Prefs Shortcut:

Larp - 1

Kritiks - 1

FW/T - 2

K-Affs - 2

Phil - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks/Unnecessary Theory - Strike

Introduction

Debated for Princeton High School on NSDA/TFA/UIL. I did Policy, LD, plus multiple speaking events. I ran a lot of Larp and phil, dabbled in k's but did not run them often.

Any Pronouns, Reference me in any way you want, i will default they/them for you unless you say otherwise

Email Chain plz : hdkcangell@gmail.com

Real Paradigm

please run whatever you want, i will listen to anything and will judge off what you tell me to, there are some exceptions and clarity required for this though:

YOU CAN SPREAD, but If you're going to spread be aware that my hearing is bad and i will rely on your document THIS APPLIES TO ANALYTICS. I will default on speed theory if the doc isn't sent.

I appreciate Kritical debate greatly, if you want to run it please do, but my understanding is a few steps below my peers, so crystalize, especially in regards to K v K debate.

No tricks, especially if you cannot explain them in a way that matters, and you don't want to be the one to fail to change my mind on this, this includes truth testing.

Be logical and reasonable with theory, observations, etc. The meta debate is very important but treat it with grace, it's not your path to a free ballot.

On that note, I consider disclosure frivolous no matter what, I WILL DROP YOU IF YOUR OPPONENT SAYS THE WORDS RVI.

Overall

I will start at 29 speaks and go up or down from there

Don't be the reason that i add something to my paradigm

Ask me specific questions if you wish, and email me if you have questions as well.

Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. 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.

disclosure: if you are a massive school with tons and tons of backfiles I won't even evaluate it but if not then I err on the side of the aff and hold a uber high threshold of abuse

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD: im getting better at trad ld but If I was you I wouldn't

Competitive History: Competed in NSDA/UIL for 3 years at Princeton High School. My main event was LD, but I also competed in OO, Info, Extemp, Duo, and Congress. 3-time national qualifier (info, senate, LD), 1-time UIL state qualifier in LD (7th), and 1-time TFA state qualifier in LD.

Be respectful to your opponent(s).

SPEED: Ask me before the round. I can usually keep up if you are clear but that is different for many. If I can’t follow you, then I will not flow the arguments

ARGUMENTS: I LOVE framework debate and phil-based arguments. If you are running more progressive cases, that’s great too! I did a mix of it all, just make sure to emphasize impact calc and really explain your arguments. If you don’t tell me how to frame the round, I will almost exclusively vote on the framework/impact calc debate.

If you have any other questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Please include me on the email chain @savannahraeb04@gmail.com

Hello I'm Addie! (she/they)

Argyle HS '24 & Cal Poly SLO '28

I did policy, extemp, and congress in UIL, TFA, and NSDA all for 3 years

if doing an email chain please include me: addieohigh@gmail.com (I do prefer speech drop but use whatever works best for you!)

Please at least skim my paradigm before asking questions--saves us both time!

**It should also go without saying that any racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, classism, or belittlement/intolerance of any kind is unacceptable, has no place in the debate space in ANY event and = auto loss and lowest possible speaks/rank.

LD

I only did LD for a few months in high school so my understanding of it is pretty surface level. I'm definitely comfortable with 'progressive' styles of LD that include CX arguments but I can handle traditional cases as well so run what you want! I get file sharing isn't as big in LD and spreading is used to be 'strategic' but I decide rounds almost solely off my flows so if you think what you're saying is important to the round, make sure I can understand it or just share your files (that being said I can still handle speed well, just please articulate your words).

Since I'm less familiar with this event, please try to have more in depth explanations, especially during value-criterion debate. Overall just make sure you're actually clashing with your opponent and applying your arguments to theirs, and please SIGNPOST!! Voters and judge instruction are very important to me, I won't be doing much work for you on the flow so tell me what you're winning on, why, and why you should win the round off that (mainly in the final speeches).

Please note! I'm likely never going to be very well versed on any LD topic when I have to judge it, so always err on the side of simplifying or explaining topic-specific acronyms or subjects, thank you!

CX

Surface level/TLDR: I prefer tech>truth and kindness! I think overaggressive argumentation and unnecessary interruptions in speeches and cross are not necessary to win rounds or benefit from them.

Any speed is cool as long as you're actually pronouncing words instead of mumbling but please send analytics in the doc if possible! If I can't understand what you're saying it won't be flowed and that's what I look at when deciding rounds.

