arushadabalar@gmail.com

Topshelf

- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics

- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.

LARP

This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.

Ks:

A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.

T/Theory:

Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating t debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.

Phil:

I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments will a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.

Tricks:

I have a very high threshold for voting on these.

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Olive

Pronouns are she/her

Brief Overview:

Truth > Tech

I've read both Policy and K arguments on both the aff and the neg. Storytelling is at the core of debate and debate is just conversations about how we should interpret and act on the stories presented in rounds. I love fun new arguments and will vote on anything so long as your winning the debate and the story adds up. I did congress for 4 years, so subconsciously presentation matters to me a little more than it does maybe for other policy judges but in policy that just means I value respect in round that is balanced with passion. I also take IVI's very seriously.

General stuff: whether you are running a K, a plan, a DA, whatever you should be telling a coherent story throughout the round. Impacts need to be both warranted and visualized. I love evidence comparison/analysis when it comes to authorship and highlighting to illustrate what a card says vs what the team says it said.

Policy vs K: Responses to the kritik need to be thorough and happen at multiple levels (f/w, perms, link defense, the alt, impacts, etc.). I'm pretty lenient with letting the K win links because its rare that they don’t so the job of a policy aff then is to explain to me why the (typically) incrementalist, policy oriented approach outweighs the impacts of the K in the context of what the kritik is talking about. It comes down to telling me why the aff is either key for alt solvency or why the aff is a fundamentally better approach to change than the alternative.

K debates: I doubt I’ll ever be able to judge these that much but I love these debates. I’ll vote for any K aff if its debated well. explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like "power-tagging" violations. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

add hbisevac0@gmail.com

niles north 23, kentucky 27

general

--the core predisposition I have is that technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that technical concessions matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

--big fan of cool strategies. I enjoy research a lot and will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!) topic research is good, backfile slop is not.

--organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times.

--please use email chains, not speech drop. have proper subject lines with the tournament, round, and teams.

LD

--everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about kentucky, feel free to reach out!

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 3L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level; my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg. Please see "important" section below.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Important Stances that May Deviate from the Norm:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("new 2nr args permissible" and "new 2ar args impermissible outside of answers to new 2nr args" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- every claim needs a warrant, even conceded arguments (I don't presume conceded arguments are true); alternatively, if you don't want to extend the warrant for conceded claims, an explanation of why conceded arguments should be considered true is acceptable (there's no justification for the claim without the extension of a warrant or an explanation of why concessions matter)

- if you go for substance and don't read a fw/both debaters are winning offense under their fw but neither explain which fw comes first/no one extends a fw/both debaters are winning unweighed offense under a fw, I'll vote on presumption absent an uplayer (same goes for t/theory in the context of standards/voters/paradigm issues; I'll just devolve to a lower layer of the debate)

- I presume: neg if it's aff v squo (bc the post-fiat world of the aff changes the squo); aff if it's aff v most generic post-fiat cps/alts (bc the post-fiat world of the neg is further from the squo); neg if it's aff v pic or "reject the aff"/pre-fiat advocacy (bc the post-fiat world of the aff is further from the squo). If neither debater has an advocacy by the end of the debate (both aff and cp are kicked or similar squo v squo scenario), I'll vote for the debater whose most recent advocacy is closest to the squo (ig I'll judge unkick the last advocacy read by both debaters and then presume; idk this has only happened once).

- if you don't extend your plan text/advocacy in some way it's kicked; in other words, you must extend your advocacy/plan text if you are going for a postfiat link/impact turn (one commonly applicable implication of this is if the 2ar goes for postfiat link/impact turns without extending the advocacy/plan text, it no longer defends the plan nor accesses offense from the turns)

-I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the antithesis of debate; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similarly discriminatory I will not drop them unless you say something about it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is report them to tab after the round and give them god awful speaks. Just call them out for being unethical.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Miscellaneous:

- tech>>>truth

- I will vote on literally anything when given a framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls, reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep and joint cross examination are fine

- have a localized recording; absent one, you risk losing whatever content was missed due to tech error (ig hope your opponent is cool with a redo)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 2 to 3 (depending on density)

Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP, it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than one is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I treat perms like condo advocacies because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links, they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression, it looks bad

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my favorite the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets/indicts

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I generally default competing interps unless otherwise specified

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult/potentially imnpossible to win for you

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, paradoxes, afc, acc, aprioris, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making>fluency (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is/report to tab

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- more leniency for novice debates

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Heights High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF:bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire, and coach a variety of debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Iyad Chowdhury | UT Austin '26 |iyadchow.db8judge@gmail.com

updated for 2025.

i do policy at UT Austin.

i am confident that i can deliver a well-reasoned decision based solely on what debaters have said between the 1AC and 2AR. i will flow on my laptop and decide who won the debate according to nothing other than that flow.

i am a good judge for teams that clash with their opponent's positions and debate with well-researched and smart arguments.

pref sheet shortcuts

1-- K

1-- Plans/cp/da

2-- T

2/3-- Trad

3-- Theory

4-- Phil

5/strike-- Tricks

tech>truth

"the round is about to start / i'm doing prefs, what should i know about you?"

1. yes email chain. my email is at the top. try not to use speechdrop, but i am fine if we have to.

2. please act like you are grown. i do not have the time or energy to deal with unserious behavior.

3. i really don't care about what you run, just do it well. i find that the best debaters make smart line by line responses, strategic choices, and generally seem like they want to win. the ballot is up for grabs, your speaks are not.

4. at the bare minimum, you should send whatever you are going to read before the speech that you are going to read it. i have little tolerance for suspicious disclosure practices.

5. i really like judge instruction. the first few words of the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot for me.

6. i find that 2ARs and 2NRs that try to go for too many arguments and do not explain why they fulfill 1 or 2 win conditions are losers.

7. i do flow cross ex. i think it is binding and i reward debaters for bringing cross ex moments into rebuttals. this is the best place to get high speaker points. make the most of the 3 minutes.

8. i always aim to disclose my decision orally. if i cannot, i would be happy to send my rfd in the email chain with coaches ccd.

9. call me either iyad or judge. do not call me sir. my name is pronounced eye-odd.

10. i really like organization. make a road map, stick to it, and number arguments.

11. chances are, i have not been involved in topic research or argument coaching and i am not aware of any debate norms that have proliferated since the beginning of this season. you should treat me like a blank slate.

12. if your top speed is a 10, you should spread at about an 8/10. this looks like slowing down slightly on tag lines and emphasizing key phrases you want to hear in the RFD. do not spread analytics at top speed in rebuttals.

13. i am an economics and history major and spend a lot of time thinking about statistics. some of the most compelling offensive arguments i come across are about errors in experimental design, flaws in causal reasoning, and statistical weak points in evidence. for instance, if you find that your opponent's card A relies on a sample of n=10 to establish a causal link between card A and card B, you should rehighlight card A and read it in your speech. i will be heavily persuaded to disregard card A. i am no stranger to many of the concepts taught in a basic AP Statistics class and firmly believe that applying such ideas to debate can be the curvebreaker for winning close debate rounds.

---

speaks

i tend to reward certain things with higher speaks. they are (but not limited to)

1. economy > verbosity -- you have time restrictions. don't be long-winded. get to the point and move on.

2. clarity -- i can't vote on what i don't hear. just slow down slightly on taglines and analytics.

