Debated: Alief Taylor High School (2004- 2007), University of Texas (2007-2010)
Coached: Dulles High School (2007-2011)

Winston Churchill High School (2011-2012)

Hedrickson High School (Present)

If you are looking at my paradigm from https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Agha%2C+Samin the way I think about debates has changed since my Freshman year of college when I created that wiki. 

Initial Notes

-DO NOT CLIP CARDS - I have had to adjudicate several debates these past years where it was a question if cards are cut to stop this I ask to be put on the email chain samin07@gmail.com and actually mark your evidence in your speech document and send out a marked version of your speech document after the speech is done.

-Every argument you make must have a claim AND a warrant – saying that the impact to your advantage is “faster than the disad” is a claim, you need a reason WHY THAT IS TRUE. This becomes increasingly problematic in debates with multiple interacting parts such as a politics disad – you should make sure when you are extending “X bill will pass” uniqueness claims, you give reasons WHY THAT IS TRUE.

-TECH OVER TRUTH --- although some arguments are very silly, if you drop them – they are considered truth. Whether or not reading these arguments will adversely affect your speaker points is up to how well I thought the position was executed. That being said, most of the positions that come to mind when someone says “tech>truth” can easily be answered without evidence.

- Accomplish something in your cross-x time, keep me interested, have an agenda during your cx and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

-If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.

-Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.

-Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.

-The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

- The best judges will listen to any argument and style of debate. Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well. It's not my job to decide what you should debate, but to help you become better at how you choose to debate.

Technical Issues
-I won’t take prep time for flashing unless you are taking forever OR I think you are prepping when you are supposed to be flashing. (This may change the more I judge)

-I am pretty lenient on emergency situations – if you are having a massive coughing fit, or if your computer/stand breaks, just let me know and I can see what we can do. 

Topicality

Generic T shells are not something that hold my attention, however, a specific definition or a T in tandem with another position to get a link, is strategic. If you are going to go for T, then go for it starting in the block and make it a legitimate option and I will evaluate it. I find this to be an underused strategy

Disads

If you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc. Make your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Counterplans

I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PICs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIC. However, make it clear that it is a PIC and explain why it solves the aff. Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

Kritiks

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all, there are still many kritiks that I have trouble understanding. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.

Clash of Civ. debates

I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

I understand that I coach teams that are much more on the side of reading K affs that does not mean a good framework strategy is something I won’t vote for. I have voted for Framework more than teams that doing have an instrumental action.

Performance/Methodology debates

I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments. 

Theory

I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Debated: Norman High School (2005- 2009), University of Oklahoma (2009-2014)
Coached: University of Texas at San Antonio (2014-2015), Caddo Magnet High School (2014-2015), Baylor University (2015-2017), University of Iowa (2017-2022), Assistant Director of James Madison University 2022-2023

Currently: Assistant Director of Debate at Baylor University, Assistant coach at Greenhill High School

email: kristiana.baez@gmail.com

Updates- Feb 2023

Think of my paradigm as a set of suggestions for packaging or a request for extra explanation on certain arguments.

Despite the trend of judges unabashedly declaring themselves bad for certain arguments or predetermining the absolute win condition for arguments, I depart from this and will evaluate the debate in front of me.

*Judge instruction, judge instruction, judge instruction!*

Sometimes when we are deep in a literature base, we auto apply a certain lens to view the debate, but that lens is not automatic for the judge. Don’t assume that I will fill things in for you or presume that I automatically default to a certain impact framing, do that work!

*Argument framing is your friend.*

“If I win this, then this.”

"Even if we lose ontology, here is why we can still win.” This is important for both debating the K and going for the K.

Zoom debate things:

Don’t start until you see my face, I will always have my camera on when you’re speaking!

Clarity over speed, please- listening to debates over zoom is difficult, start out more slowly and then pick up pace, but don’t sacrifice clarify for speed.

Ethics violations-Calling an ethics violation is a flag on the play and the debate stops. Please, please do not call an ethics violation unless you want to stop the debate.

---

Top level thoughts: This is your debate, so above all-- do what you do, but do it well!
My debate career was a whileee ago. I primarily read Ks, but I have also done strictly policy debate in my career, so I have been exposed to a wide variety of arguments. I like to think that I am a favorable judge for Ks or FW. I have coached all types of arguments and am happy to judge them.

