Put me on the email chain: dustyn.beutelspacher@gmail.com

Affiliations: Debated at Niles West in high school, UTD in college. Now coach for UTD and Greenhill school

LD exception - If an argument can be described as a 'trick', please dont read it in front of me. Likewise, if your theory argument is based on something you opponent didn't do, it is probably unpersuasive to me.

TL;DR:

Go for what you want to go for, if you got a K aff, make sure you can beat framework, if you go for a process cp, make sure you can beat theory, etc, etc, I will try my hardest to adapt and judge the round as objectively as possible.

I love line-by-line. The more you engage with your opponent's arguments, the more likely you are to win and the higher your speaks will be.

I won't vote on things that happened out of round or in other debates.

You can insert rehighlightings of the other team's evidence, text of a card only needs to be read once for it to be evaluated.

No racism/sexism/etc, be nice. Don't do that thing where you delete tags or read new affs on paper or stuff like that to make your speech harder to read.

Longer:

I've become more willing to comb through evidence over the years, but it's mostly out of curiosity since debaters seem to be getting better at spinning ev, obviously I have my limits, but the debate includes the debate over the evidence.

I think conditionality is good, it seems to be necessary in this day and age when topics are very broad. I've become more neg biased recently but maybe it's just my disillusion with one unwarranted sentence of condo bad somehow becoming an entire 2ar. Condo in general seems to have gotten significantly more shallow. There probably is some point at which condo becomes bad, but I can't truthfully see myself voting for condo bad absent some egregious neg strategy or technical error.

Since it has come up more than once, my stance on judge kick is that I will presume judge kick if nothing has been said on theory, if the aff wants to win no judge kick, then you must at least make the arg in the 1ar.

You get infinite condo against new or undisclosed affs.

I personally don't particularly like process cps, this is a sliding scale, as consult ICJ or a commission cp seems less competitive than something like a states cp on face, but it seems like people are either unwilling or unable to actually invest time in theory in the 1ar anyways, so it often doesn't matter. I think fiating multiple actors (think both USFG and the states, not the states cp, or fiating compliance with another actor whom you fiat) is probably cheating, but I can be convinced otherwise. I tend to lean neg on theory questions despite all that

I like Ks the more specific the link analysis is. I tend to think of Ks as one or multiple thesis statements that, if won, should theoretically disprove the aff. This means the more you pull warrants from cards, explain the aff in the terms of your K, etc, the more likely it is that you beat the perm since that explanation makes links a lot more salient. That's a lot more persuasive than big aff/neg framework pushes to me

FW/T vs K affs. Since this is the only portion of a paradigm that matters for most pref sheets, yes I will vote on framework, yes I will vote against it. These debates seem to come down to impact comparison, as usually it seems hard to win either topical affs are necessary to prevent the entire collapse of this activity, versus framework is genocide, which makes winning as much of your impact quite important. Fairness impact seem to make intrinsic sense to me if debate is a game, but im not sure why that is a catch-all win if the aff wins debate rounds have impacts.

On a side note, I hate long overviews. Overviews should be for args that either: a. Are significantly more important and necessary for your argument to work, or b. Don't make sense when on the line-by-line (eg, meta-framing for how I should evaluate a debate). If you can do it on the flow, do it on the flow.

Put me on the email chain (ross.fitz4@gmail.com)

I debated for four years at Barstow in Kansas City and four years at the University of Kansas

I took two years off and now I'm back working with Greenhill + doing some judging for USC

Top Level:

Do what you do best, I'll try to keep up. That being said, what I really want to see (especially for high schoolers) is teams debating straight up. What I mean by that - I'm getting tired of this meta that seems to forefront winning on tricks over out debating your opponent. I don't like seeing things like hidden A-spec or a 1nc constructed out of 2017 backfiles with one substantive position. Pick what you are best at, be willing to start the debate over that position early in the round, and have at it. I'll vote on whatever that choice is, but I like teams that are truly willing to clash and engage with the best version of their opponent's arguments.