3. strategic use of cross ex-- you will get at least a 29 if you do not use a laptop, bring cx moments into your speeches, and generate avenues for offense.

4. strategic collapsing/choices-- apply Occams Razor; go with the simplest path to the ballot.

5. taking risks and being creative-- you probably only have four years in total of high school debate. don't be afraid to do something daring or out of the ordinary. add some seasoning and innovate your speeches. this can look like making analogies, spinning your evidence in a unique way, or simply showing me that you are deeply invested in producing well-researched arguments.

the only instance in which i will grant the 30 speaks shell is if the following conditions are met:

1. both debaters agree to read stock cases, and

2. the winning debater gives their rebuttal speeches only off of the flow without reading pre-written blocks, and

3. the winning debater fulfills points 1-5 listed in the speaker points section.

the winner will get 30 speaks and the loser will get something above a 29.

i hope this rule incentivizes debaters to move away from many debate practices and instead adopt rigorous research, critical thinking, and communication skills.

this is not the only way to get 30 speaks. if you debate like you usually do and adequately fulfill the conditions listed in the speaker points section of my paradigm, there is a good chance you will get something close to or equal to 30 speaks.

things that get low speaks:

1. being rude to other debaters.

2. delaying the round any more than it needs to be.

3. stealing prep.

---

plans/cp/da

this is a safe, go-to argument if you have me in the back of the room.

1. straight turns and case turns with very specific evidence and spin are really impressive

2. better for textual+functional; textual on it's own is hard for me to buy. i am better for competition debates than theory debates.

3. i'm generally unconvinced by most counterplan theory shells.

4. heavily lean condo good.

5. cardless cping is strategic

6. tell me if you want me to judge kick

7. evidence quality is important. if your opponent is reading questionable evidence, you should leverage that as offense against the internal link chain.

K

you should assume that i know nothing about your K. this does not imply that i am not familiar with the K. it means that your explanation of these arguments in a simple, coherent way is the starting point for the easiest route to my ballot.

1. kritiks are not counterplans. i am aware that many debaters read kritiks as if they are a DA/CP. that is fine, however i firmly believe that the strongest K strategies center on a framework argument that claims the AFF cannot weigh the case.

2. link specificity good; pull lines from the 1AC and make link outweighs/turns case arguments. both reps links and links to the consequences of the plan are fine. however, if you are planning to apply the latter strategy, you should probably read your K like a DA/CP.

3. illustrate what the alternative looks like. i don't think that extending the alternative is a necessary condition to win the round and personally found that framework+link was sufficient enough to win a round.

4. middle ground approaches to framework that include carve outs of the AFF, rather than completely excluding the AFF from weighing case, seem generally unstrategic.

5. lbl>overviews. overviews that go on for too long generally do not lead to good speaks. i believe that if you have written eloquent tag lines, then there is no need for you to give an overview.

6. read rehilightings if the rehilighted part of the evidence has not been read yet in round. if it has been read in round, then inserting it is fine. but, to save yourself from that mental headache, you should probably just reread it.

7. in plan v. K debates,

-- if the K has a generic link that does not relate to the AFF, then i think that the AFF should win "no link + permutation double bind" almost all the time.

-- if the K has a very specific link to the AFF, then i think the AFF should go for an impact turn against the K. for instance, if the Cap K link says "the affirmative's market optimism is bad -- it reproduces a capitalist profit incentive" and the plan is about passing policies to increase investment in the tech sector, then i think the AFF should go for "impact turn: market optimism is good" against the Kritik.

-- you should not be afraid to read Cap Good in front of me, but be aware what you are impact turning. if the 2NR reads the Queerpess K, and the link is "the affirmative is homophobic, which is bad" you should in no circumstances think that "impact turn: homophobia is good" is an appropriate 2AR. in these instances, you should go for "no link/link defense + permutation double bind + let us weigh case/extinction outweighs". if the aff is legitimately homophobic, then you should probably go back to the drawing board.

k affs

thoughts on K's from above check out here

1. K AFF v. policy:

-- AFF: be ready for framework and presumption push. try to provide a role of the judge/role of the ballot and why your model of debate is pedagogically valuable

-- NEG: don't stay tunnel vision on the framework page. try to generate offense on the case page.

2. K AFF v. Cap:

-- AFF: chances are, your literature base also talks about capitalism. take that how you will.

-- NEG: try to center framework on material action good, political change good, and organizing good

3. K AFF v. K:

-- AFF: i think the aff does get the perm but i can be convinced otherwise. the perm double bind is persuasive.

-- NEG: i think it is redundant to read both the ballot k and presumption; read one or the other. i don't think "no perms in a method debate" is a strong argument but you can persuade me it is with enough warranting. i think the academy K is a winner in most of these debates if deployed correctly.

--both: explain your theory of power with extra detail on how it should frame solvency

framework/t

i generally agree that framework is a form of policing in debate, but i will check that bias at the door.

1. the AFF should preferably have a relationship to the topic; whether that has to be a "topical action" is subject to debate

2. i think that the AFF should be a net beneficial departure from the status quo. the NEG can claim the status quo is better than the AFF world, debate a counter advocacy or K alternative that presents an opportunity cost to the aff, or argue that the aff has not defended the resolution.

3. i tend to think SSD, TVAs, and case lists get underutilized.

4. fairness can be either an internal link or an impact, but i find it more persuasive as the internal link to limits. predictable limits as the internal link to clash is also persuasive.

5. make the shell specific to the aff.

6. counterinterps to framework are persuasive. debate scholars have written about what alternative models of debate should look like, and leveraging that literature against traditional models is completely possible.

8. impact turning framework can be a winner if done correctly but requires significant investment in the 1AR.

9. if you are NEG against framework impact turns: i am also convinced by arguments that highlight debate's potential to build movements/make us better researchers/make us better advocates. it is especially persuasive when paired with predictable limits = good for in-depth research. you should weigh the benefits of debate against their impact turn.

trad

i am a 1 for k and plans. it may be strategic to pref me lower than a 2 if you do not want to debate against the k or larp positions. i say that i am a 2 for trad simply because i am more open to judging trad v trad rounds than other judges.

1. read trad/stock if you want to. clean line by line and simple debating is great.

2. try to make the round accessible if you are going up against debaters that are not as experienced and read trad arguments. you can read dense arguments and you will win but your speaks will not be good.

theory

theory debates are a farce. complain less, debate more. i'll evaluate it but speaks might not be as high as you would like.

1. default is counterinterps, dta, and no rvis. there is no chance that i will vote on an rvi.

2. don't use beef to get a ballot. i implore you to talk to the tournament directors and coaches about interpersonal conflicts.

3. weigh standards. new standards under the sun are great. i don't have any strong feelings on what standards are more compelling.

4. debate is supposed to be difficult. claiming that "debate is harder for the negative/affirmative" only behooves you by making me question your work ethic

phil

i would be happy to judge a phil debate, just be aware that i am not as well versed in the subject and my decision time may take longer.

1. i have a basic understanding of Kant. i am unaware of how most other philosophical arguments work in LD.

2. i understand phil in more of an academic than a debate sense.

3. re-reading a 500-word overview that sounds more like a dissertation is probably not going to cut through to me. it is a better use of your time to just go straight to the line by line.

tricks

debate's sewage

1. you should probably just strike me unless you are able to explain these arguments to me in a coherent way.

