Contact Info

Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)

Pronouns: He/Him

Background (Updated For 2024-2025 Season)

I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.

I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI

*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.

Conflicts

Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS

Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI

TLDR: What I don't like

1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle

2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.

3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.

LD & CX Specific

DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)

This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:

[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward

[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address

[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.

[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.

I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.

Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.

Kritiks & TFW/Topicality

K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean

K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L

Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.

*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place

**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.

Phil

I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.

Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).

Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.

Tricks (LD Specific)

I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.

[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low

[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue

[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is

[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.

[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).

Round Logistics

[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card

[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.

[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.

General Strategy:

I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.

Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.

If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament

If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking

If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed

If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect

Personal Belief:

I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.

Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571

Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

World Schools Specific

A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens

B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs

C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.

Public Forum Specific

Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.

If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.

If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.

Speaking Events (Specific)

Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.

Congress Specific

Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a former Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Olive

Pronouns are she/her

Brief Overview:

Truth > Tech

I've read both Policy and K arguments on both the aff and the neg. Storytelling is at the core of debate and debate is just conversations about how we should interpret and act on the stories presented in rounds. I love fun new arguments and will vote on anything so long as your winning the debate and the story adds up. I did congress for 4 years, so subconsciously presentation matters to me a little more than it does maybe for other policy judges but in policy that just means I value respect in round that is balanced with passion. I also take IVI's very seriously.

General stuff: whether you are running a K, a plan, a DA, whatever you should be telling a coherent story throughout the round. Impacts need to be both warranted and visualized. I love evidence comparison/analysis when it comes to authorship and highlighting to illustrate what a card says vs what the team says it said.

Policy vs K: Responses to the kritik need to be thorough and happen at multiple levels (f/w, perms, link defense, the alt, impacts, etc.). I'm pretty lenient with letting the K win links because its rare that they don’t so the job of a policy aff then is to explain to me why the (typically) incrementalist, policy oriented approach outweighs the impacts of the K in the context of what the kritik is talking about. It comes down to telling me why the aff is either key for alt solvency or why the aff is a fundamentally better approach to change than the alternative.

K debates: I doubt I’ll ever be able to judge these that much but I love these debates. I’ll vote for any K aff if its debated well. explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like "power-tagging" violations. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

Welcome, debaters, to this competition where the art of persuasion and effective communication takes center stage. I am an experienced parent judge. As your judge, I value the intellectual rigor and eloquence that each debater brings to the table. I know the hard work, dedication and time that you commit to this craft. My judging paradigm is rooted in a commitment to fairness, clarity, and a thorough examination of the arguments and presentations presented. Here are the key aspects I emphasize:

Clear Communication: I strongly prefer clarity and precision. Make sure your points are well-articulated and easy to follow.

Avoid rushed delivery: I have a distinct dislike for fast, rushed arguments that sacrifice clarity. Speed should not compromise the quality of your presentation.

Thorough Examination: Dive deep into the issues at hand. Provide comprehensive analysis and evidence to support your claims. Quality, not quantity, is key.

Sportsmanship: Demonstrate respect for your opponent, the audience, and the rules of the debate. Ethical conduct is paramount to a positive and productive debate environment. Disrespect will not be tolerated.

Engagement: If you are competing in an oratory category, please engage the entire audience and not just me as the judge. Be confident in your delivery. Speak with confidence and volume. Do not be afraid to make eye contact. Simply stated - Don't just look at the ground or the ceiling during your delivery.

Overall, have fun, Good luck and may the most compelling arguments and presentations prevail!

Background: Coach of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 3rd year as Coach, 10th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

IE Paradigm

Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, boards, interactables, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students would say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know or particularly care about theories/kritiks, nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head. If you want to ask beforehand if you can read this theory or that, assume that I will say no and just leave it at that.

- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get too lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.

***TOC Note 1: No PDFs or cards in the body; Word docs only. Also, I will aggressively dock speaks for teams that don't have their timer go off and exceed their speech time.