I try my best to get everything down on my flow, and it's what I'll decide the debate on. If you think an argument is especially important to deciding the debate, make sure you slow down and emphasize its importance so it ends up factoring into my decision

Your speaks will reflect how easy you make my job, that means focusing on argument comparison . judge instruction and framing my ballot for me in the final rebuttals. Impact out conceded arguments and choose a few issues you're winning to frame out your opponent's offense.

Argument Specifics:

Having judged pretty consistently this year after time off, I think I can more readily identify my preferences in args and how to deploy them.

FW: I've debated both sides of this argument, although I've spent more time thinking about it on the neg than the aff. I think affs should have some sort of relationship to the topic, but I don't have strong feelings about what that should be. I think fairness and clash are both impacts and impact turnable. Aff teams, I think the best strategy is an impact turn to the negative standards, and an emphasis on how the 1ac interacts with framework. I find that in these debates I often vote for the team that is best at re-characterizing the debates that occur in the other team's model. i.e. does the TVA ever actually get debated like the neg team says it would? what types of affs would the counter-interp include outside of the generic list of popular K authors? I also like to reward innovation in explanation in these rounds, because it's easy for them to feel stale.

T:I am pretty neutral on the question of competing interpretations vs reasonability. Reasonability should be a question of the aff's counter interp and not the aff itself. Impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as any other.

Ks: Links don't have to be to the plan, but you should explain how they implicate the plan and use aff language, evidence, performance to prove them. Alternatives that solve the links are better than ones that don't. I can be convinced the debate should be about something other than the consequences to the aff. I'm also down to vote on extinction outweighs and the aff is a good idea.

CPs: Well developed, specific CPs w solvency advocates are awesome. I find some varieties more cheaty than others: Word PICs, Conditions CPs, Delay, etc. Process CPs probably not cheating but not my fave to vote for. Also please slow down when debating CP competition. Basically, I'm not the best for CPs that do the whole aff.

DAs: Thumbs up. Spin can get you out of a lot, even if you're worried about specific evidence. Impact overviews and turns case arguments are an absolute must, especially in later rebuttals. Again, make my job easy. Tell me why your impacts are more important than theirs.

Theory: Proving in round abuse is the best way to get a ballot. Most of the time I lean toward rejecting the argument over the team.

Highland Park Highschool, 4th year of debate

Please put me on the email chain: speechdocreceiver@gmail.com

• Tech/Truth
• I will vote on theory and you don't have to make it your entire 2AR
• I've mostly run K's on the neg and policy on the aff, either style is fine.
• CX is binding
• I try not to give visible reactions in round (I don't hate you, just don't want to confuse you)
• Please sign post
• Please do impact calc
• I don't mind off-time roadmaps, they are great
• On CP's, I default to no judge kick if not told otherwise by the negative
• I'm not a fan of word salad, please make your cards comprehensible. I won't intervene if you highlight weirdly; but, if your opponent calls you out on it, you will only get access to the evidence you actually read.
• I'm happy to answer any debate/round questions by email but your coach probably knows WAY more than I do, so ask them first

3rd year debater at greenhill

add me to the email chain: dhiyahem@gmail.com

make the email chain smth like "aff team vs neg team - tournament - round #"

go for whatever you want, i'm fine with all args but more comfortable with policy (das and cps) than a k.

speed is fine, just try to be clear

be nice and respectful and have fun!

don’t say/do anything racist, homophobic, transphobic, or just straight up offensive. or L and lowest speaks possible.

lmk before round if you have any questions!