2. i will not vote on "eval after ___ speech".

3. i know what semantics and indexicals are in linguistics, but not as a debate argument. i might vote on it if it is explained thoroughly to me.

4. do not read tricks against debaters who are obviously new to debate. the chances that i vote on it are already pretty slim, and even if you do win, it won't result in good speaks.

5. tricks might suck, but i have faith that this community is full of very smart and talented people that can innovate the argument into something else. i would be willing to vote for tricks explained as coherent arguments.

---

evidence ethics

you can stake the round on an evidence ethics challenge. the round will stop and i will contact tab. what i do afterward is conditioned to what tabroom tells me. if i can evaluate the challenge, i will, and the winner will get w30 and the loser gets an l25. if it is not in my jurisdiction to evaluate, i will follow whatever tabroom tells me to do.

---

good luck, and have fun!

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

top level:

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

In regards to Policy vs K debate, if I were biased either direction, it's probably in favor of policy, but I don't think this matters in a technical debate where your arguments have warrants. Do with that what you will.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight, for example: I am not going to think fairness categorically outweighs education if fairness outweighs is introduced in the 2AR.

(9/11/24) Because of this, claims start from zero and are built up through warrants. I do not want to judge tricks debates. I will abide by the above paragraph with far more scrutiny than I have in the past. Theory and phil debates are still fine, but I'll be much more hesitant to vote on blippy shells, analytic skep triggers, and other less warranted args than I have in the past.

random thoughts:

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

In the absence of paradigm issues, I'm going to evaluate theory contextually. This means I will only grant you the logical implication of the words you say, and will not automatically grant you assumptions like drop the debater. For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", this logically means that PICs are a bad argument, but doesn't explain why the neg should lose for reading it. Functionally, this means I'd default drop the argument absent any explanation. This headache can be easily avoided through warranted, extended arguments.

K affs being vague and shifty hurts you more than it helps. I'm very unsympathetic to 2AR pivots that change the way the aff has been explained. Take care to have a coherent story/explanation of your K aff that starts in the 1AC and remains consistent throughout the debate.

I default to judgekick.

Update: Harvard-Westlake '25 - i'm judging from the University of Houston debate room this weekend because my apartment was broken into and my desktop computer + wi-fi router were stolen. all the usual e-debate caveats apply, but historically i judge online with a much better headphone/mic setup than is currently available to me - focus a bit more on clarity than usual.

All chains: pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com

and, please also add (based on event):

HSPD: dulles.policy.db8@gmail.com

HSLD: loyoladebate47@gmail.com

CPD: uhoustondebate@gmail.com

please have the email sent before start time. late starts are annoying. annoying hurts speaker points.

Dulles High School (HSPD), Loyola High School (HSLD), University of Houston (CPD) - if you are currently committed to debating at the University of Houston in the future, please conflict me. If you're interested in debating at UH, reach out.

please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are all fine.

he/him/his - do not misgender people. not negotiable.

"takes his job seriously, but not himself."

safety of debaters is my utmost concern at all times. racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. not tolerated - I am willing to act on this more than most judges. don't test me.

debated 2014-22 (HSPD Oceans - NDT/CEDA Personhood), and won little but learned lots. high school was politics disads and advantage counterplans with niche plans. college was planless affs and the K, topicality, or straight turning an advantage. i'm a 2N from D3 - this is the most important determinant of debate views in this paradigm.

every judge thinks arguments are good or bad, which makes them easier or harder to vote on, usually unconsciously. i'm trying to make it clear what i think good and bad arguments are and how to debate around that. on average, happiest in debates with lots of cards for a disad or K + case vs aff with a plan, but high-quality, well-warranted arguments + judge instruction >>> any specific positions - Kant, planless affs, process counterplans, and topicality can be vertically dense, cool debates. they can also be total slop. i'm a full time coach and i judge tons of debates, but my topic/argument knowledge won't save bad debating. i flow carefully and value "tech" over "truth", but dropped arguments are only as good as the dropped argument itself - i don't start flowing until i hear a warrant, and i find i have a higher threshold for warrants and implications than most. i take offense/defense very seriously - debating comparatively is much better than abstractions.

Wheaton's law is axiomatic - be kind, have fun. i do my best to give detailed decisions and feedback - debaters deserve no less than the best. coaches and debaters are welcome to ask questions, and i know passions run high, but i struggle to understand being angry for it's own sake - just strike me if you don't like how i judge, save us the shouting match.

"act like you've been here."

details

- evidence: Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” Richard Garner: "I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting"

- organization: good (obviously). extend parts your argument as responses to theirs. follow the order of the previous speech when you can. hard number arguments ("1NC 2", not "second/next"). subpointing good, but when overdone speeches feel disjointed, substitutes being techy for sounding techy. debating in paragraphs >>> bullet points.

- new arguments: getting out of hand. "R" in 1AR doesn't stand for constructive. at minimum, new args must be explicitly justified by new block pivots - otherwise, very good for 2NRs saying "strike it".

- inserting cards: fine if fully explained indict of card they read – new arguments or different parts of the article should be read aloud. will strike excessive insertions if told if most are nothing.

- case debates: miss them. advantages are terrible, easily link turned. solvency can be zero with smart CX and analytics. executing this well gets high speaker points.

- functional competition: good, makes sense. textual competition: silly, seems counterproductive. positional competition: upsetting. competing off of immediacy/certainty: skeptical, never assumed by literature, weird interpretation of fiat and mandates. plank to ban plan: does not make other non-competitive things competitive. intrinsicness: fine, but intrinsic perms often not actually intrinsic. voting record on all these: very even, teams fail to make the best arguments.

- process counterplans: interesting when topic and aff specific, annoying when recycled slop. insane ideas that collapse government (uncooperative fedism), misunderstand basic legal processes (US Code), and don't solve net benefit (most) can be zero with good CX. competition + intuitive deficits > arbitrary theory interps.

- state of advantage counterplan texts is bad. should matter more. evidence quality paramount. CX can make these zero.

- judge kick: only if explicitly told in a speech. however, splitting 2NR unstrategic – winning a whole counterplan > half a counterplan and half a case defense. better than most for sticking the neg with a counterplan, but needs airtime before 2AR.

- "do both shields" and "links to net benefit" insanely good, underrated, require a comeback in the meta. but, most permutations are 2AC nothingburgers, making debates late breaking - less i understand before the block = less spin 1AR gets + more lenient to 2NR. solve this with fewer, better permutations - "do both, shields link" = tagline, not argument.

- uniqueness controls link/vice versa: contextual to any given arg. extremist opinions ("no offense without uniqueness"/"don't need uniqueness") seem silly.

- impact turns: usually have totalizing uniqueness and questionable solvency. teams should invest here on top of impact debate proper.

- turns case/case turns: higher threshold than most. ideally carded, minimally thoroughly explained for specific internal links.

- impact framing: most is bad, more conceptual than concrete. "timeframe outweighs magnitude" sometimes it doesn't. why does it in this debate? "intervening actors check" who? how? comparing scenarios >>> abstractions. worse for "try or die" than most - idk why 100% impact x 2% solvency outweighs 80% link x 50% impact. specificity = everything. talk about probability more. risk matters a lot.

