Debated: Norman High School (2005- 2009), University of Oklahoma (2009-2014)
Coached: University of Texas at San Antonio (2014-2015), Caddo Magnet High School (2014-2015), Baylor University (2015-2017), University of Iowa (2017-2022), Assistant Director of James Madison University 2022-2023

Currently: Assistant Director of Debate at Baylor University, Assistant coach at Greenhill High School

email: kristiana.baez@gmail.com

Updates- Feb 2023

Think of my paradigm as a set of suggestions for packaging or a request for extra explanation on certain arguments.

Despite the trend of judges unabashedly declaring themselves bad for certain arguments or predetermining the absolute win condition for arguments, I depart from this and will evaluate the debate in front of me.

*Judge instruction, judge instruction, judge instruction!*

Sometimes when we are deep in a literature base, we auto apply a certain lens to view the debate, but that lens is not automatic for the judge. Don’t assume that I will fill things in for you or presume that I automatically default to a certain impact framing, do that work!

*Argument framing is your friend.*

“If I win this, then this.”

"Even if we lose ontology, here is why we can still win.” This is important for both debating the K and going for the K.

Zoom debate things:

Don’t start until you see my face, I will always have my camera on when you’re speaking!

Clarity over speed, please- listening to debates over zoom is difficult, start out more slowly and then pick up pace, but don’t sacrifice clarify for speed.

Ethics violations-Calling an ethics violation is a flag on the play and the debate stops. Please, please do not call an ethics violation unless you want to stop the debate.

---

Top level thoughts: This is your debate, so above all-- do what you do, but do it well!
My debate career was a whileee ago. I primarily read Ks, but I have also done strictly policy debate in my career, so I have been exposed to a wide variety of arguments. I like to think that I am a favorable judge for Ks or FW. I have coached all types of arguments and am happy to judge them.

I judge the debate in front of me and avoid judge intervention as much as possible. In this sense, I am more guided by tech because I don't think you can determine the truth of any debate within the time constraints. HOWEVER, I think you can use the truth to make more persuasive arguments- for example, you can have one really good argument supported by evidence that you're making compelling bc of its truthiness that could be more convincing or compelling than 3 cards that are meh.

FW/T

I judge a good number of T v. K aff debates and am comfortable doing so.

Sometimes these debates are overly scripted and people just blow through their blocks at top speed, so I think it's important to take moments to provide moments of emphasis and major framing arguments. Do not go for everything in the 2NR, there is not enough time to fully develop your argument and answer theirs. Clearly identify what impact you are going for.

Internal link turns by the negative help to mitigate the impact turn arguments. Example- debating about AI is key to create AI that does not re-create racial bias. TVA can help here as well!

The definitions components of these debates are underutilized- for example, if the aff has a counter interp of nuclear forces or disarm, have that debate. Why is their interp bad and exacerbate the limits or ground issues? I feel like this this gives you stronger inroads to your impact arguments and provides defense to the aff's impact turns.

K aff's- It is way less compelling to go for impact turns without going for the aff and how they resolve the impact turns. You cannot just win that framework is bad. It is more strategic for the aff to defend a particular model of debate, not just a K of current debate.

Kritiks:

Updated- It’s important to find balance between theoretical explanations, debate-ification of arguments, and judge instruction. More specifically- if you have a complex theory that you need to win to win the debate, you HAVE to spend time here. Err towards more simple explanation as opposed to overly convoluted.

Think about word efficiency and judge instruction for those theoretical arguments.

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.
The 2NR should CLEARLY identify if they are going for the alternative. If you are not, you need to be explicit about why you don't need the alt to win the debate. This means clear framework and impact framing arguments + turns case arguments. You need to explain why the links are sufficient turns case arguments for me to vote negative on presumption.

CPs- I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PIKs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIK. However, make it clear that it is a PIK and explain why it solves the aff better or sufficiently. Explain sufficiency framing in the context of the debate you're having, don't just blurt out "view the cp through the lens of sufficiency"--that's not a complete argument.

Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

DAs- I find it pretty easy to follow DAs. However, if you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc.

Make the story of the DA AND your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Theory- I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Other notes: If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.
Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.
Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.
The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

Accomplish something in your cross-x time and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

Coppell '23

UT Austin '27 (currently debating)

Email: keerthi.cx27@gmail.com

Title of the email -- "Tournament -- Aff Team vs Neg Team -- Round -- Year"

Top Level:

Tech > Truth -- I'm very technical and will evaluate the debate off the flow in addition to impact calculus.

Topicality:

- Interpretations have to include an intent to exclude and provide definitions for the word you are defining

- I tend to default to competing interpretations over reasonability

- A violation/standards need to be clearly listed

- The 2AC needs to have a very clear We Meet/ Counter-interpretation and answer the standards provided by the negative

-The 2AR/2NR needs to isolate offense and emphasize voters

Counterplans:

- CP's should be textually and functionally competitive

- Send the permutation texts

-CP can solve for internal links or the impacts of the affirmative but it comes down to the time frame of the CP vs the Affirmative

Disadvantages:

-DA's need a clear link and impact story.

-The 2NR/2AR needs to come down to heavy impact analysis and a strong comparison between the world of the DA and the world of the affirmative

Kritiks:

- FW: Affs get to weigh their implicated consequences of the scholarship that the negative is criticizing.

- Links off of omission are not as persuasive as specific links to the affirmative that are well developed in the debate. I really like it when teams rehighlight affirmative evidence to showcase the link to the affirmative rather than criticizing broader theorizations of the affirmative.

Theory:

-Please be as slow as possible when it comes down to theory shells.