***TOC Note 2: If you are a graduating senior and would not like to hear a decision and/or feedback, please feel free to tell me.

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Conflicted with: Heights High School, Bellaire High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF: bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire High School, and coach a variety of speech and debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• There is no flow clarification time in debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters do not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or teams who are genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Hello! I'm Amanda Cruser. I did not debate in HS or College, but am the parent of a debater and have some experience judging. I am not super technical, but I will flow your cases and give you my undivided attention. I am comfortable evaluating whatever traditional arguments you present to me but you should treat me as a lay judge. If I cannot understand you I cannot flow your arguments, so please speak clearly and avoid spreading. I want to not only make an informed decision, but also to be able to give you helpful feedback.

Happy debating and please be kind to each other!

Parent Judge, without any prior experience, moderate experience with congress and extemp.

I am a PARENT JUDGE.

Please briefly explain the rules for you event as I am not a flow judge

For debate:

• Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in your last speech
• Please use some of time allotted in summary to summarize your arguments, it will be easier for me to follow your argument
• Please do not spread, If I can’t understand you, I’ll have a hard time voting for you.
• If you’re using topic-related jargon, please explain it to me, so I can judge the round accurately
• Please try not to use debate-related jargon, but if you do, please explain it EVERY TIME
• Please spoon-feed me information in summary and final focus

General Experience:I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in extemp and LD as a student and went to nationals in LD. I'm a Rice grad and reader who appreciates well crafted arguments and evidence. All events are speaking events, meaning effective communication and persuasion can help you win the round.

Speech Paradigms:

Extemp: You must answer the question. I will weigh both content and delivery when making my decision. Academic integrity is paramount, so I may check your sources. An excellent speech will clearly answer the question, offer insight and analysis (in-depth look at the issue), back arguments up with relevant and timely sources, and do all of this with a conversational and professional delivery.

OO & Info: I am looking for a balance of content and delivery. Do you bring forth new ideas or perspectives with your topic? Do you offer insight and analysis? Do you make me care? I expect top speeches to have smooth and professional delivery that uses variation in rate, tone, and volume to keep listeners engaged. It is nice to hear ideas backed up with research. Informative speeches should have visuals that contribute to our understanding of the topic (not just something for us to look at and you to do.)

Interp Paradigms:

I love a great performance that showcases your talents while clearly presenting distinctive characters. BUT I equally want content and understanding of the material. Have you cut a selection from the source that conveys a story or point or theme? (And am I able to follow it with your interpretation?) Does your "cast of characters" use vocal variety, physical movement, and overall performance to aid (as opposed to hinder) my understanding? And I love to see classic works, so bonus for high quality content done well.

L-D Debate: I am a somewhat old-fashioned L-D judge. I want to see persuasive communication and a clash on values and value criteria. Debate requires you to engage with your opponent and communicate effectively to me the judge; it is not a matter of reading the most evidence into the record.

What I want to see:

I like a mix of pragmatic and philosophical arguments. The winning debater will have a mix of persuasive speaking, logical arguments supported by either philosophy, empirical evidence or expert opinion, and the value which has been proven to be superior based on the criteria in the round. I don’t want to see evidence during or after the round. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a kritik.

Delivery:

I will flow. I don’t have a problem with speed. Keep in mind, I value convincing delivery in making a decision, so don’t go for speed if you can’t do so clearly and persuasively. You should stand when you speak.

Deal Breakers:

Your chance of winning the round drops dramatically if you:

- don’t allow fair ground for debate

- are rude to your opponent

- show me the back of your laptop instead of your face

- mis-use or mis-quote evidence (academic integrity is paramount!)

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.

General

In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.

When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.

*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.

Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.

Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.

Evidence

Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.

Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.

Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.

If you believe someone is violating the rules, conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations. Producing evidence and/or a copy of the original source in a timely manner generally means 60 seconds, but this may change depending on the context. The punishment for not doing so when asked by me or your opponents is a loss.

Please read the applicable evidence rules for your tournament. I will enforce them.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Expect me to have topic knowledge.

Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.

Defense is not "sticky."

Second rebuttal must frontline.

Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.

Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.

Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.

That said, I generally find "timeframe" more relevant than "try-or-die" and "link" more important than "uniqueness."

The Pro/Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.

I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.

Text and function are probably good standards for competition.

Theory

I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.

Ks

Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.

Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

I am a parent judge. I encourage clear articulation and arguments. Therefore, please speak slowly and loudly. I weigh logical arguments over evidence, though having more evidence is always good.

Debated for and currently coach at Strake Jesuit

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Tech > Truth

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Do not read eval or give me 30 speaks I will not evaluate either

Additionally do not swear in round or use profanities it will effect speaker points.

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them but these are my preferences.

Tricks - 1

Larp - 3

Phil - 1

K - 4

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

I'm a parent judge. I was an active member of my university debate team. I prefer clear sound arguments based on facts/data and constructive rebuttal.

Lay for all debate events (debate experience in high school, but it's been decades). Have judged a few debate tournaments in the past few years though.

I can handle a quick-ish pace of speech, but don't spread.

I keep a decent flow; probably not the most rigorous, but better than the average lay judge.

I value both argument and style, but argument weighs more heavily than style.

I am a lay judge who has judged before, speak slow and articulate your arguments

make sure to give me implications

• I have judged speech events at the local level for many years, and I’m excited to be judging at TOC for the first time. I value performances that are clear, well-structured, and engaging. I appreciate speakers who connect with the audience through genuine emotion, strong delivery, and purposeful movement.

  In interpretation events, I look for distinct characters and emotional nuance. In original speaking, strong argumentation and logical flow matter most to me. I may not take extensive notes during rounds, but I stay fully engaged as a listener and judge based on overall impression, effectiveness of communication, and impact.

  Speak confidently, be yourself, and do your best—I’m looking forward to hearing your performance!

• vnj843@gmail.com

LD and CX:

If it'll make it simpler, consider me a relatively traditional/lay judge.

Please no skits, roasts, songs, etc. Most other args are fine. Spreading is fine but please signpost/slow down at least with the tags.

Not a fan of plans in LD - find a friend and do Policy instead.

PF:

Please share all cards before the round. Calling for cards counts against prep.

Congress:

I prefer Extemp style, which involves less *reading* to the chamber and more *speaking* to the chamber. I don't mind jokes, but I do mind crude / vulgar jokes. There are ways to be funny while maintaining decorum.

Speech Events:

I tend to prefer speaking over analysis, but just barely. Between a solid speaker with solid analysis, and a decent speaker with incredible analysis, I'll vote for the latter. I need to see Ethos (good sources), Pathos (humor, empathy, and/or vulnerability) and Logos (analysis and original thinking), though I value them in reverse order (Logos > Pathos > Ethos).

Interp Events:

With dramatic events, I definitely value realism as opposed to melodrama. With humorous events, PLEASE avoid racist/sexist etc. stereotypes and impersonations when distinguishing between characters.

Lay judge

LD/PF/Policy:

-Don't be disrespectful.

-Please don't spread- if I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your argument.

-Try to provide roadmaps to make flow easy.

-I am heavy on weighing especially COMPARITIVE WEIGHING!

-I'm fine with most arguments as long as they make sense. They must have the basic claim, warrant, and impact.

-Properly impact/weigh/extend/signpost arguments and evidence through summary and final.

-I'll vote on who can extend their arguments the best and what makes the most sense.

-Make your arguments as easy to understand as possible. Over-explain them so they make complete sense.

-Write my ballot for me; especially in FF tell me exactly WHY you win.

Congress:

Ill vote on who makes the most sense and has good speaking. Try to stand out by making good points and asking smart questions. Participate throughout the round and make sure you are filling the room with your presence.

Speech:

Ill vote on who has good speaking and presentation. Little things matter and keep me entertained!