- the K: technical teams that read detailed evidence should take me high. performance teams can also take me - i've coached this with some success, and i'm better for you than i seem. good: link to some 1AC premise/mechanism with an impact that outweighs the net benefit to a permutation, external impact that turns/outweighs case, a competitive and solvent alternative. bad: antonio 95, "fiat illusory", etc. devil's in the details - examples, references to aff evidence, etc. delete your 2NC overview, do 8 minutes of line-by-line - you will win more.

- aff vs K: talk about the 1AC more, dump cards about the K less - debate on your turf, not theirs. if aff isn't built to link turn, don't bother. "extinction outweighs" should not be the only impact calculus (see above: impact framing). perm double bind usually ends up being dumb. real permutation and deficit > asserting the possibility of one - "it could theoretically shield the link or not solve" loses to "it does neither" + warrant.

- framework arguments: "X parts of the 1AC are best basis for rejoinder/competition because Y which means Z" = good, actually establishes a framework. “weigh the aff”/“reps first” = non-arguments, what does this mean. will not adopt a “middle ground” interp if nobody advances one – usually both incoherent and unstrategic. anything other than plan focus prob gives the negative more than you want (e.g: unsure why PIKs are bad if the negative gets “reps bad” + "plan bad"). consequently, fine with “delete plan”, but neg can win with a framework push that gives links and alt without doing so.

- clash debates: vote for topicality against planless affirmatives more often than not because in a bad debate it’s easier for the negative to win. controlling for quality, I vote for the best K and framework teams equally often - no strong ideological bent. fairness or a specific, carded skills impact >>> “clash”. impact turns and counterinterps equally winnable, both require explanation of solvency/uniqueness and framing against neg impacts + link defense. equally bad for "competition doesn't matter" and "only competition matters". language of impact calculus (“turns case/their offense”, higher risk/magnitude, uniqueness, etc) helps a lot. both sides usually subpar on how what the aff does/doesn't do implicates debates. TVA/SSD underrated as offense, overrated as defense - to win it, i need to actually know what the aff/neg link looks like, not just gesture towards it being possible.

- best rounds ever are good K v K, worst ever are bad ones. judge instruction, organization, specificity key. "turns/solves case" >>> "root cause", b/c offense >>> defense. explaining what is offense, what competes, etc (framework arguments) >>> "it's hard to evaluate pls don't" ("no plan, no perm"). aff teams benefit from "functional competition" argument vs 1NCs that spam word PICs and call it "frame subtraction". "ballot PIK" should never win against a competent aff team. Marxism should win 9/10 negative debates executed by a smart 2N. more 2NRs should press case - affs don't do anything. idk why the neg gets counterplans against planless affs - 2ACs should say this.

- critical affs with plans/"soft left" should be more common. teams that take me here do hilariously well if they answer neg arguments (the disad doesn't vanish bc "conjunctive fallacy").

- topicality: for me, more predictable/precise > “debatable” - literature determines everything, unpredictable interpretations = bad. however, risk is contextual - little more precise, super underlimiting prob not winner. hyperbole is the enemy - "even with functional limits, we lose x and they get y" >>> "there are 4 gorillion affirmatives". reasonability: about the counterinterpretation, good for offense about substance crowd-out and silly interps, bad for "good is good enough". plan in a vacuum: good check against extra/fx-topicality, less good elsewhere. extra-topicality: something i care less about than most. extremely bad for arguments about grammar/semantics.

- aff on theory: “riders” to the plan, plan being "horse-traded" - not how fiat works. counterplans that fiat actors different from the plan (includes states) - a misunderstanding of negation theory/neg fiat. will probably not drop more than the argument. neg on theory: literally everywhere else. arbitrariness objection strong. conditionality is a divine right bestowed by heavenly mandate, so i defend it with religious zeal. RVIs don't get flowed. LD-esque theory shenanigans: total non-starter.

- disclosure: good, but arbitrary standards bad. care little about anything that isn't active misclosure. new unbroken affs: good. "disclose 1NC": lol.

- LD “tricks”: disastrously bad for them. most just feel like defense with extra steps. nobody has gotten me to understand truth testing, much less like it.

- LD phil: actually pretty solid for it. well-carded, consistent positions + clear judge instruction for impact calculus = high win-rate. spamming calc indicts + a korsgaard card or two = less so. i appreciate straight turn debates. modesty is winnable, but usually a cop-out + incoherent.

- if the above is insufficiently detailed, see: Richard Garner, James Allan, J.D. Sanford (former coaches), Brett Cryan (former 2A), Holden Bukowsky, Bryce Sheffield (former teammates), Aiden Kim, Sean Wallace, (former students) and Ali Abdulla (best debate bud).

procedural notes

- pretty bad hearing damage in my left ear (tinnitus) + don’t flow off the doc. still quite good at flowing, but clarity matters a lot – 2x "clear", then I stop typing. debaters go through tags and analytics too quickly – give me pen time, or i will take pen time. you can ask to see my flow.

- terrible poker face. treat facial expressions as real-time feedback.

- i have autism. i close my eyes or put my head down during a speech if i feel overstimulated. promise i'm still flowing. i make very little eye contact. don't take it personally.

- card doc fine and good, but only cards extended in final rebuttals – including extraneous evidence is harshly penalized with speaks. big evidence enjoyer - fire cards get fire speaks, but only when i'm told.

- CX: binding and mandatory. it can get you very high or very low speaks. i flow important things. "lying by omission" is smart CX, but direct dishonesty means intervention (i.e: 1NC reads elections, "was elections read?", "no" = i am pausing CX and asking if i should scratch the flow).

- personality is good, but self-righteousness isn't really a personality trait. it's a game - have fun. aggressive posturing is most often obnoxious, dissuasive, and betrays a lack of appreciation for your opponents. this isn't to say you can't talk mess (please do, if warranted - its funny, and i care little for "decorum"), but it's inversely related to the skill gap - trolling an opponent in finals is different from bullying a post-nov in presets.

- prep time ends when the doc is sent. prep stolen while "sending it now" is getting ridiculous. if you are struggling to compile and send a doc, do Verbatim drills. i am increasingly willing to enforce this by imposing additional prep time penalties for excessive dead time while "sending the extra cards" and such.

- there is no flow clarification time – “what cards did you read?” is a CX question. “can you send a doc with the cut cards marked” is fine, “can you take out all the cards you didn’t read” means you weren't flowing, so it'll cost you CX or prep. not flowing negatively correlates with speaks. be reasonable - putting 80 case cards in the doc and reading 5, skipping around randomly, is bad form, but objecting to the general principle is telling on yourself. flow.

- related to above, if you answer a position in the doc that was skipped, you are getting a 27.5. seriously. the state of flowing is an atrocity. you should know better. flow.

- speaks: decided by me, based on quality of arguments and execution + how fun you are to judge, relative to given tournament pool. 28.5 = 3-3, 29+ = clearing + bidding, 29.5+ = top 5-10 speakers + late elims, 30 = perfect speeches, no notes. no low-point wins, generally - every bad move by a winning team correlates to a missed opportunity by the loser.

- not adjudicating the character of minors I don’t know regarding things I didn’t see.

- when debating an opponent of low experience, i will heavily reward giving younger debaters the dignity of a real debate they can still participate in (i.e: slower, fewer off, more forthcoming in CX). if you believe the best strategy against a novice is extending hidden aspec, i will assume you are too bad at debate to beat a novice on anything else, and speaks will reflect that. these debates are negatively educational and extremely annoying.