I judge the debate in front of me and avoid judge intervention as much as possible. In this sense, I am more guided by tech because I don't think you can determine the truth of any debate within the time constraints. HOWEVER, I think you can use the truth to make more persuasive arguments- for example, you can have one really good argument supported by evidence that you're making compelling bc of its truthiness that could be more convincing or compelling than 3 cards that are meh.

FW/T

I judge a good number of T v. K aff debates and am comfortable doing so.

Sometimes these debates are overly scripted and people just blow through their blocks at top speed, so I think it's important to take moments to provide moments of emphasis and major framing arguments. Do not go for everything in the 2NR, there is not enough time to fully develop your argument and answer theirs. Clearly identify what impact you are going for.

Internal link turns by the negative help to mitigate the impact turn arguments. Example- debating about AI is key to create AI that does not re-create racial bias. TVA can help here as well!

The definitions components of these debates are underutilized- for example, if the aff has a counter interp of nuclear forces or disarm, have that debate. Why is their interp bad and exacerbate the limits or ground issues? I feel like this this gives you stronger inroads to your impact arguments and provides defense to the aff's impact turns.

K aff's- It is way less compelling to go for impact turns without going for the aff and how they resolve the impact turns. You cannot just win that framework is bad. It is more strategic for the aff to defend a particular model of debate, not just a K of current debate.

Kritiks:

Updated- It’s important to find balance between theoretical explanations, debate-ification of arguments, and judge instruction. More specifically- if you have a complex theory that you need to win to win the debate, you HAVE to spend time here. Err towards more simple explanation as opposed to overly convoluted.

Think about word efficiency and judge instruction for those theoretical arguments.

Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.
The 2NR should CLEARLY identify if they are going for the alternative. If you are not, you need to be explicit about why you don't need the alt to win the debate. This means clear framework and impact framing arguments + turns case arguments. You need to explain why the links are sufficient turns case arguments for me to vote negative on presumption.

CPs- I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PIKs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIK. However, make it clear that it is a PIK and explain why it solves the aff better or sufficiently. Explain sufficiency framing in the context of the debate you're having, don't just blurt out "view the cp through the lens of sufficiency"--that's not a complete argument.

Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

DAs- I find it pretty easy to follow DAs. However, if you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc.

Make the story of the DA AND your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Theory- I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Other notes: If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.
Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.
Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.
The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

Accomplish something in your cross-x time and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

1- spreading is not an issue until you get to the point where you are not being clear or i can not understand you, in that case i will say clear.

2- for speaker points- I will take in to consideration of clarity, tone, and courtesy.

3- I consider the "CX" rounds highly important and will be flowing everything, I will take into consideration how probing the questions were and how well your opponent responded. After all this is a debate, and I like to see argumentation within the round, give me reasons to doubt your opponent. 

4- I take everything into consideration, I will not vote down on any specific type of argument. I mainly do not like theory arguments.

Debates are best when they are contests between well-researched competitors making tightly constructed arguments in direct response to one another, engaging civilly with ideas, and being explicit in their comparative analysis. 

R. Kyle Bean

Coach (Policy and LD Debate), Bellaire HS (TX)

Experience:

Bellaire HS '06 (Policy, LD)

Harvard '10 (American Parli)

(Updated 2/17/14)

Both CX and LD:

I'm fine with a fairly rapid rate of speed - so long as it doesn't impede your communication. I preference clarity massively over speed - if you're unclear and don't articulate well, it's to your benefit to slow up a bit on at least your tags and cites. I WILL NOT PROMPT YOU ON CLARITY, and I will not pull evidence after the round to do clarification for you - only to resolve substantive questions of what evidence actually says, if those questions arise in-round. Debate is a communication activity, and the onus is on the competitors to ensure that they are communicating to the judge adequately.

I evaluate arguments Tabula Rasa (meaning winning the arguments wins you the flow), but I evaluate rounds as a policymaker (meaning winning the right flows wins you the round) unless doing otherwise is justified in-round. I strongly prefer in-depth case debate, but realize that's not always an option. Weighing arguments is good, weighing worlds is even better, doing both is best. Similarly, specific evidence is good, strong spin is even better, having both is best.

Being rude, overly aggressive, etc. is not entertaining - it's uncomfortable and awkward. And will result in your speaks being punished severely. Be civil. Treat each other like people. 

Flash counts as prep; prep stops when the drive leaves your computer. I prefer closed cross-examination and am profoundly annoyed by flex prep, though I won't prevent you from doing either if both teams agree to it.

