isidorenewmanJD@outlook.com and newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com for email chain.

Experience:

Second year debater at Isidore Newman School, I was state co-champion in Louisiana and tournament champion in Districts. Broke in most nat-circuit tourneys I attend.

TL;DR:

Literally run anything, I will evaluate everything. That being said, read a plan please, its prolly a good idea to be topical.

THE ONE RULE FOR VOTING ON AN ARGUMENT IS THAT IT NEEDS A WARRANT.

Burden for high risk of offense over low risk is contextualization in extensions and ATs.

TECH >>>>>> TRUTH

Evaluative Skill (1 is best, 5 is strike)

LARP - 1

K v Policy - 1

K v K - 1

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

Topicality - 2

Speaks:

They are arbitrary, I will do 30-speaks spike, it just needs to be extended.

If no spike, I evaluate based on strategic choice, clarity, level of debate, and enjoyment.

My scale is 28.5 - 30

Policy and LD:

Open cross good, flex prep good, emails are not prep time,

Good and actual engagement and clash is good, I'm more reluctant to vote on stuff that doesn't actually relate to the current debate.

Ks---I'm not a K hack, but also not a K whack. I have no side contraints to what is good in deabte.

K affs---No bias to ethics off spilup in debate, burden of topicality, or what the words affirmative and negative even mean. Anything goes.

LARP---whatev

Tricks/Skep---use them, don't care, I evaluate everything.

Phil---My skill level is worse here, err on explanation and judge instruction

Topicality---anything goes. If U want me to read definitions, I will.

Theory---no interp is better than another---I will weigh offense technically. If it's close literally everywhere on the flow, I will err risk on the side that's more precise.

THE UNDERVIEW

If both sides agree not to run T, you all can debate any cx, ld, pf topic/Congress, Extemp Debate bill, or Worlds motion you want.

Isidore Newman '25

He/Him

Hey, I'm Hudson! I've debated for Newman since my freshman year. I've done both policy and LD.

Add me to the email chain:

isidorenewmanHN@gmail.com

If you have any questions or accommodations let me know before the round.

Pref Shortcut:

1---LARP/Policy

2---K/T

3/4---High Theory K/Theory

Strike---Phil/Tricks

Tech > Truth---technical concessions will be taken as truth.

If you blatantly make sexist, racist, homophobic, or exclusionary arguments they will not be evaluated but will probably result in your loss.

samrice522@gmail.com

I debated for Isidore Newman School in my sophomore, junior, and senior years of high school. I competed mainly in LD on both my local Louisiana circuit (doing traditional debate) and on the national circuit but also in both Policy and Worlds. I mostly did Worlds my senior year going to the quarter-finals of the TOC in 2024. I am currently studying Philosophy and Economics at the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

Major influences on my understanding of debate are Elizabeth Elliott, Harun Vemulapalli, Bennett Dombcick, and Christopher Vincent. If you want more info about how I think a debate should look you can check out their paradigms because they taught me debate.

LD

Tech > truth.

1---LARP

2---T

3---K

4---Phil

5---Theory/Tricks

I will try to evaluate anything even if I don't want to.

----don't trust me to evaluate Tricks or more frivolous theory (policy theory is encouraged such as PIC's bad, intrinsic perms bad, etc.)

----Don't assume my knowledge of K litt and please make sure the off is explained well

----I really like counterplan and competition debates. I read a lot of consult CPs in high school.

Evidence weighing is really important and I will buy zero risk/probability.

Good arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. All three of these components should be clearly explained.

Clarity > Speed---slowing down and letting me understand what you're saying is way better than mumbling everything---if I say clear you need to slow down. Def try not to spread through analytics you didn't send.

All broken positions should be disclosed on the wiki

------------

For Trad Rounds make sure to speak slowly and persuasively---it's better to pause then to use fillers. I will always vote off arguments over style but it's generally easier to follow arguments that are expressed slowly. Each team should have a value and value criterion in their framework and should link their impacts back to the FW. Focus on doing a lot of impact weighing.

I want an off-time roadmap for each speech and signposting during the speech, so tell me when you are moving between contentions and arguments.

Worlds

Don't really have much to say here. I have an LD/some policy background so I probably will unconsciously give more weight to good arguments over style. I am going to try and be a worlds judge but that being said, if you want to win me focus on making well-warranted arguments. I did also do Trad LD so I can also really appreciate style. I really like well-organized arguments so it would be extremely helpful to number your responses and SIGNPOST A LOT. This will help me keep track of everything and make sure I pick up everything you are saying.

For me, I think the 2 and the 3 are the most important speeches of the round because refutation is really important to winning a debate for me. Even in worlds, I don't really like the idea of arguments, even bad ones, getting dropped so try not to.

Please include me on the email chain at jstewartdebate@gmail.com. Feel free to ask questions always.