- ethics challenges: only issues that make continuing in good faith impossible are worth stopping a debate. the threshold is criminal negligence or malicious intent. evidence ethics requires an impact - omitting paragraphs mid-card that conclude neg changes the argument; leaving out an irrelevant last sentence doesn't. open to alternative solutions - i'd rather strike an incorrectly cited card than not debate. ask me if i would consider ending the round appropriate for a given issue, and i will answer honestly. clipping requires a recording to evaluate, and is an instant loss (no other way to resolve it) if it is persistent enough to alter functional speech time (criminal negligence/malicious intent, requires an impact). inexperience grants some (but minimal) leniency. ending a debate means it will not restart, all evidence will be immediately provided to me, and everyone shuts up - further attempt to sway my adjudication by debaters or coaches = instant loss. loser get an L0 and winners get a W28.5/28.4. all this is out the window if tabroom says something else.

- edebate: it still sucks. i keep my camera on as much as possible. if wifi is spotty, i will turn it off during speeches to maximize bandwidth, but always turn it back on to confirm i'm there before speeches. assume i am not present unless you see my face or hear my voice. if you start and i'm not there, you don't get to restart. low-quality microphones and audio compression means speak slower and clearer than normal.

closing thoughts

i have been told my affect presents as pretty flat or slightly negative while judging - trying to work on this - but i truly love debate, and i'm happy to be here. while i am cynical about certain aspects of the community/activity, it is still the best thing i have ever done. debate has brought me wonderful opportunities, beautiful friendships, and made me a better person, and i hope it can do the same for you. i am very lucky i found it.

take care of yourself. debaters increasingly present as exhausted and malnourished. three square meals and sleep is both more useful and better for you than overexerting yourself. people underestimate how much even mild dehydration impacts you. it's a game - not worth your well-being.

i like music. i listen to a very wide range of it. HS debaters can recommend me a song to listen to during prep or decision time - enjoyable music gives everyone in the room +0.1. music i dislike receives no penalty.

good luck! have fun!

- pat

Hey!!! I'm Chris Hooper (he/him)

UH 27' (GO COOGS!!! - not on the UH debate team)

Add me to the chain:

christopherhooper09162004@gmail.com

*If there are problems with email then resort to speech drop*

Any questions you have please email me @christopherhooper09162004@gmail.com

I debated for two years at Heights High School, with my first year being in policy and my second year in LD. I graduated in 2023 and now I am a first year out at the University of Houston. I competed in the Houston Urban Debate League (HUDL) throughout the entirety of my first year in policy, and competed in TFA locals, circuit tournaments, and the HUDL doing LD my second year.

Pref Shortcuts

K: 3-4

LARP/Policy: 3-4

T/Theory: 4-5

Phil: 4-5

Tricks: Strike

General stuff:

· I am not a topic expert in anything read in debate, nor a debate expert. I am still learning, and I will try to evaluate any argument you read in front of me the best I can.

· Treat each other with respect, it is a commonsense thing in general and debate is no exception. Treat everybody with respect and act with common sense, at least within the context of a round. I have no control over how you treat people outside of the round.

· If you have pronouns you would like to me to address you as, please let me know. I do not want to misgender anyone.

· I don't want to see any kind of disrespect, sexism, racism, antiblackness, homophobia, transphobic, any form of bigotry, calling each other names or slurs, rudeness, etc. Any occurrence of this will result in an L with the lowest number of speaks.

· Please do not read identity arguments that you don’t identify with.

• I am not good for the death K, necro politics, anything of that nature and I will not vote on anything that makes me uncomfortable. If you are worried that the argument you are going to read might make me uncomfortable please ask me before the round or before the 1AC.

· Please make sure your docs are organized and easy to use.

· Threshold for speed: 5-6

· Tech > truth

• Prep time ends when you've finished compiling the document. I won't count emailing but please don't steal prep.

• Time your own speeches with the alarm on. If you alarm goes off in the middle of a sentence, then state where you stopped at in the card to me and your opponent(s). Sending a marked doc in the chain would be appreciated but it is up to you.

· If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.

• Signpost and road map before each speech; it will give me a clear direction for the structure of your speech and what arguments you are going for, which will increase the probability of me voting for you.

• Weigh arguments and compare evidence, the more the better

• Give some type of voters at your ending speeches, contextualize the round and why you win the round because of xyz. This will help me get a clear overview of the round and consider the args you tell me to consider at the end of the round and which will appear on the ballot.

• The threshold I have for off read by the neg is around 3-4. Anymore and I will have a hard time evaluating all the args read, and they will not be evaluated to the level you might want me to evaluate them. Also, explicitly state the different types of off in the doc. Please do not hide them in the doc or I might miss it.

• If you are kicking out of something, then explicitly say that within the speech.

· The more you argument makes sense, the more I am willing to buy and vote on it.

K's:

K lits I'm most familiar with: Afro pess, cap, set col, psycho (kinda)

While I am familiar with these lits, I would suggest you still debate under the assumption that I am not familiar with whichever K lit you are reading. In addition, just because I am only familiar with these types of K lits does not mean you shouldn’t read a different type of literature. Read whichever K lit you are comfortable with, and I will try to evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

K alts/methods: I often prefer K alternatives or K aff methods with a more concrete implementation within the real world rather than methodological ones. The more you can explain the implementation of your alt or method, the more I will buy it and vote on it. You are free to read methodological alts/methods, but you will have to explain it more and its implementation during the round. I think also explaining why the theory of power of your K and how it is the root cause is also important for me buying your K and voting on it. I don’t judge many K v K debates, but if I am judging you in that type of round, I would probably like to see weighing between the two theories of power and alts and tell which of the two I should prefer and vote on.

K links: I think the more specific links you have within your K the more I will vote on the K. If there are more generic K links, I will have less of a tendency to vote on the K and the weaker I will see the K as an argument.

Policy/LARP:

- These debates I am most familiar with. Definitely weigh and provide voters and contextualize the round at your ending speech.

- I am open to voting on impact turns if they are done right.

- The more specific links in the disad, the more I will vote on it

- The more concise and clear the extinction scenario and impact is the more I am going to buy it.

- Extend down the flow.

- If you’re running a CP, tell me why the CP solves the aff better and why I prefer it and how it beats the perm if there are any.

T/Theory:

These debates get messy for me and are hard to follow for me, especially dense theory debates. I would much rather you go for substantive arguments rather than procedural arguments. If you do go for theory or T in front of me, please make sure it is a fully written shell for one (no two sentence shells with a blippy interp, violation, and implication). Provide standards, voters, a clear interp and violation, an implication, everything. I think the more specific the interp is of the shell and the clearer violation, the more I am willing to vote on it. I am not good for frivolous shells or anything like that. Slow down when saying analytical arguments or responses to a shell. If you speed through these arguments, I will not catch all of them and end up missing some, which might cost you the ballot.

*I default to competing interps*

Phil:

I have read some phil here and there but did not use it in debate nor have evaluated it within a round, so I am not the best for you if you are a phil debater.

Tricks:

I did not read these types of arguments while I debated nor have judged them in a round, so just strike me if you tend to run tricks.

Above all else, good luck and have fun!!!