CX:

As a result of the above mindset, I tend to be unlikely to vote on two arguments in particular (though I have voted for both in the past). I tend to be skeptical of "performance" or "nontraditional" affirmations, particularly if they don't come with a plantext or some policy-minded form of implementation. If you intend to run a performance in front of me, you will need to put SIGNIFICANT ink on the flow articulating WHY I should COMPLETELY reject a policy paradigm. While I believe criticism and theory has a place in driving policy arguments, I don't on face accept (at least not without warrant and argument) that we ought throw policy considerations out completely. Similarly, I tend to not be compelled by K arguments from EITHER team that are wholly non-germane to the resolution (i.e., links of omission do not impress me, etc.). 

Topicality: I tend to prefer jurisdictional-type voters over procedural justifications (just because something is fairer doesn't necessarily mean that I should care about/vote on it - debate is often profoundly unfair), but I'll vote on procedural justifications if they're well-explained and sufficiently warranted. Generally, the more contextual a definition the better. I tend to err in favor of reasonability over CI as a mode of evaluating which definitions to prefer, but I will evaluate T through the CI lens if it's well-defended. Abuse needs to be proven to be a voter, but it need not be particularly significant - my threshold on abuse is quite low.

Theory: I tend to err neg on theory, within reason - aff will need to spend substantial time developing their justifications and framework for evaluating theory in order for me to vote on it. Justification of a priori voters is key. Abuse needs to be articulated for theory to be a voter. 10 seconds at the top of the 2AR on condo bad, even if true and dropped, is nowhere near sufficient to win the ballot.

That said, I am very sympathetic to aff arguments on condo - it's definitely both possible and preferable to construct a non-contradictory negative advocacy with multiple counterplan/kritik positions, and not doing so strikes me as lazy. 

Kritiks: I truly enjoy thoughtful and germane Kritiks, but I find most run in front of me are neither. Links of omission are not links. Strong and clear articulation on framework, the link debate, and the alt debate are key. Specific to the alt, I need to know what the negative world looks like and how we achieve it before I even remotely consider voting on the K.

If you're making an objection to the method of the aff's case or the resolution at large, it should be a centerpiece of your neg strategy. That said, most kritik ideologies aren't as black and white as they are painted by the neg team, and recognition and discussion of this nuance is a must for both teams in kritik rounds. I don't necessarily buy that Affs have to be married to their method or that that the Kritik is necessarily exclusive with certain approaches to the resolution unless those intuitions are justified in-round. The entire POINT of critical ideology is that we need to rethink the way that we conceive of the world, and often this can mean that alteration of Aff viewpoints (i.e., perms), not wholesale rejection, is an appropriate way forward that's consistent with critical ideologies. I ALSO don't necessarily automatically buy rejection or voting neg alternatives just because neg wins I should agree with the viewpoint of the kritik - the onus is on the negative team to justify why these are superior options to the Aff's proposition or perm, as well. If you've got a policy/specific alternative for the kritik, that's ALWAYS preferable to something vague - makes it very easy to conceptualize Aff vs. Neg world, and certainly fits much better within the purview of policy-based debate.

Case Argumentation/Disads: Don't neglect the link debate - you don't access impacts if you don't link. Specific links and DAs are always better than generic ones. Impact analysis is key when executing the DA debate. Make sure there's mitigation on case to undermine harms or solvency, or else that will almost always outweigh a probablistic DA.

Counterplans: Text, competition and solvency need to be addressed in the 1NC. I don't believe perms to be affirmative advocacy (they're a test of competition), but if you justify my entertaining them as advocacy and win such justification, I will evaluate them as such. Consult, delay, and EIS CPs (and their ilk) are probably cheating - in these cases, perm do plan isn't severance.

LD:

Specific to LD, I want a clear story linking back the argumentation in the round to both sides' value(s) and criteri(on/a) (or standards, whatever terminology you prefer) or devaluing one side's or the others' so I get a sense of how you want me to weigh the round. Debate in LD occurs to me on two levels - one telling me how I should adjudicate the round and one telling me how the arguments should compel me to vote one way or the other based on the framework under which I should adjudicate the round. Despite having a strong policy background and being a largely policy debate coach, I'm really, REALLY anti the penetration of policy-based argumentation into what is largely meant to be (and is largely defined as, via the resolution) a debate about theory. If we're discussing, for instance, a just society, plans about what particular countries should do or counterplans and critiques of particular implementations on the implementation level aren't going to be exceptionally persuasive to me. Speed is fine, but your arguments should be more along the core lines of LD than the core lines of CX.

Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)

GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.

Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down.

Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).

Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years at Vanderbilt University with Cameron Norris. I am now a 3L at the University of Houston’s law school. I help coach for the University of Houston.

I will vote on any argument. I have voted on arguments I thought were awesome, and I have voted on arguments I thought were terrible. If you win the arguments, and you win I should vote on them, I absolutely will, regardless of my own personal views. My decision is not a referendum on anything except who won the round.

With that in mind, I can give you a brief history of how I have voted in the past:

DAs/Case: Obviously yes. In debates like these, I frequently find myself voting aff on “try or die” and frequently find myself voting neg on “our impacts happen faster than yours.”

Theory & T: I don’t really have many predispositions, and those I have are not strongly held. 

-I am happy to vote on T

-I do not like voting on theory

-With respect to this stuff, I will simply vote on the best explained argument. If that argument is competing interps is best or reasonability is best or theory outweighs T or anything else, I will vote for it if it is the winning argument. I will not reject an argument because I personally disagree with it.

-I think many process CPs are often terrible for debate in terms of the educational value they provide. Same with CPs that compete on certainty and delay. But not all of them.

-I’ve only voted on conditionality when there were at least 3 positions and if the 2ar gave a stellar speech and the 2nr didn’t; I generally find arguments against conditionality not explained to persuade me.

-I think intrinsicness against DAs is a very bad argument.

Legal Stuff: Now that I am in law school, I realize that debaters understand a shockingly small amount about how the courts are structured or function, even on legal topics. If the other team makes a contrived legal argument about the courts, or relies on an incorrect assumption of how they operate, I will be glad if you point it out. I certainly hope that, after 3 years of law school, I am pretty capable of understanding nuanced legal arguments (assuming you explain them).

Meta-Level Debate:

-I have often voted on arguments that, whatever you advocate, whoever the agent is or isn’t, whatever you’re talking about, that you should defend a specific course of action / solution to the problems you identify. I find this argument persuasive because I believe enormous value is generated by learning how to craft and evaluate fairly specific solutions.

-I will not vote for you because others have explained your argument better than you. I will not vote for you because I personally believe your arguments. And I will definitely not vote for you just because your evidence is awesome. I will only vote for you, whatever position you take, if you cogently present a persuasive argument in the round.

-I think evidence is most useful to establish factual questions about what has or will happen. Evidence is substantially less useful when employed for other purposes.

Kritiks:

-When I vote aff, it is often on the argument that the aff has an impact and a chance of solving it, and the alt doesn’t solve it, and the aff’s impact happens before the K’s impact.

-When I vote neg, it is often because the aff’s impacts are all lies or otherwise irrelevant, or the alt solves all the aff’s impacts and there’s no reason to do the aff, or the aff solves nothing and the K turns the case.

-I am capable of understanding and reading arguments, but I am not immersed in nor very familiar with many of the underlying ideas, background thoughts, or even vocabulary associated with many schools of thought. If I do not understand the argument as you articulate it, I will not vote for you. I will read your evidence only in light of how you actually articulated the argument.

Stupid Arguments: Notwithstanding what I said above, my personal beliefs will interfere with your ability to win these arguments. I think almost every rendition of Spark, Wipeout, Ashtar, Timecube, 2012, etc. arg that I’ve ever heard is completely unpersuasive. The authors of these positions almost inevitably rely on incorrect or unwarranted assumptions and lack any semblance of credibility. I will give an extremely strong benefit of the doubt to the team that makes smart, reasonable arguments against these positions and/or argues that the other side’s “evidence” is little more than a series of unqualified assertions and anecdotal “data”/substantively baseless scientific-sounding rhetoric.

I’ll keep this short and sweet. Ask me in round if you're unclear about anything.

Topicality

            If I feel like you’re not doing a good enough job to directly link your plan to the resolution, I will have no choice but to consider that your plan is untopical. Basically if you’re debating about ocean policy, I want to hear the word ‘ocean’ somewhere in your aff.

Theory

            I’m pretty fair on theory and will vote on it, if you show clear interpretation, violation, and provide clear reasons as to why I should prefer your interpretation as opposed to the opposing team's. 