- I tend to think that conditionality is good, unless you convince me otherwise

Case:

- I thoroughly enjoy case debates and honestly think that they are very underutilized

-I will vote on presumption if it is well developed in the 2NR

Put me on the email chain: ananya.cx@gmail.com

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about this topic. While I will probably have a grasp on common arguments that are consistent between years, err on over-explaining rather than relying on my understanding or intervention. This is just good policy for how you should approach your debates.

Online Debate:

- Try to keep your camera on if you can, but if you can't because of connection or another issue that's fine

- If someone doesn't have their camera on, wait for verbal confirmation that they are ready before you start

- Try to slow down a little more than usual, especially on tags and analytics

- Record your speeches; saves a lot of time and effort after technical issues

General:

- I will evaluate the round how you tell me to and try to minimize judge intervention as much as possible. It would be better for you to align your strategy than what arguments you read to my paradigm because you should not be relying on your judge's prior knowledge of arguments to win. Obviously I have my own biases about arguments from when I debated (Coppell 2018-2022), but I try to minimize how much I let them influence my decision and evaluate your explanations and strategic decisions.

- Explain your arguments well and extend them with warrants, don't assume I know what all of your arguments are or what your aff does (especially because I know little to nothing about this topic)

- T: Have a clear interpretation and violation with impacted out standards, make your arguments specific to the affirmative and interact with what the other team is saying. When answering T, read the definitions and their actual context, definition cards usually aren't great and it is something you can take advantage of.

- DA: Have aff specific links and a good explanation of the internal link scenario, impact calculus is good and you should be doing it. Please read unique evidence and take current events into consideration.

- CP: Needs a valid reason why it is competitive or why the permutation doesn't solve, needs to have a net benefit and it should be explained. I will vote on conditionality if it is impacted out and warranted in the round. for the aff, i will vote on a creative permutation if they handle it wrong or don't go for theory on it.

- K: Explain the alternative and how it resolves the links, have aff specific links (to the method of the aff, to its scholarship/assumptions, to the consequences of the plan, etc.), don't try to get out of aff questions with vague answers and barely explaining the k because I will base my rfd off what I understand from your answers and explanations; aff teams should utilize framework and perms, press on alt solvency, and at least try to interact with the substance of the k. i generally believe that k's are good for debate and i probably wont be persuaded by "they only get links to the plan" or "its cheating"

- K Affs: Don't try to avoid questions about the implementation of the aff, if your aff really is doing something, you should take the opportunity they give with leadings questions about "but what do you do", to tell us what you do. for affs that are a critique of the topic without a good reason why some part of the resolution is inherently bad, ssd is very persuasive.

- Open CX is okay as long as the person who is supposed to be participating is doing most of it - I also think CX is an important part of the debate and will reward speakers that use it strategically to ask more than "Can you explain [insert random card here]?"

- Spreading is fine but there should be a clear difference between tags and the text of cards and you should leave time between flows; clarity > speed

- When you don't finish a card don't say mark card "there", give the last word you read

- Flow

- Ask questions after the round if you are confused about the decision or have questions about how to improve/work on a redo

Feel free to ask questions before the round

David Coale

Please put me on the email chain at davidcoaledebate@gmail.com

tl;dr – I can't flow as well as I could in the George H.W. Bush Administration, but otherwise I'm reasonably sophisticated and open-minded. I love debate and want any round that I judge to be a fun exchange of smart ideas.

Personal Background:

If you see me in the back of the room, you should know where I’m coming from personally. I have an extensive, if dated, background in policy debate (1990 NDT champion and Copeland Award winner for Harvard College; 1986 TFA and UIL state champ in high school). I went to law school at the University of Texas where I coached a little debate on the side - I was in the room when Bill Shanahan said "I think we should call it a 'kritik.'"

My son Camden is a sophomore at Highland Park in Dallas. So I've been working with him and the HP team for two years now. To my pleasant surprise and thanks to speech documents, I can still flow reasonably well and have judged at several tournaments now. So you should see me as: (a) very knowledgeable about policy debate and how it works, (b) reasonably knowledgeable about this topic and the major K areas, and (c) a couple of steps slower in keeping up with high speed than I once was.

Substance:

1. How to win good debates. I sometimes call myself the "Rip Van Winkle" of policy debate after being away from the activity for many years. Many customs, norms, and terms have changed considerably. But the key to winning good debates hasn't changed: be good at theidentification, manipulation, and explanation of the strategic interrelationships among arguments. That's what I'm listening for as a judge and is what you should strive to do as a debater as well as you possibly can.

2. Kritiks, etc., are fine. When I was in college, the separation between NDT (policy) and CEDA (value) debate was at its greatest. But by dumb luck, I picked up a solid grounding in how kritiks work when they first appeared on the scene (the concept of the "alt," for example, is to me a modern innovation). And thirty years of law practice has made much better at theory and topicality debates than I ever was back in the day. Absent other decision criteria, I will stay with my roots and apply an old-school legislative policymaker paradigm. But I will freely use other criteria if debaters say persuasively that I should and I have no particular prejudices, leanings, or preferences in that regard.

3. A spew is not a theory debate. Debate theory is an interesting subject for discussion. But a handful of pre-scripted analytics, read too quickly for mortal understanding without a speech document, does not qualify as a discussion. Similarly, a theory argument that is not supported by something resembling a complete sentence is not off to a good start. (For example: "infinite aff prep, they get to speak first and last, bad neg generics, and massive topic" is not an argument.) I am unlikely to be persuaded on a theory argument that is not (a) set up comprehensibly in the first instance, and (b) connected in some way to what's actually going on in the debate.

4. A note on arguments about law. My task as a debate judge is to judge the debate. I will not intervene on any argument about the law, the legal system, etc. That said, I'm not going to wipe my mind clean either. If you make arguments that ask me to draw upon my knowledge of the legal system, I will use that knowledge.