Hi I'm David I debated for 4 years at Strake and have been judging for 3r

-a good standard for extending an argument in the backhalf is if a spectator came into round during summary they should be able to understand how your argument works and why its true (by true I mean a reasonable explanation for why something happens)

-weighing is important but it needs to be comparative its not enough to say ours happens first you have to explain why thats more important than whatever issue you have with their timeframe

-Ill evaluate whatever you want to read dont let me curb your enthusiasm but im not as familiar with progressive arguments so youll have to make sure you explain things well

-speed is fine but I prefer when rounds are slower the more you clear and articulate you are the better the round is

-please keep cross fire civil people are too competititve trying to get in questions and answers and people get aggressive and I dont like that I like when teams go back and forth with one question each you can follow up on your question after your opponent has the opportunity to ask you something

I dont need to be part of the email chain if yall want to do an email chain please try to get it set up before round to avoid unecessary delays

*conflicted with BREAK LD (May ‘24-Nov ‘24), Seven Lakes, and Atascocita

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

Round should start at start time. The first constructive (not the tester email) should be sent by start time. If you cause the round to start late I will dock your speaks.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), Seven Lakes HS (Assistant Coach ‘23-Current)

***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round (except disclosure)If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with TAB before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue.

I will not be happy if you purposefully make the round inaccessible or do not make an effort to let the other debater engage (ex. you hit a novice/local debater and you spread 4 Ks at top speed). I will not hesitate to dock your speaks and/or drop you.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

TLDR: I am primarily a policy debater and tend to evaluate rounds like a policy judge

Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col > Identity Ks/Phil > PoMo Ks > Tricks/Friv Theory

Debaters work hard and I will always try my best to adapt to you, but my experience and knowledge of args varies. For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over adapt. You are more likely to win running an argument you’re good at and know well. I tend to understand most arguments as long as they are explained well.

Tech > truth in most cases - but truth determines your burden of proof. Arguments that are less true will naturally require more explanation to be persuasive.
You need to make a complete argument with warrants/ev/explanation. If your primary strategy is to make as many terribly warranted args as possible in hopes that your opponent drops one then you should strike me.

Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing and judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I have to arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.

I will vote off the flow - I evaluate ev when the arg is contested. I think more debaters should be punished for reading terrible evidence, but i will not do the work for you. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will occasionally follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L).

Time yourself and your opponents

Things I default to but can be convinced to consider otherwise: judgekick, condo good, disclosure good, debate good, competing interps

-------

Specific Args:

LD, CX, PF are combined below. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it. Everything that is here is easily changeable via technical debating.

K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:

I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. Unfamiliar with the lit bases - I judge these rounds often but I have not read enough to know more than what the debaters explain to me in round. I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do ex. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt.

2. In round violence - I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but its implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hom is a losing one.

Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated.

Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Ks which are able to interact with the aff on the fiat-ed consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive from proximate violence impacts.

Theory (excluding T)—-

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I tend to err towards the team answering theory. In policy debate there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in policy as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry and I’m more likely to err towards reasonability.

friv theory is stupid, I do not like when debaters are afraid of clash.

Disclosure: If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.

------

Extra notes for specific events:

PF ---

Read less and better args - I can no longer bring myself to vote on these horrifically warranted link chains that have 0 explanation in ff. Because ev practices in PF are so bad and no one reads warrants my ballot has increasingly been decided on purely which link chain I understand more. Better warranting and better ev will win you the round.

Please collapse in the ff. it is not possible for you to adequately explain 4 diff pieces of offense in 2(?) minutes.

if you go for a turn it must be weighed like any other piece of offense

Procedural stuff - If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks

You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.

No prep if there is not a timer running.

Weighing - I will judge the round like a policy maker under an offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.

I notice that in most PF rounds there is no clash on weighing. PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not contextualize the weighing to the rest of the round or do meta weighing.

K: You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes

Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.

Second rebuttal must extend case and frontline. I will not extend args for you just because they are dropped.

LD ---

I read phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge.

what this means:

I tend to judge Phil like an LDer and everything else like a policy debater. It is important that you tell me how to evaluate the round since I do not have a strong opinion on whether LD should be about, for example, testing the resolution or comparative worlds.

- Phil: while I know phil lit. bases I have not thought about them extensively in the context of debate arguments. This means that you may have to slow down a bit and do more explaining. I have a pretty good background content wise for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.). I prefer substantial over tricky phil. ________________________

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there

Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space

Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com

Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

LD Paradigm

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Newark Science + Rutgers-Newark (debated for both)

-

NEWARKSCIENCEDEBATE@GMAIL.COM

P L E A S E - label email chains with the tournament, round + flight (if relevant), and teams. Something like "Newark Invitational R5 F2 - Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N OT [NEG]" would be great.

No SpeechDrop. Not kidding. I'm ideologically opposed. BUT I don't flow off docs (extra points if you don't either, it's a dying skill) so my opinion might not matter all that much but just gotta throw it out there.

-

Now the stuff you came for: If it matters, I've done basically every debate style, both HS and College, full spectrum of the library. I don't care much about what you read but there's some stuff at the bottom regarding that "much" part. Just remember, I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it. On this, you should enter the debate assuming I don't want to be there (you'll see why in the "Random" section) and that your job is to enter the room, not make me sad, win the debate, probably take some RFD notes, and then leave the debate -- all as efficiently as possible.

General things:

• Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine. Inserted rehighlightings are fine. Cards in the body are fine. K affs are fine. F the topic affs are fine. Policy affs are fine. DA 2NRs are fine. CP 2NRs are fine. T/heory is fine. Impact turns are fine. 12 off 1NCs are fine. Trad debate is fine.I really don't have particular gripes with anything but feel free to ask me specifics before round.

• Good judge instruction please. Impact calc please. Make it as easy as possible for me to say "a win is a win and my flow is bond."

• Be good people. I'm not a licensed therapist but will do a wellness check and offer an ice cream spot but I hopefully won't have to do that.

Random things I feel the need to emphasize...

• Do not try to appeal to me as a person. I gave up my soul for a fun-sized Snickers bar years ago and anything that might've been left died when tournaments started abusing my obligation. In the same vein, I have a pretty good poker face because yes, I am probably bored with or apathetic to judging. Do not use my expressions, joyous or "angry" or otherwise as a meter for how you're doing.

• Hilariously though, I actually love this activity in its best form. I consistently dedicate my summers to debate/camp (Summer 2024 -- I was only home from for 8 days between May and September and it was because of a family emergency). I think debate is important and everyone needs to act like it or please let me leave and coach my kids!

• ^ Tangentially related to this, I am okay with if someone/team doesn't want to have a traditional round (like they want the round to be a dialogue or they want to flip a coin to decide the winner). I am not okay with having my time wasted so everyone needs to get on the same page quickly about what my role is, how I should decide/vote, etc. so I can leave and be human for a bit.

The below thoughts are my attempt to change the panels I've been on/what I've been adjudicating...

• Strategic thinking is good. Sometimes debates have to get a little bit messy to show the judge the whole chess board but as long as you're instructing, it's all good. Don't be afraid! If your speech ends and I'm thinking, "oh man, that was smart" or "that was silly but well executed," that's good and you'll probably be rewarded (even if it means I have to sit through a "they dropped condo" 2AR).
• A lot of you believe that you can do tricks. You can't. It's annoying to hear. This is not an invitation to try and do it well in front of me. You're not that guy (general phrase, not a gender question) so I don't want to hear it.
• Many of you lack a conception of time and the physical limits of the body. You think your judges aren't tired after judging double flights all day and can blaze at top speed and then that you're justified being upset at decisions. That's silly.