Kritiks     

            I can understand it (assuming you run it clearly), but that doesn’t mean I’m well read in that branch of philosophy. Make sure you explain clearly its application to the aff.

CP/DAs/Case

            Anything is fair game. Word PICs are not my style and would rather see a different type of PIC if you’re going to run one. Solvency is always the deciding factor for me.

            Das are pretty straight forward. Impact calc is key for every single DA that the neg runs.

            Never forget about case arguments!! That's the whole foundation of the debate!

Speed

            To me, excessive speed takes away from the quality of the debate. If you are incomprehensible, I won’t even bother flowing what you’re saying and just disregard what you’re saying. I want to hear your tag clearly, but I don’t want you to rummage through the rest of the card. I’ll say clear if I can’t understand you.

Performance/K affs

            It’s fine, but remember my issues on topicality.

End notes:

            I haven’t done a lot of research on this year’s topic so make sure that you’re explaining every single aff argument clearly.

            For speaker points, I consider how eloquent you are and how courteous you are during the round.

***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.

I do my best to be a traditional, stock issue, tabula rasa judge. I was a CX debater, coached debate, and am a law student. I'm fine with speed in CX. K arguments, theory arguments, and other progressive arguments are fine, as long as they are topical.

Richard A. Garner | Director of Speech & Debate | University of Houston | ragarner@uh.edu

Framework: Neg: topical version is very helpful; aff: probably okay if you defend the government doing a topical thing. One should be able to defend their model of debate. I put this issue first because it’s probably what you really care about. Everything else is alphabetical.

Case debate: Turning the case is my favorite thing to judge. Uniqueness is good here, but not always necessary with comparative evidence.

CPs/Competition/Theory: Comparisons win theory debates, along with impacts. I’m not sure that states or international CPs compete, but no one has ever put this to the test in front of me so it’s hard to say. No strong feelings about consultation or conditioning either way. K affs probably shift competition questions that rely on FIAT. Won't kick the CP unless you tell me to. Non-arbitrary interpretations are ideal.

Critiques: I understand these and am fine with them (understatement). From both the aff and neg, I enjoy narrative coherence, specific application, and alternative debates. New things under the sun are wonderful to see, but so too the old, artisanal ways upon occasion.

Disadvantages: I tend to think risk probability is never 100% absent drops, and that each internal link reduces certainty. Can have zero risk (though if the CP solves 100% of the case … probably need offense). Don’t tend to think that impacts automatically/100% turn case, or vice versa; instead, comparisons are evaluating risk probability bubbles/multiple competing worlds.

Judge Space: Judges are human beings, not argument processing machines; enjoyable debates matter. Evidence comparison is the highest art. Debaters’ flowing/line-by-line is generally terrible; embedded clash is nice, but at its root it depends on an organized approach to the flow. Drops: before the burden of rejoinder attains, there must be a full argument (claim/warrant/implication). I am displeased by a) subpoints with no b) subpoints, and by "Is anyone not ready?" because it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay). I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting: needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting (ok: United States; not: neoliberalism). If I cannot understand the highlighting, I will not read the rest of the card for context.

Logistics: Add me to the email chain. I don’t read speech docs during the debate.

*Principles: Without getting too philosophical, I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein.

Speaker Points: I approximate community norms, and adjust each year appropriately.

Topicality: I evaluate it first. I enjoy T debates, and lean more towards ‘better interpretation for debate’ than ‘we have the most evidence’.

Brief Debate CV:

South Garland (competitor): 1995-1999

NYU (competitor): 1999-2003

Emory: 2003-2004

NYU/Columbia: 2004-2005

Harvard: 2006-2015

Houston: 2013-present

*

Random Poem (updated 3/30/23):

Strange now to think of you, gone without corsets & eyes, while I walk on the sunny pavement of Greenwich Village.

downtown Manhattan, clear winter noon, and I’ve been up all night, talking, talking, reading the Kaddish aloud, listening to Ray Charles blues shout blind on the phonograph

the rhythm the rhythm—and your memory in my head three years after—And read Adonais’ last triumphant stanzas aloud—wept, realizing how we suffer—

And how Death is that remedy all singers dream of, sing, remember, prophesy as in the Hebrew Anthem, or the Buddhist Book of Answers—and my own imagination of a withered leaf—at dawn—

Dreaming back thru life, Your time—and mine accelerating toward Apocalypse,

the final moment—the flower burning in the Day—and what comes after,

looking back on the mind itself that saw an American city

a flash away, and the great dream of Me or China, or you and a phantom Russia, or a crumpled bed that never existed—

like a poem in the dark—escaped back to Oblivion—

No more to say, and nothing to weep for but the Beings in the Dream, trapped in its disappearance,

sighing, screaming with it, buying and selling pieces of phantom, worshipping each other,

worshipping the God included in it all—longing or inevitability?—while it lasts, a Vision—anything more?

