fairness.

Very rarely is "subject formation" explained. I am bad for "debate can change your opinion/turn you into an activist", and very bad for "debate can't change subjectivity at all". There is a middle ground that naturally favors the neg.

The TVA/SSD are overestimated in their ability to mitigate impact turns, but excellent at demonstrating turns case/offense (when explained meaningfully). The TVA is also not a CP.

I am not very good for kritik vs. kritik debates (yet).