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Free Palestine

Niles West '23

Michigan State '27

Coaching at Berkeley Prep

Email Chain:hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com

Specific Args

Kritik:

Framework determines whether links need to be unique. Dropping AFF impacts on case put you in a hard position if you are not winning that they shouldn't be able to weigh case. Teams should not allow the neg to act like/say they fiat 'movements' or 'mindsets' otherwise the debate becomes an uphill battle for the aff. I think the neg should have impact defense against aff impacts, if your overly offensive with no defense it makes evaluating the debate hard. Negative kicking the alt and going for links as DAs can be strategic but understanding uniqueness and framework in these debate is key. KvK rounds for the most goes which ever side has more perm + no link work, specific links are super important in these rounds. Can we do line by line? I don't get heavy theory of power debates absent specific link explanations to the aff and line by line. This is my hot take— I think perms should have some sort of net benefit to it. I don’t think it’s needed everytime if there is a lack of link debating, but often times a net ben to the perm helps me better evaluate the perm vs the alternative.

Framework:

I find myself in the back of clash debates 85% of the time. For me Impact articulation matters---when teams blend impacts and become repetitive/generic it often will make you lose these rounds. These debates should make it clear whether its about models of debate, just fairness in this round or both etc. I believe that "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. Competitive incentives may overdetermine actions but you need to win it and explain what it means to the round, inserting it 40 times isn't going to get you anything. I find TVA's to be wayyyy more persuasive than SSD but no matter what at least one of them should be extended because you definitely need to be able to access at least some of their offense. Aff you should just go ham on the impact turn, but it gets hard to evaluate debates where the 2AR is extending every DA and not unpacking/comparing impacts---explain the intrinsicness between your aff and the topic. I think the best way to beat neg standards is by turning predictable limits. I do think debate can create subject formation, but you still obviously need to win it.

Topicality:

I am not very familiar with topicality on the highschool topic, thus things like TVA, list of good AFFs under your interpretation, list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams are helpful.

Disadvantage:

DA and Case debates are where its at. Comparison and organization is super important in these rounds. High Schoolers read literally horrible DAs that they will never go for, don't be afraid to straight turn them.

Counterplans:

I just don't think I am that good for competition debates, process counterplans confuse me. Rehighlighting 1AC evidence is a good way to show the CP overcomes solvency deficits. If you think the CP does not solve all of the aff, you should probably have some impact d/turns or whatever on what you don't solve. If you go for the perm over explain for me. Big fan of advantage cp's. Yes judge kick if unless I am advised not to.

Miscellaneous

I have read both k and policy oriented args throughout highschool and college. I would say more k in highschool and have been more flex in college.

I am willing to vote on theory, but I dont want to vote on aspec.

Condo is good!

Tech > Truth

Clipping is a weird issue to resolve, its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.

I give high speaks, getting away from blocks, your knowledge about the topic, organization are all the big things that go into how I give speaks. If you aren't clear and I miss an argument, its your fault, so give more pen time between flows.

For other forms (pf, ld) I will evaluate rounds like I would a policy one. I am not familiar at all with either topic and am not great for weird theory things, trix etc.

I don't think I would be the person I was without the people around me who supported me and helped me through these years of debate. That being said it would be selfish to not want to give back. Debate is expensive, time consuming, has biases so if you ever need help, support etc. Don't hesitate to reach out.

Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!

I will give you higher speaks if you make a funny joke about Zaria Jarman

kentucky '25

annastockstill11@gmail.com

- please please format the email chain correctly -- tournament name -- round # -- name (aff) vs name (neg)

POLICY

- do what you want, i genuinely don't care what you run and will listen to every argument within reason

- make my ballot for me -- don't make me have to debate the round for you because i won't -- tell me why i'm voting aff/neg and what i'm voting on

- cx is binding and i will flow it

- i enjoy watching methods debates but am probably a better judge for clash rounds

- the case debate is under-utilized in most debates

- i love impact turns (please nothing offensive though)

- condo is probably good - i can be persuaded otherwise but if it's less than 5 it will be an uphill battle

- i LOVE a good T debate

- "better team usually wins |---x---------------------| the rest of this" -- dave arnett

+0.1 speaks if you can make me laugh

- have fun and if you have any questions, just ask!

PF

coach for ivy bridge academy

- explain your arguments well -- i will never vote on an argument that i don't get a full explanation of

- crossfire is binding and i will flow it

- final focus should be writing my ballot for me -- tell me why i should vote pro/con and what arguments i'm voting for

LD

- i have limited experience judging/coaching LD and will judge it like its a short policy round

- i'm probably better for k or larp rounds

- i'm not sure why teams think that perm double bind is sufficient enough to win a round on

- i do not like voting on egregious theory but i begrudgingly will - that being said if theory/tricks comprise your core strat i will not be pleased

- since LD rounds are pretty short, i prefer when you really commit to one strategy

I wont give anyone a 30 because they ask but my ballot IS up for grabs.

He/Him/His

sri pronounced "sh-ree"

Westside '22 | UH debate '26 |

evidence rocks. It's obviously secondary to the content of the speeches, but the evidence that actually says the thing will be rewarded in terms of speaker points and my confidence in a risk of your offense.In incidents I hope to avoid, I will use it to evaluate an evidence ethics argument.

quickest overview of what follows: do what you want and do it well, don’t be evil

ask questions before start time --- i'll try to reach room asap so when I am there get questions to me, especially if anything below is insufficent

add me to the email chain --- yadagirisripad@gmail.com

if LD --- breakdocs@googlegroups.com

I will start speaks at 28.5 and go up down from there

The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder

I will not flow off of the doc --- but will prolly follow along to check clipping

Online Debate: cameras dont need to be on, mine will be on if I am ready, you should still ask if I am ready once my camera is on, record only with the consent of everyone in the room

Endangering students through your behavior or arguments you read enforced by an L25

Don't ask what was read in the speech after it's given -- use CX or prep time for this --- this will affect speaker points. Also just flow better, not just a skill issue but indicates that you dont respect your opponents enough to put pen to paper. The exception is in situations with tech issues or unclear portions of a speech. Answering a position that wasn’t read in the previous speech, your probably starting at a 26.

Evidence Ethics: Here is what i think is an issue: clipping, articles inside articles, cards ending in the middle of the paragraph, but usually misrepresenting evidence through heavy bracketing. This is not something I want to end the round on but to ensure the perpetrating debater recuts the evidence into something usable you can stake the round on it.

It is difficult for me to evaluate someone's character from the parameters of a debate round, however, a serious issue with the behavior of a debater will result in me contacting an outside entity. I will intervene if necessary

Insert rehighlightings -- read the rehighlighting if the tag doesnt communicate what the rehighlighting says

SPECIFICS

I have preconceptions that can be changed

a. disclosure is good: steadfast opinion with few exceptions

b. condo is good: will vote on it if dropped—edit: I still think conditionality is a universal and infallible good but more still happy to evaluate the condo good bad debate

c. judge kick is good

Disadvantages

Good for any DA, I evaluate the core topic DA with just as much enthusiasm as the rider DA.

final speeches should explain which impact comes first. I will weigh risks of squo vs aff unless a cp/case mitigates aff offense.