*

Previously

Dunya Mikhail, "The End of the World," The Iraqi Nights (3/30/23)

Sakutaro Hagiwara, "A Useless Book" (8/1/19)

Catullus, 101 (1/4/18)

e.e. cummings, "O sweet spontaneous" (1/4/18)

&c

I debated for 4 years at Clear Lake HS. I broke at state one year and was usually pretty close to clearing at TOC tournaments, so that's something I guess. I also don't know anything about this topic, so don't assume that I do. Anyway, a tl;dr version of this is: do whatever you want, be smart, don't get drowned in technicalities, speak somewhat clearly, and "spreed" at your own risk... I am a terrible flower. But what kind of debater are you if you're too lazy to read the damn paradigm?

More detailed stuff:

Disads: Impact calculus is a must, sophisticated turns case arguments are an easy way to definitively win the disad debate so do it if you can. I DON'T KNOW THE OBVIOUS TOPIC DISADS. EXPLAIN THEM.

Counterplans: I'm cool with most counterplans, but some of the ones that sort of obviously steal the aff without much aff-specific nuance irk me a little (examples include consult, conditions, delay, etc)... This doesn't mean you can't read these arguments, but you better be damn sure that you can theoretically justify them in what I would like to be a rigorous theory debate. Competition is also a must for counterplans. I don't think permutations are advocacies. If the 2ac says 10 perms, that's fine, but that doesnt mean the neg dropping one means its game over... perms don't have to be thoroughly answered by the neg unless the aff has a warrant for why the permutation proves the counterplan isn't competitive.

Kritiks: I think philosophy is awesome, but I also think debate tends to bastardize the ideas of philosophers. So, if you have some cool stuff to say about epistemology or methodology or something, go for it, but make sure its a good and understandable argument. I can't stress enough how likely it is that I will screw you over if you go for some super complex, topic-specific kritik and technically win the flow but end up confusing me.

But, just to confuse you when making your judge prefs: I am ideologically ok with all kinds of critiquess and I found these arguments to be the ones that were most likely to teach me something or make me think about something kritikally, which is awesome. I would rather you win the kritik debate in some substantive manner on the neg. I have nothing against sneaky K tricks, but they might hurt your speaks if it seems to me like you're just being lazy by avoiding the meat of the debate. Turns case arguments are sweet, although "alt solves the aff" usually sounds pretty stupid.

Finally, be very clear in your explanation of the thesis of the criticism... I'm not ideologically opposed to voting for super far-left kritiks and other unconventional arguments, but I don't always understand them immediately, so you're going to want to make me understand. Again, don't assume that I understand anything. Just know that I'm not particularly stupid and will understand your argument if it makes sense and you explain it well. Or I might not; idk, I'm just not a great judge for people who like to do really weird stuff.

Topicality: I love topicality but only when it's done well. Standards on topicality are impacts. Treat the T debate exactly like a disad debate. Critical thinking, portable skills, topic education, whatever; most T standards make sense to me so go for it but do comparative impact analysis on those standards. If you go for what intuitively seems like a stupid T argument but argue it masterfully, I'm ok with that (your speaks might suffer), but I would prefer that your violation does make some intuitive sense as to why the aff is untopical. My lack of experience with the topic means you need to explain why your case list is good, and specifically talk about what your interpretation allows vs the aff's interpretation.

Theory: I talked about counterplan theory above, and my thoughts here are similar to the section on topicality. Do comparative analysis w/ both offensive and defensive arguments on both sides, and you have a chance to win theory arguments. I haven't had an intense conditionality debate in a while, but I'm always down for one. Condo is probably the only theory arg that is a voter, but feel free to argue anything else is a voter.