I competed for Barbe High School, McNeese State University and Western Kentucky University. I competed in IEs in both high school and college. I debated L-D and policy in high school on the local, Louisiana circuit. I also competed nationally in college in IE’s, Parli, NFA L-D policy and some CEDA/NDT. I have judged in Louisiana and around the region for the last 15 years.

TLDR: I was a policymaking type debater. Weighing net-benefits is what I am most familiar with. I try to be as “tab” as possible and will evaluate any argument. It needs to be well warranted, well impacted and well weighed against the rest of arguments in the round. You might need to do slightly more work fleshing out newer forms of argumentation with me, but I will vote on them if I feel like you are winning them.

I am self-professed “lazy” judge. I want to feel like I am doing the least intervening possible at the end of the round. I would love for you to tell me which arguments are important enough for me to vote on, what their comparative impacts are and why you are winning those arguments. I appreciate you telling me how I should sign my ballot.

I am still somewhat old school around paperless debating- it just wasn’t a thing yet when I was competing or judging the first go around. I use e-mailed/flashed evidence mostly for reading internal warrants. I will use this to follow along the speech, however I’m not a fan of reading speech docs/blocks in a vacuum. Signposting and clear organizational structure are important for me and I tend to award higher speaker points for them.

POLICY-

K/Kritikal Aff- I have a pretty good familiarity with critical theory/thought. I am probably less familiar with the intricacies of Kritik debate theory. You would probably be helping yourself out with me to spend a bit more time on setting up your framework and giving really clear impact stories. Explicit arguments about “how we win” or “the role of the ballot” would help me better understand how/why to vote for you on these types of positions. This is especially true if there are situations like perms put on the alternative. I want to know why the alternative alone solves best on its face, in addition to any theoretical objections to the perm. I also appreciate clear pre-fiat/post-fiat analysis. If the impact is post-fiat (“turns case”) and the alternative is pre-fiat (“discourse/radical space/etc”) I want you to tell me how to navigate the multiple levels of your advocacy.

T/Procedurals- I tend to have a slightly lower threshold on procedurals. I do not need an iron clad in-round abuse story necessarily. I will evaluate these more often than many.

LD-

I tend to vote on framework first. That is just how I was taught. But with more progressive styles I will evaluate framework in light of case advantages/disadvantages. As with the Kritik info above, you may need to do a little more hand holding with me around the alternative and/or role of the ballot. I tend to prefer crystallization at the end of the round with clear impact analysis and tend to give higher speaks to those that show good round vision and can ‘boil down’ the round effectively.

PF-

I’m comfortable with the newer trend of giving an explicit framework at the top of case. If you don’t give me one then I’ll default to something like policymaking/comparative advantages. I tend to appreciate probability over magnitude in PF because of the lack of depth of evidence. Things that are intuitive and make sense on their face seem like a more natural fit to this style of debate. I will evaluate anything that is argued in front of me, though. It needs to be well warranted, well extended (including extending the warrants), well impacted and well leveraged against the other argumentation in the round for it to be most persuasive. I like final focus speeches that crystallize the round for me and give me good impact analysis. Feel free to take the ballot out my hands by telling me what arguments are most important, how they function in the round and why you are winning on them.

IE’s-

I tend to think about most IEs in terms of argumentation. This is more obvious for events like Extemp, Impromptu and Original Oratory. But even interp events use a text to craft a narrative with a unique point of view for each competitor. I usually evaluate IE’s on the clarity of your thesis (argument) and then how well you do at expressing/supporting it (advocacy). The more you can distill down an idea into its clearest form and then use multiple rhetorical tools to express it, the better chance you will have of getting higher ranks and higher speaks from me. FYI I’m a big fan of variety as a rhetorical tool (fast and slow rate, loud and soft volume, high and low intonation, etc). These tend to keep me more engaged in the speech/performance and tend to make me trust you more as a speaker/performer.

About Me

(he/him)

10 years in debate

Background in political science (democratic legitimacy/decline, religion and politics, antisemitism) and philosophy (Rawls, Kant, virtue ethics)

Conflicts:

- Varsity LD Coach, James Logan High School

- former Director, The Delores Taylor Arthur School

- Mavericks RS, University AN

Email Chain: bzdebatedocs@gmail.com(Subject: TOURNAMENT---ROUND---AFF vs NEG)

Disclaimer

Before anything else, I’m an educator and mandatory reporter. Debate is an extension of the classroom. I view my ballot as an endorsement of whatever strategy I vote for. If I find your strategy morally repugnant, problematic, or not conducive to educational debate, I’ll vote it down without hesitation. In addition to bigotry, this includes arguments in the 5/S category below. Additionally, if I find or am told that any behavior threatens someone’s physical or mental safety, I’ll end the round and report it appropriately.

Email chain/pre-round stuff should be done before the start time. The 1AC should begin at the start time.

Spreading is fine, but please start slow and build up. I’ll say “clear” twice before I stop trying to flow.

I'm flowing off my laptop but am not flowing off the doc.