5. Watch me. If I'm waving my hand at you to move on, you should take the hint. If I look like I'm lost, I'm lost and you should slow down a notch until I look un-lost. If I'm nodding "yes," whatever you're saying is working for me. In other words I have become Dallas Perkins in my old age.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

Jack Griffiths

Assistant Coach and Alumni Service Corps at Jesuit Dallas

jack9riff at gmail dot com

Updated Before TFA State

About Me:
- Debated at Jesuit from 2015-2019 (2A)
- Have experience with all sorts of arguments, from mostly big-stick arguments my first few years to mostly K-oriented strategies my senior year
- Judged, coached, and cut cards part-time for Jesuit during the pandemic years
- Have been serving as assistant coach during my ASC year at Jesuit (2023-2024) and judging at local, regional, and national tournaments (about 40 rounds total so far this year)

**I have made some updates throughout the paradigm to give a better sense of how I have decided these different kinds of debates during this season.

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for self-harm).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and I believe that your flows truly served as the basis of your argumentation during your speeches, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round.

Things that increase speaker points: active flowing, direct clashing, strategic use of CX, effective use of framing moments in the final rebuttals

Things that limit speaker points: not flowing (and struggling to do effective line-by-line as a result), being overly aggressive/snarky, over-reliance on tag-team CX

Theory

Although I've generally unlikely to reject the team, I have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency advocates, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. SPEC arguments are usually uncompelling to me. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts: While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good.

General thoughts:When deciding these rounds, I first decide whether to evaluate the debate through competing interpretations or reasonability (based on which framework I have been persuaded is best based on the debating) before looking deeper into the flow. I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative (which generally means I end up deciding the debate based on the comparative risks of the two team's standards). I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). If after the debate I decide to evaluate the round through the lens of reasonability, that usually means I should vote aff unless their interp is evidently bad for debate.

I think debaters tend to spend too much time reading cards in these debates that could instead be spent on giving concrete examples for their standards to help me visualize the limits explosion, loss in ground, etc. Teams also should be doing a better job at explaining the terminal impact to these standards (i.e. what does "precision" actually mean and how much does it matter?). Not articulating your impacts will force me to intervene more than I'm usually comfortable with.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and overly defensive strategies. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I am personally uncomfortable voting on overly-exclusionary framework interpretations (e.g. "no Ks allowed" or "aff doesn't get to weigh the plan) unless one team is dropping the ball, and so I'm more compelled by nuanced interpretations that leave some room for the other side (e.g. "the aff can weigh their plan but we should still be able to problematize their assumptions"). For similar reasons, I'm not the biggest fan of pure fiat Ks (but if you win them then you do you, I suppose).

Counterplan Debates

I've progressively grown more and more frustrated by the proliferation of random, old process CPs that steal the aff this year. Not to say you can't read them, but I'll be more sympathetic to smart aff permutation arguments, and you should make sure your theory defenses are sufficient.

Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantage Debates

Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case

Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

Lawrence Jin

Jesuit Dallas '23, Currently debating for Tulane University

4 years of policy debate experience - 3 Years as 2N, 2A in my senior year.

Of course I want to be on the chain - jesuitmuji@gmail.com

1.) 5-10 min before round start - I am an econ major, so I have some rudimentary knowledge of fiscal policy. However, my knowledge of the topic should mean nothing to you, plz over explain - Novices and varsity alike - but especially novices - Practicing well-warranted clash and line by line (even if it means sacrificing some speed) will get you miles. I'm really not a fan of how block-centric Novice/JV policy debate has become and hope debaters can be competent at the most basic level of debating before relying on pre-written args. That said, I love debate and I hope everyone who participates in the activity would respect the game.

• If we're in zoom, slow down by 15%. This is purely for giving me pen time.
• 75% tech, 25% truth (No death good, no discriminatory args of any kind)
• The more thoroughly it is impacted out, the more understanding I will gain from it.
• Wanna read multiple offs? The links better be specific - I find it extremely difficult to evaluate neg condo args where the links and ILs are obviously used as time suck against the 2ac/1ar
• The 2AR/2NR need to give me a reason to vote for an argument
• Clarity/Logic > Speed - always
• Don't read blocky blocks and expect me to do the work for you.
• Make a tasteful joke during round and i laughed? Remind me after round and I'll reward you.. +.1 speaks:)
• Call me Lawrence, not 'judge' please :( I'm not that old
• That said, don't over-adapt to me, give it your best shot and I will do my best to evaluate anything you say. Have fun!

2.) Top Level - My RFDs ARE LONG! - If you need to leave, just let me know:) I believe learning by example is one of the best ways to educate. Therefore, I will do my best to deliver well thought out, well-warranted RFDs. I will attempt to be as thorough as possible in my feedback - if you have any questions after the RFD finishes, please send me an email.

PLEASE POST ROUND ME - I won't be offended and in fact - it shows to me that you are engaging with the feedback .. which is good:)

Those that significantly influenced my judging philosophy:

Tracy McFarland

Dan Lingel

Tejas Murugesh (The most epic Indiana business bro you'll ever know)

Cody Morrow

Jack Moore

3.) Speaker points - Line by line and high quality clash seems to be a rare occurrence nowadays.. To combat this, show me your flow at the end of the end, and if it's good, I'll give you +.2 speaks (we all want extra credit right..?) Being able to flow and clash are two of the most under-appreciated yet important parts of not just novice year, but debate in general. Tbh it's not hard to garner great speaks from me - debate is extremely time consuming and stressful and I understand how much speaks mean to debaters looking to clear - therefore, if you respect the game, I will reward you.