+0.1 speaker points if you go for t-taxes

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TFA STATE 2024 UPDATE: I feel like at this point in the season, judges should outline specific preferences that align with the topic, given they've judged a considerable amount thus far. I have developed a few of those preferences. First, because this is an economy centric topic, I need you to isolate a market indicator that should frame the direction of the economy. Whether is the CPI, Stock Market Projections, BizCon surveys, etc. Absent this specification, it makes it hard to judge econ uniqueness in debates. Second, the central T debate is Taxes v Deficit Spending. A lot more time needs to be allocated to the predictability standard when going for "you must tax". There are tons of taxes the aff could choose, only one way to deficit spend. Finally, is evidence recency. Though I believe dates on cards matter less than the warrants themselves, when debating the ever-changing economy, the most recent analysis is more likely to sway me. The same can be said for politics scenarios. We are deep into an election cycle, Super Tuesday is 2 days before tfa state. Please update your evidence.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

PF

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

email chain -tvishadallas@gmail.com

junior @ Coppell hs -- Coppell JS

I'll vote for anything except

a) isms good

and I’ll vote you down if you display homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist behavior -- there is no bright line and this will be determined on a case-by-case basis by me.

I'll flow cross-ex and I like k debate.

also like da, AND THE T (like t-taxes) debate.

• certainly not the best for a counterplan competition debate

• largely enjoy case debating (aka, smart solvency takeouts and impact turns)

• i can keep up with pretty much any kritik you want to read

• i love fw v k aff debates (it's what i spend almost all my time thinking about and i am less biased than what you probably assume)

Have fun and ask many questions!! Postrounding can only be educational for either you or me.

Ameya Kulkarni

Coppell '24

1. Email for the chain: ameya.alt@gmail.com
2. I am fine with almost every argument (given that it is not racist, sexist, etc.) do what you are good at and I'll do my best to evaluate the round in front of me
3. Clarity > Speed. I can't flow you if I can't understand you

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

Guyer HS '16-'20

UT Dallas '20-'24

Put me on the chain: hmubarak at me dot com

I did four years of policy debate in high school, and I currently debate for UTD. I've been the 2A, the 2N, and the ins at various points of my career, and I mostly ran policy arguments.

For the 2023-34 high school topic, I know almost nothing about it. I'd appreciate a little more explanation on the acronyms, background, and key concepts that structure these debates.

Some random thoughts below:

Don't be rude unless you want lower speaker points. In the case of blatant racism/sexism/etc., I'll only drop the team if the opponent makes an argument about it, but the bar is pretty low for me to do so.

You don't have to take prep to send out the email, but please be prompt about it.

Please keep track of your own prep. I will also keep track, but don't rely on me.

I'm not the greatest at flowing so if you're super fast I'd prefer if you went at like 90% of your top speed.

Cross-X is binding, and I'd prefer if one speaker from each team speaks at a time.

If you're reading a K, unless it's like Cap or Security or something, please don't assume I know your literature base. I almost certainly don't.

Have fun! This activity has meant a lot to me over the years, and I truly believe that it has strong educational potential. Argue, argue well, and argue with passion.

For LD/PF:

I'm a policy debater through and through, so adapt the way you normally would when you have a policy judge in the back. I don't know much about the norms of your formats, so the more you can make the debate resemble a policy round, the more comfortable I'll be. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a million miles an hour, but it does mean I'm less receptive to philosophy debates and 2 minute long theory shells.

Trishay (he/they)

Coppell NK

Email Chain: trinaman09@gmail.com

Top Level

I am completely disinterested in adjudicating arguments that explicitly claim racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia or transphobia to be good. Neither am I interested in listening to death good or self-harm arguments. Wipeout isn't necessarily the same as the latter two.

Although I've mainly researched and debated critical arguments for the past 2 years, I feel comfortable adjudicating almost anything.

Ballot framing that consolidates winning arguments at the top of the 2NR/2AR, although rarely done correctly, will boost speaker points, make decisions quicker, and most likely make everyone in the room happier. If done correctly, the first 20 seconds of the 2NR/2AR should be the words you expect me to say back to you during my RFD.

I enjoy debates and debaters that keep rounds light-hearted. Humor and trash talking are great given that it is kept respectful.

Judge Instruction

I've seen far too many frustrating decisions during my time debating. Here's where I will try to make better decisions than them.

1. They intervene with personal beliefs, despite claiming to be "truth over tech" or "unbiased". Although every argument I adjudicate will have a different relation and interpretation to me just like everyone else in the room, I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision solely on the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.