Name: Surabhi Presse

School Affiliation: Parent of a Bellaire High School Student, 1st time judging

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 3

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

What is your current occupation? Sales account manager, Electrical engineering degree

ASK ME ABOUT THE TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE AND/OR THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP

EMAILS - yes, “at the google messaging service” means @gmail.com

All rounds - esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy - dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD - dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TOC PF Update: Congratulations on qualifying. This is a huge accomplishment, of which you should be proud. Since my paradigm is mostly in the context of Policy and LD, I want to lay out some Topic/PF specific thoughts. First, sending evidence that will be read in a speech via email before the speech is best practice for high quality debates and avoids the awfulness of deadtime while you read over each other's shoulders. Second, this is a policy style topic, which has two major implications for how you should approach debating in front of me 1.) Neg gets presumption because the resolutional statement is a departure from the status quo, 2.) I will be much happier if you treat this like a traditional style policy debate over central topic controversies rather than running to the margins, as you and your opponents have not had a full year to think and prepare materials over all aspects of the topic like you would in policy debate. This is not a prohibition on content. Feel free to read your kritik, just know I am generally skeptical of their strategic viability in PF given the lack of time you have to develop, explain, and contextualize the argument. Finally, defense is not sticky. You must extend an argument in summary if you plan to extend it in final focus.

QUICK GUIDE- My preferences/self-assessment. You are free to decide that I am great/terrible for any given form of argument.

Policy - 1

Kritiks - 1

Topicality/Framework - 1

Philosophy - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks - Strike

ABOUT ME

I am currently the program director at Dulles High School, where I also teach AP Psychology and AP Research. I primarily judge Policy and LD. I've been in debate since 2007 and have judged at every level from TOC finals to the novice divisions at locals; you are not likely to surprise me. I have no significant preferences about the content of your arguments, except that they are not exclusionary in nature. I like research dense, content heavy strategies. As such, I am best for Policy v Policy, KvK, substantive phil debates, and Clash Debates. Quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence for me. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo (this can be the state of the world, the state of thought, the state of debate, or something else) and propose some method of solving that problem. I believe that Neg teams, regardless of style choice, must disagree with the viability, desirability, and/or topicality of that method. If you are a graduating senior and do not wish to sit through the RFD/comments after your last round, let me know.

DECISION MAKING

I am deciding between competing ballot stories in the 2NR and 2AR, evaluating their veracity and quality using my flow. Tech > Truth, but blatantly untrue things are harder to win. Spin control > me reading a card doc, but I will read evidence if the spin is roughly equal in quality. Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate. Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. 30s should be rare, it is unlikely you earned it. Don't ask for one.

THINGS I CARE ABOUT

1. Respect for Others - Don't be a jerk. Use people’s preferred pronouns, provide accommodations when they are requested, be prompt and ready to go at start time, and be mindful of the power dynamics in the room. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation should an issue arise. If I’m not picking up on something, let me know.

2. Investment - Apathy sucks. Caring about stuff is cool. Whether you’re more invested in saying stuff that matters or chasing competitive success, I just want to see that you care about some aspect of the thing you are giving up a significant amount of time to do. Take notes during feedback and ask questions.

3. Transparency - I believe that disclosure is generally good, as it enables people to read, think and prepare better (obvious exception for when it raises safety issues). Don't be a jerk about it with people who don't know better. Shiftiness and lying are bad. If you are reading arguments that implicate the desirability of transparency, that is perfectly fine. This is just a starting point.

4. Flowing - Do it. Preferably on paper. Definitely not in your opponent's speech document. If you answer a position that was in the doc but was not read, your speaks will be capped at 26.5. There is no flow clarification period. If you're asking questions, it's CX or prep time.

5. Clash - Compare warrants and weigh. Rehighlights are fine, but your speech should explain why it matters. I am not sympathetic to strategies that attempt to dodge clash, like tricks. Specific links, counterplans, topicality interps, etc. are way better than generics. K links should quote the aff.