That said,

29.2+ You should break/Very Impressive Job/Chefs kiss cross ex etc

28.9-29.1 - You're on the right track/Great Line by Line with several stylistic Issues

28.5-28.8 - Average/There can be some improvement

28.3-28.5 - You made some errors/Multiple Strategic Mishaps

28.0 and below - You violated rules/you yelled at ur debate partner or smth

4.) Evidence and Cards - Evidence ethics and integrity is extremely important to me. If I detect clipping at any point in the round = instant L.

I do not like those that steal cards. If I find that you have stolen any piece of evidence from another team, school, or institution you read during a round, I won't vote you down, but I will not consider it.

Cards randomly containing 11 pages of 1 pt font in tiny text and 2 pages of actual highlighting? they make me :(

Why is quantity > quality meta nowadays?? Explain to me why a card is BETTER through recency and qualifications rather than reading more evidence. I'd much rather you explain something to me than expecting me to do the comparison work for you after a round. Remember the 3 Rs in line by line - Reference, Refute, and Read evidence if NECESSARY.

5.) Counterplans - Pleaseeeeeeeee enough of these nonsensical artificially competitive cps.. For neg, make it specific to the aff, don't read ones with terrible highlighting and throw them at the wall, expecting it to stick. I WILL sympathize heavily on the perm and any aff disads if the counterplan has blatantly artificial scenarios. For aff, definitely read theory, I have come across countless teams that rely on 4+ advocates with mostly terrible CPs.. that said, you should be specific in your theory arguments and impact them out with a warrant - " X Is a voter" by itself unironically isn't a voter.

6.) DAs - Uniqueness and links are key!! I like DAs with well crafted links that take account of current events. It might be my inner econ major speaking, but I'm a huge sucker for well contextualized and well warranted econ DAs!- This is true for both aff and neg.Links need to be well contextualized to the aff and well explained for me to understand them. If you're reading a generic DA like politics, please at least make an effort to explain why the aff triggers the link. Seriously, DAs like politics are almost solely dependent on the perception/signaling of the plan action. It's mostly on the neg to impact out the link, not the aff's ability to defend their plan. That said, the aff still has to make a substantial yet offensive push against the DA.

7.) Kritiks - I have gone for these the most - meaning I have an okay understanding of Cap K, Afropess, Set Col, Fem IR, with barely any knowledge on high theory Ks.. That said, my background knowledge in Kritiks should mean nothing to you - explain everything! SLOW DOWN! I find it extremely challenging to imagine a scenario where any overview needs to be longer than 30 seconds.. Links need to be contextualized to the aff. It helps if links have external impacts to the aff. If Util is bad, tell me why. If Cap is bad, tell me why. If I shouldn't weigh the aff, tell me why. If you signpost along the way, I'll tend to understand your story better - ex. "I'll do the link debate here," or "I'll do the Framework debate here." If you're a novice, you probably shouldn't read high theory...

Don't over-rely on the Framework debate - if you don't need it, then don't go for it, too many times have organized K debates been lost into the abyss due to investment to framework. On alts - please tell me what it is, or at least how I should evaluate it. I need a picture of what it looks like so I know what I'm voting for. If left to my own devices, I will evaluate the alt as a counterplan and links as DAs.

8.) Framework/T-USFG -If ur going for fairness - I need it to be impacted out - if not any other arg I talked about on my paradigm, I need framework impacts to be impacts .. with warrants and stuff. Typically, I prefer to evaluate on impacts like education and skills rather than fairness in a vacuum - it is honestly pretty arbitrary and tough to adjudicate without heavy reframing from the aff or neg

In my opinion TVAs are massively underrated given how most affs don't answer them correctly.

Both sides should warrant out any DAs or Impact turns to the others framework interp - I find these turns to be very persuasive. That said,if ur argument is FW causes psychic violence and policing - you'll have a tough sell with me bc debate is a voluntary activity and if ur actually experiencing psychic violence I am here to help

The neg should make a push why the aff can access their framework args external to the debate space.

9.) Affs - I've ran mostly big stick affs. You should make a well structured push on why your impacts are important and why they should be weighed in round. The internal link chain in the 1AC should be clearly signposted in the speeches. Most 2ARs don't frame the debate enough through the bigger picture. The 2AR shouldn't tell me why you won an argument, it should tell me why you won your debate. If you are specific and couple them with real life examples, you will find me very persuaded. If you decide to go for a perm, make sure to tell me what the perm does and warrant out what it looks like in the world of the aff.

10.) K Affs - They're good - there needs to be some semblance of of connection to the topic. Additionally, perms are underrated in KvK rounds.

11.) Closing thoughts

If you reached this far - good for you! You show potential and is open to growth - most debaters win 50% of their rounds and lose 50%. If you only learn something when you win, you'd only be learning something half the time! Remember, debate isn't just about W/Ls, it's more about the experience.

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

"Be smart. Be strategic. Tell your story. And above all have fun and you shall be rewarded."--the conclusion of my 1990 NDT Judging Philosophy

Updated for 2023-2024 topic
30 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their victory paths. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up (look at the data) if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate. Too much time is spent on framework in many debates without clear utility or relation to how I should judge the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over thirty years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.


Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then it is more than ok that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech.

Updated Sept 5, 2022 

Tracy McFarland

Jesuit College Prep - for a long while; back in the day undergrad debate - Baylor U 

Please use jcpdebate@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.
However, I don't check that email a lot while not at tournaments - so if you need to reach me not at a tournament, feel free to email me at tmcfarland@jesuitcp.org

Reason for update - I have updated my judging paradigm not because my fundamental views of debate have changed, really.  BUT , as one of my labbies put it this summer, apparently the detail of my previous paradigm was "scary".  So, I have tried to distill down some of the most important ways I evaluate debate.  

Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches.  LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good.  Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.

Dates and "real world" matter - with WMD after 9/11 and immigration during Trump as close rivals, this topic seems one of the most current event influenced debate topics I've experienced.  Obviously I mean this in terms of Russia invasion on Feb 24, 2022 - but I also mean in the sense of Madrid Summitt and new Strategic Concept as it relates to the areas; new president in the US as of 2021 with very different policies about NATO and IR; etc.  You do not need evidence to integrate current events into your argument - you do need an explanation about why dates matter - ie what's happened that the other team's arguments don't assume.  But these arguments can go far in my mind to reduce risk of a DA or an advantage - so you should make these arguments and use as indicts of the other team's evidence as appropriate. . I am persuaded by teams that call out other teams based on their evidence quality, author quals, lack of highlighting (meaning they read little of the evidence

Process CPs and other neg trickeration - it's such a good topic that I would definitely prefer to see topic specific arguments.  This means that there are some process CPs or other debates grounded in the lit that are really good debates; there are some that are not.  Particularly as the season progresses, I would expect a discussion of what normal means is - both on the aff and the neg to justify process-y cps.  

DAs - it's possible to win zero risk that the DA is an opportunity cost to the aff.  

Ks - specific links are good.  You should have a sense on the aff and the neg what FW is going to get you in a debate. 

K affs - should be tied to the topic in some way.  If they aren't, then neg args with topical versions or ways to access the education the K aff offers through the resolution are usually persuasive to me.  If the aff has a K of the topic, that's great offense that negs need to have an answer.  I don't think that debate is just a game.  Its a competitive activity that does shape our political subjectivity.  

T - if you have a good violation and reasons why an aff should be excluded, by all means read it.  If you are just reading it as a "time suck" then, meh, read more substance.  And, an argument that ends in -spec is usually an uphill battle unless it's clever [this cleverness standard does preclude generally a- and o-] 

Impact turns - topic specific one = good; generic ones - more meh 

New affs are good - and don't need to be disclosed before a debate if it's truly the very first time that someone at your school has read the argument.  But new affs may justify theoretically sketchy args by the neg - you can integrate that into the theory debate, you don't need a new affs bad 1nc arg to do that. 

Be nice to each other - it's possible to be competitive without being overly sassy.  

Modality matters - when you are debating in person, remember that people can hear you talk to your partner and you should have a line of sight with the judge.  If you are online, make sure that your camera is on when possible to create some engagement with the judge.  

Tejas Murugesh

he/him

Jesuit '23, IU Bloomington '27 - currently a freshman

Updated somewhat but does not cover econ stuff 2/1/2024

---I hope you realize for T and any procedural arguments that I will not follow as well along with your caselists and blippy lists - so I would rather have more explanation-y oriented stuff than the blippy lists

Yes email chain please - tejassmurugesh@gmail.com

Top Level

People do not use current evens

All in all, go for what you are best at going at -- I can evaluate most arguments BUT you must always assume that I cannot understand something i.e. don't go for the cap k and just say cap causes war without warranting it out.

Truth > Tech but can be convinced otherwise that is explained and justified i.e. you can't just say you win an argument because it's dropped. However, I err more on the truth side when it comes to bad ev quality and I try my best to pay attention to news.After spending a couple months off of debate, I hope you realize how terribly awful it is to read cards that don't assume current events. They are like history books...it already happened!

I will do my best to evaluate arguments from the flow, but if you tell me (i.e. during your speech) to read a card after the round for an argument you extended in the final rebuttals, and the card says the opposite of what you said, then that argument will be null. Regardless, telling me to read a card so you don't have to do the actual warrant extension/why it matters is a BAD strategy in front of me, especially with the terrible ev quality we have these days.

I do not endorse reading a ton of off - like 10 off - it's such an awful model of debate - if you are a policy team on the neg, you can EASILY crush the aff with just like 6 off (without having to make me waste more trees with 10 off - but I still am wasting trees lol) - and making smart args you will be fine. Even that isn't necessary, I was a one off K debater and was happy enough with the run I had

I am not going to make arguments for you. I flow on paper, and that means I will SOLELY evaluate what warrants YOU have extended, nothing more. The only time I am going to make arguments for myself is when there is no clash, requiring me to evaluate and compare the merits of each argument and card on my own. BUT of course that won't happen because you are a great debater, and if you think you're not, well then fake it till you make it! You are each your own unique snowflake!

A theme you will notice is the contextualization of an argument to a given debate = best thing to ever do in front of me. Too many people read blocks for arguments that sound unpersuasive and make it hard to vote on.

Below are my preferences:

CPs

I dont really vibe with artificially competitive CPs, sorry not sorry! :)

I'm not doing this judge kick nonsense for you. If you're gonna go for an arg in the 2NR, then that's YOUR decision, not mine

Having a good, specific solvency advocate makes it a lot more convincing to vote on. When you start to get process-y, you need a quick overview explaining the mechanism.

For the aff, specific theory is underutilized (see theory section below). Smart permutations (like combining texts of aff and CP in unique ways etc.) show me you think outside the box, and executing and flushing out the permutation makes it super convincing.

Explain how the perm looks like/how it solves and how shields link to net benefit

If you are going for a CP flaw, impact the argument out - saying something along the lines of, "The CP text is wrong, so that means vote aff," then that is not a complete argument for me. I need standards - and ultimately a persuasive reason(s) why the incorrectness of the CP text means to vote aff (the same goes for the neg on aff plan flaws).

DAs

A good politics debater is 90% spin and 10% truth. Just kidding, you need some updated ev to win in front of me.

Heavy impact calculus coupled with link walls that have spin and contextualized (assuming you are winning the uniqueness debate) to the aff is best. All parts of a DA must be won (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact); otherwise, it is an incomplete argument. Read cards when necessary, not just for the sake of being a policy argument.