Always weigh all your impacts in a given round. Never read new arguments in the 2NC. Always read framing and give judge instruction in general, writing my ballot for me makes voting (and winning) way easier. Please have a good balance of cards vs. analytics, not too much of one or the other and gradually stop reading cards in the initial and final rebuttals. Please actually apply your evidence arguments to your opponents speech, makes flowing and RFDs much cleaner.

Please be kind, especially given obvious experience differences!

T/theory shells

Tech>truth really applies here. I loved topicality in high school and I enjoy seeing it in rounds, especially extra/effects T when applicable. If a team can't adequately defend their link to the resolution then they don't deserve to win. Always have developed standards & voters. Please don't run T unless the argument actually pertains to the round!!!!

DAs

Case spec disads/links are interesting but please avoid reading vague overviews at me in the block. LBL is great in all arguments, I especially love it with disad and case debate, shows understanding of your content and the round. If you're going to read crazy impacts or wild impact runs in the block PLEASE explain your link chain.

CPs

I think CPs generate great clash with affirmative plans but have a net benefit and if you're reading a generic make sure it still competes with the plan and avoids your NB. If reading some weird case spec ADV CP you made yourself, know how the CP works.

Ks

K's are totally fine to read in front of me as long as you know what you're reading and don't only read them as a 'gotcha'. Please be able to explain your arguments and their impacts instead of just using complicated jargon, especially if you're speaking fast and/or reading high level or obscure arguments! I'm mostly familiar with cap, fem, queer theory for reference.

K Affs

I'm not the best person to read a K aff in front of but read what makes you comfortable as long as there's clear framework and a metric for how I should vote. (Same goes for being Neg against a K aff, please don't be afraid to clash in whatever manner you're comfortable with: CPs, Ks, theory, etc, to prove that the aff is unfavorable or that they shouldn't run it)

Congress

I have experience as a speaker and a PO so I'll include notes for both!

Speaking: Authorships/Sponsorships should be informative and explanatory of the legislation at hand and should include pre-clash with predictable negative arguments! I love to see speeches with a lot of clash, it keeps rounds interesting so please don't be afraid to reference other Represenative's arguments as long as you don't attack their character. In speeches later in the cycle ALWAYS make sure you're introducing new information into the round even if you're simply providing an overview of the debate, rehash is boring and does not help in rankings or in progressing the round. Cutting off a representative in questioning is fine as long as you do it politely, a general rule of thumb is to always remain decorum in the chamber and if you're unsure of anything, ask your PO!

POing: I really appreciate a PO who is firm but still able to maintain fun and liveliness in round. Speed/efficiency is definitely important but please don't sacrifice your clarity or order in the chamber for it. Rules permitting, I love online PO sheets that allow judges and competitors to follow along, but if you choose to use paper be open to allowing others to view these sheets during recesses. Please avoid getting defensive when questioned/during a point of order! Please please ensure you're following the specific circuits rule about precedence/recency for questions and speeches and don't sacrifice accuracy for speed!

In general: I love debaters who aren't afraid to include unique aspects to their speeches/PO styles as long as they benefit the chamber/round. Remember this is supposed to be fun and engaging so don't hesitate to get creative!

Extemp

I really enjoy structured speeches that still flow together! (Ex: distinct transitions for each area of focus while still maintaining a consistent tone and inflection)

Please have distinct devices for each AGD and transition and try to avoid being repetitive with a certain inflection or tone in your sentences.

Content-wise please ensure you're answering the question at hand with ideally 3 different areas of focus/reasons. Have at least 6 different sources spread out amongst your speech! Evidence and facts are crucial to an extemp speech but so is analysis and explanation! Stick to the claim, warrant, impact formula! Don't be afraid to get creative with AGDs or transition devices to make a speech more entertaining however be weary of insensitivity with more delicate topics.

Try to avoid filler words like ums and uhs but also repeating phrases or sentences and stalling the flow of your speech

Don't be afraid to pick polarizing questions if you feel you can answer/explain them logically and with reliable sources!

CX- Policy Maker judge with a default to stock issues. I want a case that can stand on it's own two legs and will not accept cases that aren't complete. I believe in Fiat for the legislative process except for funding. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SIGNPOST EVERYTHING. Keep me on track and I will flow accordingly and will be able to keep up. Not a fan of Ks but will listen to them if they are spoon fed to me.

LD- I will vote on just about anything. I prefer traditional debate but will go for anything, ultimately it is your debate, I'm just judging it. It would help me out tremendously if you are running something that is super progressive then please try to spoonfeed me. I am not as well versed on these arguments. I don't mind some speed but slow down on taglines and analytical arguments. If I don't understand you, I will not flow you.