2. They pull the trigger on one argument without considering the rest of the debate. Although dropped arguments can be devastating, I will almost never vote for a single dropped arguments. Doing so makes debate grounded solely in technics and scriptocentrism while overlooking the research, styles of argumentation, and performative/dialogic aspects of the activity. This approach makes deserving students walk out of rooms with frustration and anxiety despite working countless hours towards the activity; only to lose because the judge wants to make the fastest and self-preserving decision. As someone who has felt this frustration far too many times, I hope that my RFDs will be able to reward the research and effort you've put into the activity

3. They develop an affinity for one side based on biases or affiliations. I don't care what you wear, how you present yourself, or how you wish to perform in this space.

4. They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.

5. They give poorly reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.

6. They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.

Disadvantages/Case

Turns case only matters if the timeframe is won.

Good impact calculus and scenario analysis wins debates. Comparing the size of internal links and weighing the entire disadvantage scenario to craft a story strongly benefits the team doing the work.

Zero risk is possible but pretty difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Rehighlighting 1AC/2AC cards in the block to prove link arguments is far more convincing than reading ten cards that all say the same thing. Specificity/evidence quality are good in link debates and should be referenced in judge instruction.

Topicality

Tech over truth.

Predictability vs debatability depends on what impact you choose to go for. Debatability is more convincing for clash and topic education arguments.

Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument. If the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Counterplans

Judge kick automatically unless told otherwise and only if there is no offense on the counterplan.

Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Counterplan theory debates are boring but sometimes necessary.

Condo is generally good. 5+ condo probably not.

Counterplans without solvency advocates justify new 1AR responses.

Plan v K

Convincing link debating can compensate for other parts of the flow (theory of power, framework, etc).

Although I enjoy kritik debates that get heavy into the theory and contest the aff through solid link debating, I understand the competitive appeal of framework heavy debates and fiat Ks.

I'm comfortable with almost every vein of literature. I mainly read afropessimism and queer theory, if that matters.

Butchering literature may not lose you the debate but it will make me sad.

K v FW

My ballot generally goes to the team with higher quality technical debating. Although concessions are not damning, they may be if your strategy is narrow and can't sidestep arguments with multiple non-contingent 2NRs/2ARs.

Being on the K side of these debates has made me internalize framework and normative debate procedure if anything. Phrasing and performance matters, even if form and content may be separate.

I think I am slightly better for fairness than clash, but mainly because most debaters don't do the work of explaining the benefits to their model enough by assuming its already a given.

Debate might shape subjectivity, but the bigger question is about whether ballots do.

I'm not a referee. I judge rounds.

Fairness has impacts and might itself be an impact. Critical teams that win against fairness usually don't win by yelling "Fairness is an internal link" more times than the other side can yell "Fairness is THE impact". Same vice versa. Explaining the implication of fairness arguments relative to your impact on debate/people/the world relative to the ballot makes my decision easier for whoever does so.

Switch side debate is heavily underutilized. Affs must explain the importance of iteration to win against this argument. Rev v Rev debates must have an impact beyond "you exclude it".

The TVAs I've seen are not nearly as creative as they could potentially be.

K v K

Aff probably gets a perm.

Good link debating that pulls quotes from the aff is usually devastating especially when used to undermine legitimacy of case offense.

Good for dense critiques. Avoiding cross ex questions makes it hard to vote for you unless that redaction is warranted by the literature

Other Notes

- Speed is fine. I don't follow the document.

- Recognizing Offense vs Defense is important, especially because zero risk is almost impossible.

- Heavy on holding the line for the 2NR in terms of 1AR/2AR coherence

- Impact comparison, judge instruction, hand holding, ballot key warrants (if applicable), are what win debates at the highest level when the technical skills of each side are equal

- I will only read cards if explicitly told in the 2NR/2AR. No card doc.

- Don't steal prep, send 1AC before the round. Sending the doc doesn't count as prep but please don't "send it on the wrong chain" 12 times :(