Good evidence quality matters a lot.

Topicality

Default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Case lists that include affs allowed under your interp and affs allowed under the counter-interpretation, tying that in with a clear internal link and impact extension = yes please. Reading a lot of cards doesn't do much for me unless you say what you are doing with those cards (like if it's to prove your precision standard etc).

Theory

I am more likely to vote on your argument if you are making a specific theory argument and have detailed impact calculus over one-liner arguments - AND DON'T READ IT FAST PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (bc I actually have to flow all ur stuff as a judge - I can't just be goofing around or prepping like the other team who would not be listening)

If debating a CP, I find specific theory arguments tons more convincing (example: 50 state fiat vs. conditional 50 state fiat with no solvency advocate). Every argument is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless told otherwise.

Ks

How I evaluate Ks at the end of the debate (unless you instruct me to do differently) -- FW, link, impact, alt

Link arguments contextualized to the aff are most persuasive to me. Having a generic link arg in the 1NC is ok, but I would really love to see research and evidentiary innovation -- having specific links shows a lot to me about your strategy thinking.

Doing a lot of work on the FW page is great and all - BUT you need to say WHY THAT MATTERS!!!!!!!! I always start on framework as the framework interpretation that wins is the one I will use as a lens to evaluate the rest of the arguments on the flow. A lot of negative interpretations need to be fleshed out more than people think they do to actually make it useful for the rest of the flow, coupled with saying what winning FW means for the rest of the flow (this goes for K affs as well); otherwise, I don't know what your big K word salad is despite having read some of the common literature bases used in debate.

If the neg says something like "the judge should evaluate the epistemological implications of the aff's research practices," then that's a pretty ambiguous interp - it becomes less ambiguous when you define what are "epistemological implications" and "aff's research practices" in the context of this debate - like just edit your blocks with some specific examples and ta-da it's a lot more interesting!

If the aff says something like "weigh the consequences of the plan/aff vs the k" - then define for me what the consequences are in this debate - because otherwise the neg will just make consequences fit their own definition and not give you the offense you want.

For the aff, I find offensive reasons against the alternative quite impressive coupled with reasons how the aff might avoid that; however, permutation/link turn strategies are quite nice as well (I personally did this one the most). I do think that when a K is a non-starter for the neg team to go for (as in just being a time suck for the 2AC to card dump), then I think the aff should make that clear in CX - BUT if the aff messes up in the 2AC because of that and then the neg takes the aff on it...I'll definitely consider it.

Also for the aff -- if you're always going for that same impact turn strategy -- it has to be specific to the K and what is happening in that debate. Too many debaters' 2AR sounds like it can be copied and pasted into any other debate and I wouldn't even notice -- and the same goes for the neg with all your scripts.

Framework vs K affs

Procedural fairness is fine to run in MOST instances - you can still run it but I would be careful with your words, most especially with Ks of 1) debate and 2) the topic that err more on the identity side - if you make some sort of actually pejorative argument towards any folk, than I might have to seriously consider auto voting. I generally find impacts like skills and education more persuasive than fairness as a lot of teams when going for fairness just say, "It's an intrinsic good to debate." I can always be persuaded otherwise by this if you actually impact out fairness - like trust me I'm all for it just impact it out

Arguments about why your impact turns the aff's impacts is quite persuasive coupled with external reasons = high chance I'm voting for you.

Negatives reading arguments about how there are other ways that the aff would be accessible outside of this debate (like going to a book club and reading their scholarship etc.) are quite persuasive as well.

TVA/SSD are quite useful because most affs don't have good defense to them.

Saying FW is policing because it causes psychic violence is a tough argument for me to vote on - this is a voluntary activity, and if you actually are feeling psychic violence then I am here to help.

Case vs K affs

Presumption is soooooooooooo badddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd. Unless it's against like some high theory mash-up jumbo bumbo soup, then sure. But like if it's against some K aff that's in the direction of the topic and is just like a really big K of debate community -- then pleaseeeeeeeeee for the love of god to nottttt go for it.

You are much better off with saying why the aff's method is bad, why their theory of power is bad, and if they reject the state then say why state and institutional engagement good. and you know all the other types of those args are good too.

K affs

Sure, but am more likely to vote on a well-researched topic-y aff rather than a generic one that has no tie to the topic and/or is a backfile, so if you are reading one that has no tie to the topic/generic, make sure to be on your A game. Judge instruction vs T-FW is very very useful.

With the amount of mash-up K affs these days and if the aff wants to have a high chance of winning, then you need to have a quick overview at the top of the case page explaining what your advantage/theory of power/construction of the world is about and what your advocacy is. Or even a 10 second one of just saying the advocacy statement in easier words really goes a long way. That way I can really plunge my brain into your type of theory of power (and this honestly goes for all theories - what would an anticapitalist ecosocialist think of economic policy?? you get the idea)

Miscellaneous & Stylistic Items

Extending evidence means saying saying the warrants you are extending to support your argument in addition to perhaps referring to the author name

Clarity > speed otherwise I can't flow you, which means if I can't flow you then I don't know what arguments you are speaking and hence you are kinda screwed

Line by line > your own order

Speaker points

Russia invaded Ukraine, there's a conflict between Palestine and Israel, there's constant political changes happening all the time in literally every sphere, COP28 just happened in early December, etc. You gotta mention all the possible current events or have inherency cards (for your specific arg/theory) to prove your point is true. Remember, debate is a scholarly activity that revolves around what is happening rn, not yesterday, but NOW!