PF- I want good line-by-line argumentation and heavy signposting. The more you keep in order on the flow, the better your chances of winning the debate. Good impact calculus will go a long way.

Congress- I like good refutation. I do not like repeated arguments and will vote you down if you are not adding to the debate. Giving speeches just to give speeches will not get you anywhere with me. If the PO keeps an orderly chamber and commits few errors (I get the error every now and then especially with questioning) they will rank high on my ballot. I am also not opposed to ranking the PO first if they are #1 in the round. Questioning should not be a shouting match. If you are rude to other debaters during questioning I will not rank you. I understand some competitiveness but not allowing someone to answer the question and constantly interrupting will not be tolerated on my ballot.

Extemp- Humor goes a long way with me. Keep it old-fashioned and stick to the book. Be sure to emphasize your sources because I do keep count. My count won't affect my ballot much but if I'm stuck between two speakers, this will help me decide a little easier.

HI- Comedic timing is everything. If you're going to land a joke, it must be timed perfectly.

DI- I hate screaming. I deduct the most points from people who scream. I like a good build-up and tear-down during most DI pieces. It shouldn't just be sad, sad, sad, sad, sad. I should go through a whirlwind of emotions. I don't mind the heavier pieces.

Duet/Duo- Relationships, relationships, relationships. You and your partner need to be in lockstep and be timed together. The worst

All other interp events- It is an acting exercise, not a reading exercise.

If you're going to spread, make sure you enunciate and articulate. I will tell you to slow down once if I cannot understand you. If you see me not flowing, I will be docking speaker points.

Clash is crucial to me. I value quality over quantity

Please, please sign post. I will be docking speaker points if you don't.

I want you to weigh your frameworks. Please sign post clearly. Point out drops and why it matter. Give me voters at the end.

LD: I look at the debate from a traditional lense. Value/Criterion -> link to your Contentions. I'm expecting clash throughout. You may read fast (but not too fast) you should enunciate. Voting blocks at the end help summarize the debate and that's my preference to hear in the final ARs. Unlikely to weigh counter-plans. LD is a value style of debate. Resolution is absolute unless specified. I'm very tabula rasa with 99% of arguments. However, if it's something completely off the wall I'm not going to weigh it. However, it's your opponent's job to still attack that specific argument (if it has some miniscule form of credence). You don't need to spend much time dismissing it in your rebuttals if it's non-sensical. No K's, Theories, Piks, other random things.

I want to see a Value and a Criterion. Both, that's TWO. What do you value, how do you get there (criterion).

CX: Most important part of CX for me: Would I rather live in Neg world or Aff world. But I will evaluate K's Kritiques, Theory. However, a large percentage of the round will come down to that. If you want to go off-case then do so. There will be no on-case ROB. You will need to thoroughly explain your off-case arguments. Don't assume I'm familiar with the literature. I would like to hear an overview attached to it. Doesn't need to be written but certainly needs to be explained. You will need to pass all mechanisms needed to earn my ballot.

PFD: Traditional lense. Clash is expected. Summarize key voting issues. The debate should center around the topic. Whoever can display their case is stronger than their opponents (makes more sense logically, with impacts) wins the debate.

Congress: Presentation is big for me. Think Extemp but with actual arguments and clash

Another thing; Let's say your opponent failed to attack your case in any of those speaking blocks where they must do so. In your next speech just go ahead and say that and save us all all this time so we can move on with our lives. No need to continue droning onward if your opponent just literally dropped the entire round unbeknownst to themselves. I wouldn't put this here if it didn't happen before.

Outside of the above you should be using all your time. I'm sure there's something either A.) You missed or B.) You can add some analytical analysis of something throughout the round.

Use speechdrop.net (Make everyone's lives easier)

At the end of every debate round there should be voters and weighing. Do that.

Also, let's not make it awkward after the round. If you want an RFD then just ask.

One more thing. Do Not say "Latinx." En lieu use the gender neutral term "Latino." ¿Entiendes?

I am a parent judge and served as LD judge since 2023. My background is a seasoned scientist in Biotechnology, I value evidence based arguments. Please prepare accordingly.

My email address is: xiuquanluo@gmail.com

dmarshall36@gmail.com

'24-'25 high school policy and NFA LD: I don't know what your plan text does. These topics are huge, I have no background in these areas, and I don't coach/didn't do a camp last summer. just be aware, these 1ac's are harder for me to keep up with than previous topics.

weird pet peeve. please don't tell me that time starts on your first word before your speech or cross-ex. i saw this in novice a few years ago and now varsity teams are doing it. judges know how timing works :)

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."


i love debate.


tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.


whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.


keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.


i hate "perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get many extra speaks by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.


im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.


im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.


i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.


please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.