Pref Shortcuts

1 - Ks, K-affs/topicality, trad

2 - policy args, soft left affs

3 - phil* (read below), theory

5/S - tricks, friv theory, wipeout/spark, death good

General Thoughts on Debate

The aff’s burden is to resolve some harm through a change in the status quo that matters under some framing mechanism. The neg’s burden is to meaningfully engage the aff and show that it’s a bad idea. Run whatever you’re comfortable with and please don’t overadapt. I genuinely enjoy judging debates where the competitors are meaningfully engaging on an important issue, regardless of the content. I don't think it's productive when the round is treated as a "joke," arguments are not produced with the intention of educational clash, or the debate devolves into high school drama. I like good arguments and below are what I consider to be qualities of good arguments.

Every argument should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. The larger the impact, the higher the threshold for the evidence. I think it’s a missed opportunity when debaters don’t address their opponents on the warrant or structural levels. Please weigh.

I tend to evaluate K rounds in terms of an ethical binary. If the K's theory of power is true, the round is a question of whether the aff links to the K's structural analysis. As such, you should make the link debate as clear and specific as possible (rehighlights, specific behavior, etc.). Generic links likely require overexplanation and you should give a strong reason why some larger structure being true is a problem for the aff. The alt doesn't necessarily have to solve, but the perm may take out the flow.

*Phil debate is good, but mainstream approaches to it are disappointing. There's significant misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the literature that indicates debaters aren't reading their source material. That frustrates me and is why I put phil at a 3. If you haven't read your literature or can't explain the theory without buzzwords, this applies to you. If you think this doesn't apply to you, I'm likely a 1 or 2 for you. I also find phil debaters generally run phil to confuse their opponents or as a joke, which I discourage. My philosophy background is thinking seriously about how we teach philosophy and its influence on subjectivity, so something like skepticism isn't persuasive to me as an educator with morals.

Theory is only for legitimate abuse. I won't evaluate blippy shells and will only consider interpretations that are in the file or email chain. These debates honestly get confusing for me, so please be clear and slow down on judge instruction. I find this is especially true when a bunch of standards get extended or answered, but I'm not told how they interact with each other.

I think stock T positions are good. I don't find T-FWK as a viable route to test a non-topical aff unless it's an "option of last resort" (Smith, 2021). If this is your strategy, you need a robust defense as to why you're not engaging the aff. With that said, if you're running a non-topical aff, you should have a clear explanation as to why wemust reject the topic (e.g., no TVA), what the ballot does to resolve your harm, and how offense gets weighed under your framework.

Don’t run tricks - auto loss and 20 speaks. In general, I consider tricks to be blippy arguments intentionally tailored to deceive your opponent and avoid engagement to generate independent offense.

Disclosure is good. New affs don't need to be disclosed.

I don't see how the neg can substantively engage the aff with more than 4 off.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

debate is a performance

tech > truth within reason

brief off-time roadmaps please

>30 seconds to send the dock = running prep + docking speaks

flex prep = dock speaks

going over time = dock speaks (finish your thought, but don’t push it)

judge kick = dock speaks

People who’ve significantly influenced my views on debate: Byron Arthur (especially), Aaron Timmons (especially), Jonathan Alston (especially), Bennett Eckert, Colton Gilbert, Chetan Hertzig, Anna Myers, Temitope Ogundare, Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Hannah Stafford, Chris Vincent, Ed Williams

Speaker Points

30: Flawless argumentation, solid delivery, and I learned something from the debater

29.5-29.9: Excellent skills and strategy, good delivery

29-29.4: Same as above but needs work on delivery

28.5-28.9: Good debate skills and decent delivery; shows promise

27-28.4: Needs work on argumentative and delivery skills

<27: You did something morally repugnant or concerning.

Stop Entering Unqualified Judges

I'm increasingly frustrated by the lack of quality judging that some programs provide to cover their obligation. Debaters work hard for high-level competition and that effort becomes futile when the judge pool lacks quality judging. If you're a progressive debater or your team regularly competes on the national circuit, but your judges are not of that level, expect me to give less in terms of my investment in judging you. Yes, some programs cannot provide these judges for a variety of legitimate reasons, but the lack of training or preparing the judges you do provide irks me. If you are providing judges for a national tournament that have little experience in debate, especially circuit debate, and it is clear they are not properly trained, this note applies to you. I will invest in judging you as much as you invested providing quality judging for the tournament. If you have a problem with this, please strike me.

A non-comprehensive list of judges like this include (from Colton Gilbert):

- parent judges

- lay judges

- judges who refuse to listen to certain arguments because they don’t like them (excluding tricks)

- judges who would prefer high school kids capitulate to what THEY want and not what the kids want to discuss

I am NOT against parent/lay judges in progressive debates, IF they are trained to adjudicate that type of argumentation. If you want to talk about it, I'm happy to have a civil discussion about it AFTER the RFD.