27.5 and above. Strategic usage of cross-ex by setting up your arguments and asking questions that shed light on the sketchiness of the other team's argument means your points will increase. Ima put you real low if you be asking me for points or telling me how to do points cuz that's just wrong

Another way to increase points is choosing certain arguments in the rebuttals and thoroughly extending them, clashing with the other team's arguments, meaning the 1AR-2AR (same for the neg) should not be re-reading the 2ac.

Being rude, racist, sexist, etc. would decrease points and potentially lose you the debate if it becomes too much. But I know that you won't do that because you are a nice human being and must exemplify that. Debate is merely a competitive activity, not the $5 million lottery (and nor is it a gambling addiction). Enjoy the ability to engage in such a fun and novel activity when the world is not doing the best right now. Be the policy maker or critical theorist you always wanted to do.

Speaker points should not be your goal in debates, but you, as a novice/JV, should focus on the argument at hand in the debate. Honestly, if you want good speaks, don't be a jerk and get your head into the game (i.e. this debate round).

Debated policy for 4 years at Greenhill, currently at UT Austin

she/her

Add me to the chain pls: madison4rojas@gmail.com

TLDR: Do what you do best and have fun!

-POLICY-

Rounds judged on this topic: 5-10

More specific things:

tech over truth

(^^ A complete argument must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact.)

I don't usually flow the 1AC and 1NC since I'll spend that time reading through your ev.

not disclosing is for cowards- please disclose!

I think reading an aff about the topic (and with a plan) is usually a good thing.

Reading a short overview and spending more time doing line-by-line is much better than reading a 3-minute overview and then spending the rest of your speech saying, "We answered this in the overview."

I love a good Aff vs. K debate. I am most familiar with literature on settler colonialism, abolition, and critiques of IR. That being said please do not assume I know anything about your specific literature area. I think that the best k debates happen when teams read links specific to the aff and can articulate why the 1AC is wrong/bad. Engage with the aff (ex. re-highlight cards, indict authors read in the 1AC, etc.)!!

I generally think condo is good but can definitely be convinced otherwise

I generally believe that fairness is both an internal link and an impact

I really value judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR - please make this a priority. When you lose debates you should've won, it's probably because you left a lot of arguments unresolved thus subject and up to judge (my) intervention. If you want me to vote for you tell me why you've won.

Online debate

Please don't start unless I have my camera on.

Slow down please! If you normally speak at a 10, take it down to an 8.5. If I can't understand you I will let you know.

-WSD-

"I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes." - Rosie Valdez

Weigh things in rebuttal speeches! Impact calc is essential!

(See above for more about my feelings on judge instruction!)

Last few things:

Debate should be a fun and rewarding activity- we're both here because we love it! Please be respectful to you're opponents. I will not tolerate harassment, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or misogyny of any kind.

Please feel free to email me with any follow-up questions after the round!

+0.1 speaks if you open-source ALL your ev on the wiki (show me after the 2AR).

yay debate!!!

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-now

sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.

Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.

K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.

Edited most recently in Jan 2024. I debated in high school at Greenhill School (2006) in Texas and debated in college at Michigan State (2010). I have been helping coach Greenhill since my graduation. A fair number of the assumptions that one would draw about me being affiliated with those institutions are probably true.

Case Debates – Case debate is underutilized, there are few things that I am more impressed with than beating a team on their own aff. Although, too many teams gloss over the fact that there needs to be uniqueness for neg case turns.

Disads – Defensive arguments are important, and I am willing to assign zero risk of a disad if the affirmative has damning defensive arguments even if the affirmative lacks any offensive arguments. Negatives who rely on there always being a risk of a link will leave me unimpressed. That being said though, I often think that many times a lack of offense does result in a moderate probability of the disad. Affs tend to have issues when they fail to answer turns the case arguments.

CPs – I lean negative on most CP theory issues (more on theory below), although I’m not a fan of the consult cp. I also lean negative on legitimacy of the states CP. This does not mean that affs cannot win theory debates in front of me. Additionally I think some of the arguments that affs make as to why some counterplans are bad, tend to be much better when used as a reason why the permutation is legitimate. Negs should be sure to weigh what happens when there is a solvency deficit to the cp when making their impact calculus arguments. Conversely, affs need to have an impact to their solvency deficits.

Kritiks – Teams must articulate an impact to what happens if they win their framework arguments. I don’t think the negative must have an alternative but I find it hard for the neg to establish uniqueness for their links without one. Affirmatives need to find ways to leverage their aff against the implications of the kritik as well as making sure that they are still able to access their offense if they lose their framework arguments. Negs must also discuss why the aff in particular makes the squo worse. I’m certainly not well versed in much kritik literature so avoiding buzzwords and jargon can help my understanding. If you want me to vote on a kritik, it would benefit you to debate it very much like a CP/DA: turns the case, solves the case, xyz comes first, etc.

Topicality – I tend to view T debates in an offense/defense framework. Its all about competing interpretations, whomever creates the best world for debate should win, issues of abuse are not necessary but can be helpful. That being said, I’m also not a fan of the cult of limits, just going for your interpretation is more limiting will most likely lose to a broader interpretation that is more educational. Also, your K aff's impact turn of T does not amuse me – topicality is a voting issue.

Theory – I lean neg on most theory questions but this is not to be taken to mean that I like to hear your XYZ-Spec argument, your points will go down. Conditionality, or multiple conditional counterplans are both fine. The caveat to this is that I'm not sure if I'm a fan of conditional counterplans with half a dozen planks each independently conditional (ie 2nr could be planks 1-6, or 1-3, or 1&3, etc.). This doesn’t mean I won’t vote aff on theory though, whomever can make their trivial distinctions seem most important will probably win.