High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.


PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.


im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.


here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up."

I am looking for well supported arguments and meaningful clash that is comprehensible to a listener. When citing evidence, name your sources, characterize them accurately (policy center, online magazine, scientific journal, opinion article etc.), and explain why we should value it as evidence. You should have a reason why your evidence can make such a claim. I will not flow documents you share with me, but may ask for cards.

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes two framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I consider myself traditional.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being.

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

If you run theory in front of me, you are wasting your time. I will not vote on theory.

email- hannahrodriguez2003@gmail.com

pronouns- she/her

Coaching & Competitor History

(2023-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Prosper High School

(2018-2021): Policy Debate competitor, Princeton

Background:I approach debates with an emphasis on critical analysis, deconstruction of power structures, and engagement with alternative frameworks. My judging philosophy is centered around evaluating debates that delve into issues beyond the policy-oriented or traditional arguments. I appreciate debates that challenge mainstream ideologies, interrogate assumptions, and offer unique perspectives.

Deep Analysis: I value depth over breadth. I prefer in-depth analysis and thorough explanation of critical arguments rather than superficial coverage of multiple arguments.

Open-Mindedness: While I have a preference for critical arguments, I am open to all forms of debate and coach LD and Policy. If traditional or policy-focused arguments are presented effectively, I will evaluate them accordingly. Essentially I'll adapt to you.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing. If you are SPREADING through tag lines I AM NOT LISTENING !

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold for abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though as long as your doing the internal link devoplement. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case.

Counterplans: I don’t judge kick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.

Congress

-If you call for splits during round I'm ranking you last you should be able to give a speech on either side that's the purpose of this activity

-Using ethos is only impactful if your incorporating evidence

-PO every time you mess up you drop in ranking

-Clash is great but no need to yell

LD

Read your trix in front of a different judge. Please and Thank you!

LD -

Yes I wanna be on the email chain :) alyssavanzandt16@gmail.com

———————————————————-———————————————————-

I’m open to every argument, but here’s what I typically lean towards…

Traditional paradigms:

I find the criterion debate more essential than the value debate and framework overall a huge voter in the round. That being said, if your contention level arguments suck, I will not vote on framework alone. You need both. Do the weighing for me in your voters. I am familiar with the most common philosophers debated, and am very encouraging of people using new philosophers.

———————————————————-———————————————————-

Progressive paradigms:

K:

love K debate. I am not familiar with all of the literature though. K Affs are fun.

CP/Plans:

I don’t have any problem with these being ran. Always justify why a perm doesn’t work and give clear solvency to the harms in your case and I’ll weigh it. If your plan text has the word "ought" in it, I'll cringe.

PICs:

I like these when they’re done well. If the PIC is just meant to bait theory or be goofy, I will be less open to the argument.

Disads/ads:

I like Disads and ads when there’s more to the impact calc than magnitude. I typically don’t buy extinction/ low probability high magnitude arguments over helping people and saving lives now. so minimizing SV>util usually for my ballot. If you clearly outline in your framing why low probability matters, I’ll weigh it :)

———————————————————-———————————————————-

Speaks:

I like to give high speaks unless you’re being rude, aggressive, or generally making the debate space feel unsafe.

I don’t mind speed, but send me your case (alyssavanzandt16@gmail.com). I will dock speaker points if you’re simply incoherent or failed to share your case with your opponent.

armadaverae@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch but I'll say clear three times before I stop flowing. I haven't judged for a few month so I would not suggest intense spreading.

Please make sure Ks are clear- especially links, alts, and ROB. I'm not the best judge for performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse and spec DTD/DTA.

Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. I won't evaluate arguments without extensions.

Have your cases ready!!

If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible (I think this is especially true for theory arguments). Keep in mind that it's been a while since I've flowed high-speed rounds. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. The lit bases that I am the most familiar with include the following: Neolib, Baudrillard, and Set Col. Please do not assume that I am an expert on the literature of your choosing. It is not my job to become an expert on it in round either. Instead, I believe it is your job to clearly articulate what your literature means in the context of the round. This does not mean I can't follow other kritikal arguments; just that arguments that are outside of my wheelhouse might require more explanation. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I coach debate at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI in LD, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan. Again, Neg's are free to argue that they are entitled to that ground regardless of whether the AFF defends a plan or other hyperspecific advocacy.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.