6. Line by Line Organization - The negative team sets the order for arguments on the case page. The affirmative team sets the order on off case positions. Number or label your arguments as you go down the flow. Overviews are fine, but your whole speech should not be a blocked out overview with no attempt at line by line argument/evidence comparison. Jumping around between pages is extremely annoying and will impact speaker points.

7. Debating the Case - Both the affirmative and negative teams should center the case. If you’re aff, the case should go first. If you’re neg, don’t treat the case page like an afterthought, and certainly don’t focus solely on the impact level. Contest uniqueness, link, internal link, and solvency claims. Making the case page K 2.0 with nothing but cross-applications is both boring and unstrategic.

8. Judge Instruction - The top of the 2NR/2AR should be what you want my ballot to say. Tell me how I should be thinking about arguments and their interactions. Tell me what matters most. When Neg, anticipate 2AR arguments, prime me for skepticism, and tell me which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I'm voting Neg, figure out why I would vote Neg, and beat that ballot.

9. Complete Arguments - Arguments have a claim, warrant, and implication. I will evaluate arguments, not isolated claims. If you make a warranted claim without explaining the implication for the debate, you invite intervention.

10. Projection and Enunciation - I like fast debates, but if you are unclear I am not going to pretend like I understood you and flow it.

Other than these 10 things, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well. Feel free to ask any questions you have before we start, and I'll do my best to answer.

I briefly did debate in HS for about 3 years, but been away from it for 5 years. Consider me a partial lay judge who understands basic debate concepts but may need additional explanation for more complex arguments.

What I prefer:

1. Clarity:

• Please don’t make me work too hard to understand your arguments.
• Try not to go full jargon mode, keep it accessible.
• Use signposting and roadmaps to help me follow your speeches; I haven't flowed in a very long time, so be clear.

2. Crossfire:Be assertive but respectful. Talking over your opponent will not impress me.

3. No spreading. I can handle a moderate pace, but prioritize clarity over speed. I will dock your speaker points if you spread. You can make your point without yapping at 2x speed.

4. I probably won't time your speeches, so you will be responsible for doing that on your own.

5. Keep it trad, no running theory or K's.

After the Round:
- I'm happy to provide oral feedback if time allows.

Contact Info (please add me to email chain):

Email: ntom18@mail.strakejesuit.org

Facebook: Neville Tom

Paradigm:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I haven't been judging as much lately so getting a bit back up to speed with how things are moving now in LD.

Main things:

1) Don't do any -isms

2) Make things very clear in the final rebuttal speeches

The Kinkaid School, Vanguard Debate

'24 NDT Doubles

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

HSLD: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Basics

1. I will flow on paper and then decide the debate based on the arguments on said flow, conditioned by the caveats and biases delineated further below. If I do not have paper, I will flow on Excel.

2. My hearing is bad. Clarity is extremely important. If you're unclear, I'll yell "clear" twice, and then play games on my phone.

3. I prefer clash. I detest tricks, RVIs, and most non-resolutional theory. If you're wondering whether your argument constitutes a "trick", you probably shouldn't read it.

My desire to vote for you goes down the more I believe you are just trolling. If you don't care, I won't either.

4. If you ask for a 30, I will give you the lowest speaker points permitted by the tournament.

5. Introducing a callout, character assassination, or otherwise unverifiable beef will result in an auto-loss, the execution of rule 4, and the contacting of Tab and/or coaches.

6. There is no flow clarification period. Asking for a marked doc or "what was X argument" is CX or flex prep.

7. Inserting is fine until someone makes an argument about it.

Plans

Your advantage(s) are probably bad. However, the neg rarely takes time to explain why, and frequently opts to only meekly extend impact defense. A neg that can exceed this practice will be rewarded.

Counterplans

Judge kick unless argued otherwise or the CP is unconditional. "Conditionality bad" is a non-starter and will be met with a verbal interruption.

Fine for both "must compete functionally" and "must compete functionally and textually". Textual competition seems difficult, but I am not diametrically opposed to it.

I dislike recycling. Most process CPs probably fail to resolve their net benefit, solve case, and are structurally incoherent.