Non-traditional affs – I’ve debated at Greenhill and Michigan State, if that doesn’t provide some hint, I’ll break it down some more. The Aff should probably be topical, probably have a plan, and probably also have to defend the effects stemming from the hypothetical enactment of said plan - I've yet to be convinced by a reason as to why any of these things are bad.

General Notes: All of this being said – I will evaluate the arguments made in the round even if they are contrary to my beliefs, this is a guide of what I think and how I will default with a lack of argumentation. I do like being on the email chain of documents but will NEVER be reading the speech doc during the speech – you need to be clear. I’m only going to flow what the person who should be speaking says, if your partner yells out an argument during your speech, you have not made it.

Lincoln-Douglas debate: If possible, I’d basically prefer your LD debate to be policy-esque, I can obviously follow whatever but still have no idea what a criterion is. For some reason when I say this, people seem to think theory args are a good idea....most LD theory args seem to be asinine standards that the other team needs to follow…I will not vote on this, and will probably lower your speaker points. Also, if you intend to win due to a theory argument, you need a reason to reject the team – otherwise the obvious remedy is rejecting the argument.

Impact calculus is very important but don't forget the links. For example, how should I weigh solvency deficits and links ? In my mind, the lower the risk of the link, the lower the risk of the impact.

Offense-defense: this is the second most important issue. Realize that winning a bunch of defensive arguments will most likely make it hard to win if your opponent has an offense against you.

Nexus question: what is the most important thing to evaluate a debate. You don't have to clearly flag this in the 1 AR for me, but I should at least see the inkling of the doors to analysis you are going to blow up in the 2 AR.

1 ARs and 2 NRs if you could clean things up for me, it would be so much appreciated. Labeling groups of arguments helps me know what you are extending or responding to.

Prep time starts when cross x ends. Please don't try to steal prep time.

If the aff is going for theory against the neg like process counter plans bad, they should know I have a high threshold for rejecting the team and not the argument. I think the 2AR has to provide examples of arguments they would not have been able to run or examples of in-round abuse. This is not impossible. It just requires some thought on your part going into the 2 nc and 2 nr as to what kind of topic-specific education you think is lost or round advantages the neg procures. Against topicality try to use offensive reasons to prefer your counter-interpretation. I may have trouble voting on reasonability unless you can articulate what the vagueness of the resolution is this year and what might be considered reasonbly topical or untopical.

arontrujillo@gmail.com

Yes email chain: zinobpet@outlook.com

Berkeley Preparatory School 23' – TOC Semifinalist (Berk SZ)

Williams College 27'

Currently Coaching: Berkeley Prep

I debated for 4 years almost exclusively as a K debater, but idgaf about what you are arguing, more so that you are debating well and having fun.

TLDR --

Tech > Truth unless you do something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc...

Don't over-adapt to me, I have been around debate long enough to be familiar with many different types of argumentation; therefore, I will be able to navigate the debate despite whatever "style" you choose to debate with. Just do u.

*** I am a sucker for good judge instruction. I would rather recite specific lines from the 2AR/2NR in my RFD as a filter by which I make my decision than try to independently decipher the importance of an argument relative to what your opponent is saying. Basically, good judge instruction = high speaks and prob a W

Clash debates (FW) –

I love Clash Rounds (please pref me for clash rds lmao). Def my favorite rounds to judge. Just do you. I will gladly hear fairness, clash, or even some obscure FW arg to mess with K teams. But, being a K debater, I have heard my fair share of really amazing and really terrible FW speeches. That being said, either way, I will vote for FW just as fast as I will vote against it. It is up to your debating. I am extremely comfortable in these rounds and will most likely have some thoughts on how you could have better executed, or for those who I repeatedly judge, what to do better next time you have me in the back.

Ks + K affs -

This is what I have done throughout my debate career. I think Ks and K affs r chill as long as you know wtf u are talking about. I will reward you if you execute your K strategy well and you know what you are talking about. On the other hand, the myth surrounding K debaters having a higher threshold for Ks while judging definitely reigns true for me, but only when a team obviously has no idea what they are talking about. I would rather you go 12 off w/ only T shells than have you over-adapt and hear a poorly researched, unthought-through K strat. Also, figured I would mention this again, ESPECIALLY for you K debaters: judge instruction is what wins K rounds on both sides.

DAs and CPs

Imma be straight up with you: if this is your A-strat, I am probably not a judge who you should be preffing very high, but if you happen to get me in the back in one of these rounds, there are a couple of things you can do to make it a W:

DAs – Good impact comparison and internal link debating are essential for me. I find that these debates get annoying to adjudicate when both teams lack in-depth comparison, and I find that judge instruction in your final rebuttals is the single best way to break the tie. Also, please don't assume I know the story of your DAs, especially on this topic; although I coach on this topic, I coach K teams. As long as you explain your arguments and do good debating, I will be just fine.

CPs – Least familiar with these kinds of debates and will stick strictly to tech and my flow. Some advice: first, if you are the neg, do not forget the internal link work at the level of solvency, i.e., how does the mech of the CP solve whatever 2NR impact? I find that these debates become annoying if there is no discussion or comparison of the aff and neg advocacies at the level of impact solvency. Second, I can't say this enough: judge instruction. Third, CP theory is as far out of my comfort zone as possible, so if the debate ends up being a theory debate, do not assume I know literally anything about what you are talking about and explain the implication behind different args without superb explanation I can almost guarantee my barrier to understanding theory will bias by decision.

Theory -

Ngl, I generally dislike judging these types of debates. Of course, I know that sometimes condo just has to be the 2AR, and if that is the case, I will evaluate the round but I find myself less sympathetic to most theory arguments. (ie. no perms in method debates, condo, perf con, etc...)

If you have any questions after the round, don't hesitate to email and ask (although I can't promise a timely response)