LD: In judging, I will be looking at the framework and, more importantly, the impact of the arguments. Speaking should be clear, at a moderate pace, and polite. I focus on the content of the argument, not social conventions like making good eye contact. Points will be lost for rudeness, inappropriate behavior or language.

Hello everyone！

This is my email address: lnguo@hotmail.com. Please send round docs and/or any cards used to my email before the round starts so I can easily follow along.

As a parent judge with limited experience in speech and debate, I value clear communication and logical organization in arguments. It is important for debaters to speak clearly and concisely, making it easy for me and your opponent to follow your points and understand your arguments.

I appreciate when debaters pay attention to their opponent's arguments and address them in a respectful manner. Responding to the opposing side's points shows that debaters are actively engaging with the topic and considering different perspectives.

I prefer debates to be presented in a systematic way, with arguments clearly laid out and supported by relevant data and evidence. Debaters should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic and provide solid reasoning to support their claims.

Overall, I am looking for debaters who can present their arguments in a clear, logical, and convincing manner. I encourage debaters to be respectful towards their opponents and to address points effectively, making sure to support their arguments with data and evidence. I am excited to learn from the debates and look forward to hearing well-structured and well-supported arguments from both sides.

Thank you and I am looking forward to seeing great rounds!

- Lina

Name: Grant Heller
Affiliation(s)/Strike(s): None




Intro: I debated CXDebate at Katy-Taylor for 4 years on the national circuit. I'm a primarily K debater but that does not mean I'm against traditional policy arguments. I don't default to any sort of framework and have no preconceptions about what debate should look like. All those rules are guidelines.


Affirmatives - I do not have a preference as to how you conduct your affirmative speech. That is to say, I do not have an opinion on plan texts (or the lack of one) in a 1AC. I am open to non-traditional affirmations of the topic as well as traditional ones.


DA/CP/Case – These arguments are all fine, PICs are cool - make sure they are competitive and have a clearly articulated net benefit. Disads, whether they be critical in nature or not, are fine– make sure (obviously) they Actually outweigh and/or turn case. Reading case specific links will never hurt. I hate timeframe counter plans - they are truly one of the most anti-educational arguments I've heard, but I'll evaluate them if I have too. I just won't be happy about it. When reading a PIC or CP that has a long/in depth text, either slow down when you read it, or give it to me after you're done reading it so I can write it down.


Topicality– I think that against a Kritikal team, your best bet is to run FW and not Topicality (Maybe an embedded Extra-T violation is a good argument against K teams although I'm going to go ahead and say no). You can spread through your T shell in the 1NC, but if you plan on going for T (or at least extending it throughout the block), I would really appreciate it if you would slow down during the block on the standards debate. I understand there is always a time crunch, but if you go your usual (fast) speed, I may not get down everything you say which may harm you in the end. If T is in the 2NR, I expect you to impact out each standard. I don't default to either competing-interpretations or reasonability or whatever other metastandard you cooked up in your trailer park debate room. I generally think education outweighs fairness, but neither Have to be a voter. I'm open to the concept of voting on a RVI, but you will have to invest a good amount of time in the 2AC/1AR on the issue. I prefer voting on In Round Abuse, so please show me how the aff is "Totally screwing us over juuuddgggee" ... all of you are bad liars... I vote for good ones.


Theory - Generally, I think you should have a interpretation, violation, standards and voters, but embedded theory on a flow is fine too - for the sake of organization, I prefer theory on multiple sheets of paper (If possible). I prefer voting on In Round Abuse, but I will evaluate potential abuse as a voter with a much higher threshold. I truly do not enjoy getting into the ultra specifics of "should I grant someone leverage of a condo arg without an in depth extension of the standards against severance perm theory?" - Please try not to run too much theory.


Deb(K)ate – If you are filling out judge prefs and you rank me highly, I Expect you to have some sort of critical position to use at your disposal. I think as a general rule that Kritiks should have alternatives, however, I am open to evaluating a K without an alternative as a case turn to the 1AC. I love hearing good K debates – this is why I debate. Literature I am most familiar with – Continental Philosophy, Feminist Philosophy, Disability Studies, Queer Studies, Critical Race Studies – you get the idea. But I should be fine with evaluating whatever Kritik you want to run. It’s your game, do with it what you will. I like hearing K debates the most out of any other kind of position. But this does not mean that I will vote on a K just because you read a K; I expect in-depth analysis and contextualization on the K flow, particularly, how it relates and interacts with the affirmative not only on the link level (which is a must), but also on the alternative and impact level as well.

I’m also sympathetic to the idea that education outweighs fairness.

TL;DR - Kritiks are great - Contextualize your evidence to the affirmative, win the framework debate, have fun.


Framework - I WILL VOTE ON FRAMEWORK IF YOU DO POORLY. I default to allowing non-traditional approaches to debate be inclusive, and it will be an uphill battle to win an exclusionary reason for why I shouldn't allow the affirmative/negative to speak, but if a team is very far behind on the framework question, I will reluctantly vote on it. You need an interpretation.


Weighing - The earlier the better - I expect clear weighing analysis in overviews of the arguments you want me to vote off of.


Performance- Don't run these arguments just to run them - make sure they have a clear, meaningful message. I generally think that these arguments have their place in debate, but can be persuaded otherwise. Give me a role of the ballot or some mechanism in which I can make a decision.


Speed – I should be fine with however fast you choose to go, if not I will just shout clear.


Role of the Ballot - This shapes how I view every other argument in the debate. It shapes how I view things like framework and topicality, and how I view substantive things like impact comparisons and impact framing questions.


Flowing - I will flow unless instructed otherwise. Like, "don't flow the other team judge." Ok mate, got it.


Speaker Points – The range from which I give speaker points is from 25-30. 25 is the lowest speaks that I will give, even so it probably won’t happen that often (I hope). How do you get better speaks? Organization during a speech

Quick and painless paperless debate (flashing ev)

Humor

Intuitive CX Strategies

Prioritizing framing issues at the top of a speech

My previous educational, personal, and professional experiences have colored my life experiences and may lead to implicit biases. I promise to acknowledge and recognize these biases to the best of my abilities, as my goal is to support the next generation of debaters and leaders. Below is the paradigm I have recognized over the years and what I keep in mind when judging, especially for Congress:

• I debated in high school for three years, all in Congress. I also interned at Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. I have a deep respect for our institutions, and I expect students to act accordingly when serving as representatives or senators.
• I prefer rhetorical style over evidence-based arguments. The goal is to sway the wider audience to support your side. I keep an eye out for debaters who know that they aren't just trying to sway a judge but their fellow debaters.
• I struggle with listening to fast speeches, as I find it more challenging to grasp the underlying key arguments from general talking.
• Debaters should treat each other with the utmost respect. I watch for unacceptable behavior and note them down as feedback. I will act reasonably, and I recognize that it is possible that what I consider unacceptable in my world may not be acceptable to others.

I believe in fair and respectful discourse. During debate rounds all speaking should be directed towards me. I base my determinations on who has the better arguments/cases and on who flows the most impacts through the round.