Theory is best when couched as a competition argument and is never a reason to reject the team. I am frequently persuaded by neg appeals to arbitrariness - "process CPs bad" is untenable. "Must only fiat the resolutional actor", however, is fine.

Intuitive analytic advantage CPs are under-utilized. The glaring lack of "plan key" is astonishing and should be punished more frequently.

Disadvantages

Your politics DA is likely an incomplete 1NC argument and can be quickly vaporized with well-informed analytics.

Impact calculus is, by definition, comparative. Explaining your impact and sprinkling in terms like "magnitude" without referencing the advantage probably does not constitute comparison.

Topicality

I don't have a strong opinion on reasonability vs. competing interpretations. Reasonability should have offense that can outweigh the neg's gut check/arbitrariness standards.

Kritiks

I am very bad for "middle ground", but good for either "no K" or "no plan".

The neg should explain how they generate uniqueness for their offense, whether that is via an alternative or framework argument. However, I can be persuaded by "reject things that are bad".

The aff frequently forgets that they read an advantage, which causes the 2AC to debate on the neg's playground. Less generic card reading and more leveraging the aff vs. their theory of power, links, alternative, and framework arguments.

Planless Affs

Framework is an argument that demonstrates the utility of debate, i.e., why debate is good (and ideally, why it is good for the aff).

Fairness is good, but there is no reason it should be the entire 2NR. The substantive justifications for fairness are compelling, but are too simple to require 6 minutes.

I think about framework very similarly to a disadvantage - the opportunity cost to voting aff is topical debates. The neg should utilize turns case language, which is best accomplished via skills, not fairness.

Very rarely is "subject formation" explained. I am bad for "debate can change your opinion/turn you into an activist", and very bad for "debate can't change subjectivity at all". There is a middle ground that naturally favors the neg.

The TVA/SSD are overestimated in their ability to mitigate impact turns, but excellent at demonstrating turns case/offense (when explained meaningfully). The TVA is also not a CP.

I am not very good for kritik vs. kritik debates (yet).

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides both a platform and an audience for you to realize that your voice matters. I am honored to be but a small part of the process where you speak your truth to help change the world.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class three years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. Which means I do not want to read your case in a shared drop file- it is your job to make me understand your case verbally. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a flow judge with a dash of Policymaker thrown in, which is why nuclear war should rarely be run. But feel free to not put me in a box, and I'll try to not put you in one either.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresh each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

Email chains: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Inquiries: lydiawang327@gmail.com - I do not check this one during tournaments, so please do not send email chains here.

Sammamish '23, University of Houston '25

Coaching Kinkaid & Vanguard Debate

Top level:

Shortcut---Policy/Theory/K>Phil>Tricks

Callouts, Ad homs, screenshots = auto loss. I am not here to evaluate the character of the debaters in the round, just the arguments that are made. If there is an issue with safety in the round, you should contact your coach. This doesn't mean no disclosure theory, screenshots here are fine if you also forward the email chain to me/ link to wiki.

Explain the rehighlighting if it is important---debate is a communicative activity, if you say "insert rehighlighting" with no explanation of the evidence, it will not end up on my flow.

---There are only speech time, cx time, and prep time, there is no such thing as flow clarification time---this is either prep or CX.
I try to pay attention in CX but honestly my attention span sucks, if something is important tell me during CX.
I don't open the doc when I flow, so if there are contestations over extemped arguments then you also need to flag it because I honestly don't know if an argument is in the doc or not until it's mentioned or after the debate.

Policy:

- Default judge kick unless it's contested.

- Condo is good, Dispo does not mean you can set whatever condition you want, it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight turned the net benefit.

- Love a good politics debate - better for spin on evidence here than most others. However, smart AFF analytics can take out poorly constructed politics DAs.

Planless AFFs:

- Prefer AFFs that clearly defend and commits to a concrete action/advocacy out of the 1AC.

- It will be hard to convince me that framework is "psychological violence".

