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 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, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students 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.

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Heights High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, 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, and coach a variety of 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. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• 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.
• 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 does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is 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 k-aff v fw 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 have coached there since. Most competitive results are viewable here.

General

I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Sounds analytics are often convincing, usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot understand or follow.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear; debate is an oral activity. Your research and critical thinking only matter if you can communicate it.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Relevant stuff still must make its way into a speech.

Flex prep is fine. However, I will not care if your opponents do not answer clarifying questions, especially if I thought they were clear.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak (word, preferably). This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not mandatory assuming there is clear verbal marking in-speech.

Stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules. I will not evaluate theory arguments about rules violations.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and parsing clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even good weighing will not always get you out of sloppy or underwhelming case debating.

Probability weighing is best when comparative 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.

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

I reward creativity and hard work.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to keep up.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

Not a huge fan of pushing condo to its limits.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention on my end than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.

I am predisposed to believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good.

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 next speech.

Ks

Err on the side of over-explanation. Impact stuff out, like 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. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

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

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

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

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 lay judge, I will take notes on the round but I will only flow what I can hear and understand so please slow down. I encourage clear articulation and arguments.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

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

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

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.

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

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

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.

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

make sure to give me implications

Parent lay judge.

please:

• No spreading.
• No debate jargon.
• Be kind and respectful - don't yell over each other.
• Don't insult opponents.
• Time yourselves.

bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

vnj843@gmail.com

LD and CX:

TRUTH OVER TECH.

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

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.

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

QUICK GUIDE

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 and Clash Debates. Philosophy arguments are also welcome, but I have a bit less experience judging these debates. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo 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.

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 from both sides is really good. 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 - 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. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism are reasons to stop the debate. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation. 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 what 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.

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.

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.

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 where which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I've voting 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:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

Conditioned on the biases delineated below, I will decide the debate based on the arguments on my flow at the end of the round.

The AFF should read a plan that is topical and the NEG should demonstrate that either the consequences of the plan are undesirable or the plan is not topical.

Alternative frames for evaluating the debate are a hard sell.

Award your opponent basic courtesy. Do not be rude or a bigot. If you find either of those things difficult, debate is not for you.

Callouts, character assassinations, etc., are an auto loss. Personal anecdotes, evidence written by competitors, or arguments about your opponent's identity will not be evaluated.

Be clear, especially during cards. I should be able to hear every word. You get two warnings - after that, I will immediately stop flowing.

Ugly speech docs get ugly speaker points. Asking for a 30 means the literal lowest speaks I can give.

I will assume good-faith on evidence ethics challenges and strike the evidence from the debate, barring extreme circumstances.

Conditionality is good. I don't care. I default judge kick, but this can be contested.

I will not vote for senseless, coward garbage such as tricks, frivolous theory, or RVIs.

Please ask questions, but post-round at your own peril. I have no patience for adult coaches who behave like children.

There is no flow clarification period in debate. Asking for marked docs or clarifications is CX or flex prep.

Answering a 1NC position that wasn't read is an auto 27.5. Flow.

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

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 two 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. 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. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. 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 Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

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- don't spread bad vibes!) 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: lydiawang327@gmail.com

Experience: Sammamish 23 debated 3 years on the circuit, acquired 6 TOC bids reading policy and K arguments, and currently 1A/2N at the University of Houston.

Coaching for Cho&co, Vanguard debate, and LD consultant for Kinkaid.

Top level:

Tech>Truth - Yes this includes wipeout, spark, death k, whatever. I will not intervene against those arguments or other arguments that are considered "dumb." I will vote on anything that has a warrant.

Do not be unnecessarily mean - there's no reason to make someone feel bad over a debate.

Docs must be sent, I don't care if it is a local, evidence matters. I will not follow along on the doc during your speech, but I will most likely read evidence after, sending a doc is not an excuse to be unclear.

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 a true 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.

Inserting rehighlightings are okay ONLY if you explain why it matters/what the insert is saying. Otherwise, read them out loud if you want me to flow it.

---Marking a doc is prep time. If you ask for a marked doc, it's your prep time, you should be flowing. If you are not flowing your speaks will be docked. Compiling the doc is also prep time, prep time ends when you are done compiling and press send on the email chain. The more dead time there is in a round, the lower your speaks will be. Theres only speech time, tech time, cx time, and prep time, there is no such thing as flow clarification time---this is either prep or CX.

The easier you make the round to evaluate for me, the better your speaks will be - this means you should make the round very clean and take the clearest path to the ballot.

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.

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".

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case.

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

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. If you're not sure what I mean by this, think punching theory with no 2nr I meets, I am not voting on that ever.

- Conceded arguments require warrants for me to vote on them, simply saying "they conceded x" is not enough.

- I am so tired of LD 2NRs that are 11 pointing condo, be more efficient and move on to substance.

- 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.

- If you make me flow your 30 point underview I will be sadder if you don't go for a silly conceded trick that takes out an argument in the debate, than the fact that you made me flow all that.

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory.

- Evidence Matters---I'm very comfortable voting you down if the argument you go for relies on a card that has like 5 words highlighted. I dislike the trend in LD to card spam advantages with 5 different impacts and all of which are so poorly highlighted.

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.