Counterplans

Impact solvency deficits when aff (e.g. why is a 4 month delay undesirable if the cp solves all of the aff while avoiding a DA/doing whatever silly internal nb thing)

if it avoids smthn flag it and tell me why

I am ok with 20+ condo planks and you can kick out of individual planks

2NC planks and counterplans obviously allowed

Kritiks:

explain your theory of power and how it interact with case clearly. Not a fan of overviews but can deal if i have to.

if the 2NR is FW + Link explain why they dont get to weigh the plan and what they have done that warrants a negative ballot

Otherwise the 2NR must articulate a link that outweighs (maybe turns case) and/or an alternative with a net benefit that outweighs.

Alt doesnt have to be in the 2NR or even the 2NC but without it you are suddenly facing uniqueness issues (absent the framework-y pivot)

K Aff

explain aff impact and solvency clearly.

Your aff should do something, refuse to do something, or impact turn doing something --- if you cannot beat back the presumption push I will vote negative on a risk of offense but i can envision a ballot on just presumption.

framing is important -- what's my job? is there a filter i should apply when deciding?

K v K round: weigh impacts. This is only kind of different than in an aff v da round because sometimes an aff that describes violence in debate and a mechanism that addresses it has to contest the risk of capitalism-induced ecocide from the "localism" link or wtvr. It seems intutive that the negative is contesting the aff at a very different scale but the negative and affirmative must identify the direct implication of the affirmative method at it's determined scale. I think this gets messier when the aff goes from 1ac=big global movment 2AC= in debate materialism 1AR/2AR=discursive intervention in the round. I get the strategic value of having an aff that access all these layers but centralizing on one of these is needed to adjudicate the round coherently. Also perms are up for debate as they are in aff v cp debates, there may be better justifications for the aff NOT getting them in these kind of match ups however.

K v FW: I have no more preconceptions about this debate go for fairness or clash. clash is the go to i think it turns case 9 times out of 10 but explanation of why can be weak sauce, I think fairness is an impact IF debate is just a game. I am good for most aff framework pathways I dont NEED a counterinterp but without it the negative gets to weigh ALL of the value of debate against your impact turn. Without a counterinterp I think just smart bits of defense on limits and ground can go a long way in weighing the impact turn against clash, skills, etc. Neg just needs to win that aff model is bad in a way that outweighs the value of the aff or the impact turn and i think to mitigate both... ssd and TVA!

LD

refer to my CX paradigm where topcality, theory, K, framework, and policy stuff apply

strike for tricks update: I will vote on anything that is not morally abhorrent. The note below about phil explains my reluctance for these arguments as well.

bad at evaluating phil debates. I think clarity issues and blippiness in this activity make it hard for me to evaluate phil outside of well understood ethical frameworks.

PF

The closer this debate is to traditional LD the better

Do not read the kritik in PF. If you plan on reading the kritik be conscious of time constraints and ensure you know what you are saying

I am good with theory stuff I think this is strategic and valuable in an event like PF where paraphrasing and refusing to share evidence is still common practice.

Please disclose: Use email chain or speechdrop.net if necessary, not sure if flash drives are still in use but that would be a great alternative if none of the above work.

Defense is not sticky

Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD), graduated from college and continued to coach (just in LD) for 2.5 years while working as a FinTech business analyst, before leaving to going to Taiwan to work (although to pursue cultural connection and learn Mandarin - if you have any interest in doing something similar or have questions, feel free to ask! I'd love to talk about it). I mostly work with novices and JV debaters but I occasionally help out an LDer or two and coach policy at the ADL in Taiwan. I'm basically good for anything stylistically, I like offense, I like weighing, and I like judge instruction. Do any of that and we'll be good.

Email - elmeryang00@gmail.com

Policy - judged policy for the first time in 3 years at Marist, familiar w/ basically all stylistic forms of policy debate still. Maybe slightly better than theory than most, more familiar w/ LD shenanigans like Kant/Skepticism/etc (but still ended up on the side of policy when I judged these debates mostly). Probably slightly worse than average for advanced CP competition (textual vs functional). When things about competition get RLLY meta is when I get most confused, I'd prefer if you made theoretical reasons to reject them but simplified explanation can get the job done.

[Some old-timey thoughts]

This paradigm has been changed to reflect the most important aspects of my judging. When I was a younger judge/coach in the community, I used to have pretty heavy predispositions and annoyances. Now, I care most about you performing your best regardless of style. Everyone has spent so much time on this activity and it would be a disservice to not see you at your best due to my dispositions. The only true thing that annoys me when judging is avoidance of clash. If you chose to introduce an argument for me to listen to, I expect that you know it and are prepared to rigorously defend it through an attack from multiple angles. If you introduce an argument that is so obviously put with no thought and meant to just be hidden and dropped (yes this is most but not all of modern day Tricks debate, but also reflective of incomplete DA's, T shells w/o cards or offense, and 3 second Condo Shells), I will be sad and annoyed that you did not care enough to produce your best. Whether you are reading a K-Aff about Clowns, the Arrow's Paradox, or the Politics DA, I just want to see that you care and you've put thought into your craft. Debate is so much easier to judge if you as debaters look and feel like you're enjoying it and I will enjoy judging you.

That said, I do have argument styles I'm more familiar with. I work mostly with K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, and K v Policy debates. I occasionally work with light Phil (mostly just Kant and Pragmatism) and almost entirely in Phil v K debates. I very rarely work with or encounter Theory and Tricks debate. I have no predispositions towards arguments, but the less experience I have with them, walk me through your claim, warrant, and ballot or else I will mostly likely evaluate the debate in a way that you would not expect or like like.

Things that increase likelihood of high speaks (and also winning):

1] Clarity - I've judged both fast, clear debaters and slow, clear debaters. I have no issue with speed but I do have issue if you're going faster than I can flow or process.

2] Strategy - showcase that you've come prepared OR make tactical moves on the fly in the middle of the round.

3] Innovation - I've been judging for a while so a lot of debates tend to be reduxes of debates I've judged in the past. Introducing new args or making new spin on args I've heard before often impresses me.

4] Vision - demonstrate that you are able to see the round from a multi-layer and dimension perspective. If you can connect the dots between args on different flows and comparatively weigh them, that will go a long way for speaks and the ballot.

5] Packaging - 90% of the time, the thing that distinguishes a winning arg from a good arg is how you frame and phrase it. Explaining complex args simply is an art and being able to explain why it matters is extremely important in any round.

Lastly:

1] Absent a Perm or Theory, my RFD in a Process CP or CP/DA debate will be "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve that question.

2] Do Impact COMPARISON not Impact Weighing. I can intuitively understand why your Impact is bad, why is it worse than your opponents. In a debate style with so little time, you need to invest a significant chunk of it on resolving arguments.

3] Topicality arguments need cards to compose of real arguments. I would prefer if they defined the words in the resolution but if you give me a master class on grammar principles, I will be impressed.

4] K debates now are super Framework heavy and there's only been once that I've decided the Neg has won Framework but lost the debate. However, I wish they were heavier on the Link. Ontology is a thing but it usually is not a thing that can be resolved by the Alt or worsened by the Aff. The worse your link, the higher burden it puts on the Alt (and the inverse of that is true). Good link debating is the most important part of any K v Policy or K v K debate.