- Dislike framework 2NRs that assume every 1AR DA is the "policing DA", I feel very comfortable voting AFF on a DA to framework if the 2NR doesn't interact with it or do judge instruction about why other arguments on the flow takes it out.
- Fine for intrinsicness debates against disads, would rather the AFF justify this earlier in the debate rather than later.

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case, but am also fine for framework Ks when done well.

- Uninterested in listening to super long overviews that don't serve any strategic purpose.

LD:

- Strike me if you plan on spreading through 30 lines of analytics the same way you spread through a card, if you are unflowable I will just flow in my head. (People seem to be ignoring this recently, slow down on analytics or you will get 27 speaks.)

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory. Default DTD, No RVIs, and Competing Interps on theory. I actually enjoy a good theory debate but the second it becomes affirming harder vs negating harder I will be sad.

- Evidence matters---I will not follow along during your speech but will look at evidence that is debated out in the round. Good research will be awarded with good speaker points.

- Been judging alot of phil rounds recently, I'm not good for these debates so err on the side of more judge instruction.

- No new 2NR cards unless you can point to which 1AR argument it directly answers. There is NO 2NC in LD.

- If your argument relies on your opponent dropping it for you to be able to win on it, then I probably will not like it - Clash is necessary for good debates. I do not vote on: Eval after 1AC/1NC, 30 Speaks theory, "I'm the GCB", No AFF/NEG analytics,

I am a policy centered cross-x judge. I try to stay tab as much as possible and keep an open mind but I don't have the high-level experience that many other national-level judges have. I flow the speeches and take notes during cross-x. I will look at the doc to get the cites and try to read the evidence between speeches.

When you stop prep time, please be in the process of sending or uploading the speech doc. If you say "stop prep," do not turn around and whisper to your partner. If you are the 1NR and you say "no prep," do not start talking to the 2NC and you should have the doc already uploaded if you have new evidence.

I did not debate in college and I am not well-connected to NDT level trends.

As I get older, cognitively I am a little slower and a more concrete thinker. That being said, my weaknesses are high theory kritiks, performance / identity arguments, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplan theory.

I have no predispositions against arguments. I actually love innovative arguments like critical philosophy, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplans but I just lack experience so my decision may be a bit unpredictable. I will defer to an offense-defense paradigm and list the offense that each team is winning and then decide which impact or framework I should choose based on the arguments. I will also try to compare the evidence if needed and use the arguments to compare warrants.

I do my best to get a tight flow but I can't get every word. If you are debating theory, you might want to go 90% of top speed and make sure you are enunciating well. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and it won't be on the flow.

Topicality-I like topicality debate but I am looking for examples of cases that the other team would allow. I am looking for specific arguments that you will not be able to run. Saying "limits" and "ground" does not qualify as an extension. You will need at least 2 or 3 sentences to explain what that theory means, give examples of in-round or potential abuse impacts, and warrant out why I should down the team.

Theory-I can flow theory pretty well and I will vote on it. But again, you need to give a 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what the in-round or potential impacts are to your theory and why downing the team is merited. Extending taglines or buzzwords won't be sufficient.

Disadvantages-Make sure they are unique and the links are specific. Do impact calculus and compare the impacts.

Counterplans-I like counterplan debate. I like all types and am open to counterplan theory but just don't go too fast and be specific. "Perm: do both" might not always be sufficient. The affirmative may need to have a perm text that is written out and specific to what the perm does especially in a process round or advantage counterplan round.

Kritiks-Sure but I am not the most up to date on kritiks. I sometimes don't understand really dense theory and philosophy. I do prefer specific and timely links that interact with the assumptions of the case over generic links of omission. Framework debate needs to interact so if you are going for an identity or performance argument, I can't be expected to automatically vote for your framework; there needs to be a clear extension of the in-round and out-round implications of endorsing your specific framework and a comparison with the other teams framework. I do prefer kritiks that are timely and germane to the topic and connect to real-life events.

Case Debate-You probably are going to need this and it needs to specific and recent. There needs to be impact comparison and engagement with the warrants of the evidence.

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.