Email Chain: noahcorb101@gmail.com

Former CX debater. I'll listen to (almost) anything (which includes well-run and warranted arguments as to why I shouldn't listen to something). I have a philosophy degree, so I'm quite into theory (which includes T) when it's developed and run well, and I *love* a good K-prior debate. Please make sure you don't shadow extend- I value warrants more than taglines. This is my first year back in the circuit after a multi-year absence, so it would probably behoove you to focus on depth over breadth in your spreading and/or neg strats.

For K and theory debate in particular, please do notsimply read down your 2A/2N blocks without regard for telling me where on the flow you want me to be putting things and what is addressing what part of the debate/the opponents. I prefer competing interpretations evaluations on a typical flow, but I believe that in most cases this is a framework either team can win.

Otherwise, good luck, and if you have additional questions feel free to ask!

Note for LD: As you can probably tell from my CX background/paradigms, I'm going to pay a lot of attention to who is winning the framework debate: i.e. who is better using it to amplify their 1A/N offense relative to the opponents'. This flow serves partially as a (meta-extended) form of impact weighing for me, so the more work you do for me there, the more likely it is that I'll frame the round the way your case wants me to. Just keep that in mind for me given my background is mostly CX.

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.

About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read" is not an argument. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. You need a net-benefit to the counter-plan internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. The most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

I will value whatever I am told to value.

However I will default to T above all else, then Impacts.

No 'new in the 2'.

Make sure to signpost.

I'm a tab judge who defaults to policymaker if you do not give me any other framework in the debate round. I do require debaters to give me voters and impact calculus otherwise the round becomes messy as I judge the debate on the things that happen in the round.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive arguments or behavior in-round, including being disrespectful or condescending to lesser-experienced teams. Additionally, I have no tolerance for male teams who belittle women who are being aggressive. I do not care how far ahead you are on the flow; I will vote you down if you engage in this kind of behavior.

I also need to add this as well: Please remember that this activity is supposed to foster education and a sense of community. There is no reason to be condescending or rude to your opponents, your teammates, your judges, your coaches, or tournament staff. If you do so then your speaks will reflect as such.

Also if you post-round me expect me to edit your speaks for them to be dropped as well.

Questions? Just ask.

Email Chain: kmartin@netbenefitsdebate.com

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

Sunnyvale HS 2024

UTA 2028

Most of my experience debating is CX debate, but I am familiar with other styles. If you have any questions about the round or need to add me to an email chain, my personal email is emaaavaughan@gmail.com!!

TLDR: I am tab, default stock. Run whatever you want (not aff K), be kind, be chill.

You NEED to understand your own arguments and what your opponent runs. Presenting a card and saying "we win on this because it is more recent" or that you are better because you have "so and so" evidence is not always a valid way to receive my vote. Your arguments are far stronger if you can provide explanation rather than only referencing cards.

I will flow anything (except K Aff) as long as you explain to me what they are, why they matter and are not blatantly offensive. Be mindful of your opponent throughout the round.

Speaks: Idc if you are spreading, just share to document. Slow down for tags and analytics, give warrants, and more than simply just evidence. There is zero reason for you to be reading 500 wpm if you are intelligible and say "um" every other word. Absolutely no one wants to hear an 8-minute spread, monotone, poorly read speech. Convince me of your ideas with words, do not just read the pages. I usually will not place speaker points below a 27 unless something went horribly wrong in round.

LD

I definitely lean more traditional for LD but am open to other arguments. Please understand the arguments you are making in round and obviously provide explanations for them. I value clash and framework arguments. If not, I will look at the impact arguments from both sides.

CX

T: T is fine. If you extend your T past the constructives, PLEASE remember to extend standards and voters.

Theory: I will vote on theory, but it needs all the necessary parts or I will not flow it. This isalways a fun argument, it just needs to be done properly. Please impact why your theory matters in the debate space.

DA: I love good disad debates. The neg needs to prove why they win all four parts of the DA. Please do not forget to extend accordingly. A good way to win this is to weigh your impacts. Remember to warrant out your cards and explain why they outweigh your opponents.
CP: CPs must have a net benefit and solvency. Tell me why the CP solves better than the Aff. I will vote on CP theory if not clashed with. Specific CP is yaaaaay!!
K: This is not my favorite type of argument, but that does not mean I will not vote on it. It needs to have all parts. Bottom line is it needs to be explained well. I value a good analysis line by line on the link, impact, and all. Tell me why your Alt solves. If your K has a lot of jargon, you most definitely need to explain it.

FW: These are really fun ways to evaluate the round but is definitely not needed! Please remember to impact your framework THROUGHOUT the round.

On case: LOVE LOVE on case!!!! Solvency turns are great, and the aff needs to defend all parts of stocks. Clash is necessary between both sides. With this being said, running like 15 on is not the best strategy.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

Snapshot: If TOC speed is a large element of your approach to debate, I am not your preference. But I do possess a high level of understanding of how all forms of debate function in the competitive space. I love judging at NSDA nationals. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

I am living with COPD. I may have Oxygen hooked up in the back of the room while judging. You may see me laboring to breath at times, particularly if I am walking too and from rounds. Do not be overly concerned.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools, but I also coached some fine teams at Denton Guyer and most recently in Athens, Texas. Currently I no longer coach directly. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments. Along the way I enjoyed coaching PF, Congress and World's and was adept at giving kids an edge regardless of the debate event they chose.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.