Performance affs/negs: I don't really feel like I should have to have a section for this, because the distinction between performance and non-performance debate is kind of blurry to me. Performance is cool. Do it. I am sympathetic to framework arguments against affs that don't advocate a plan, but you obviously have to win the flow -- treat it like a T/disad debate and you should be alright on either side. I think there are a lot of viable "aff turns framework" and "framework turns aff" arguments, so do what you gotta do to win the debate. In general, you shouldn't be afraid to perform your 1ac, and you also shouldn't be afraid to go for framework against these affs -- I've won debates on the aff without reading a plan text, and I've won debates on the neg by going for framework against these same types of affs.

Speaker points: I evaluate debaters on how smart they sound and how clear they are. Nothing special here. Debate well, speak well, and you'll get good speaks. 29-30 is usually reserved for the top tier of debaters, but perform really well and you could very well find yourself in this range. You won't get below a 28 unless you are really messy on the flow, drop a lot of stuff, go for really bad arguments, etc. You won't get below a 27 unless you are annoying and I hate you. One thing that will annoy me is being mean to your opponents or partner. Just be cool, have fun, etc.

In case anything on this paradigm wasn't clear, I should be a decent judge for pretty much anyone. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me stuff before the round, but if you're unsure of whether or not I am ok with a certain argument, just assume that I am.

Joshua Gonzalez

8th place in US Extemp my first time at NSDA Nationals.

iykyk...

Jishnu Guha-Majumdar
5 years of Policy Debate, University of Texas – Austin
Currently: Political Theory Graduate Student at Johns Hopkins
Last Updated: November 2015

Wake Update 2015-2016

I have not done any military presence topic research and this tournament will be the first that I have judged in college since War Powers, though I have continued to judge and coach in high school. 

That means: Be careful with acronyms and topic buzzwords, take a bit of extra time breaking down T debate, specific links (which are still important, btw), etc. 

Short version:

- Remember the big picture. Think of arguments holistically and pay attention to appropriate nexus issues.

- Debating > Evidence, at the margins - but when in doubt defer to truthiness. 

- Evidence Quality > Quantity, almost always. 

- I am less likely to be persuaded by "cheap shots" without substantial development. 

- Internal links are often more important than terminal impacts.

- Speaker Points: Clarity, demonstrate historical and topic knowledge, don't be unnecessarily rude

- I like creative affs, but think they ought to have a more than cursory relationship to the topic. 

- Theory predispositions at the bottom.

Long version:

General guidelines for debating in front of me regardless of particular argument genres - 

1. Strategy/Big Picture over Tech Minutiae (when it matters):

-          I rarely consider particular issues in isolation. If one argument is answered by the overarching strategy of the other team, it’s not dropped if it wasn’t put on the right line of the flow

-         For you that means:
- The way you frame your speeches, especially the final rebuttals, is important. I try to pay attention to what debaters flag as important nexus issues
- Pay attention to interactions between arguments. Be able to leverage different parts of the debate against each other.

2. But tech still matters quite a bit. 

- “Tech” doesn’t necessarily mean flow-centrism or perfect line-by-line, but it does mean you must answer all important and relevant arguments regardless of argumentative style. 

- It also means that arguments made in the debate round supercede what I believe to be the truth. However, when in doubt, defer to truthiness. 

3. The simple fact of a claim's assertion does not make it true

-          - Arguments do not “count” unless they contain a claim, reasoning, and an impact (impact as in, "why does this argument matter for the round”)

-          -Dropped arguments are not points or auto-wins, they’re opportunities that need to be impacted.

-         - Examples of statements that, in themselves, do not count as arguments: “Extend our X evidence, it’s really good” “They’ve conceded the uniqueness debate”

-         4. Reading evidence

-         - Comparison of and debate over evidence is, all other things being equal, more important than quantity or mere existence of evidence

-Quality and strategic value of evidence is almost always more important than quantity 

-         - I try not to read more evidence than I have to. When I call for ev that means that I’m: Trying to break an argumentative tie, verifying truth claims made by the debaters, giving a team the benefit of the doubt or getting cites.

5. Speaking, Speaker Points, and Style

- I will follow any speaker point rubric provided by a tournament.

- Otherwise, I'll admit that as a young judge my speaker point "scale" is still a bit in flux and subject to impulse. My points are generally relative to tournament difficulty

- In the absence of a rubric, a 27.5+ indicates technical competency, a 28.5-6 signifies a performance worthy of early outrounds, ~29 or above signifies a performance worthy of a high speaker award. Bonus points for the stuff covered below. 

- Clarity over speed. Debate is foremost a persuasive, rhetorical activity, not a set of 1s and 0s. Err on the side of caution and be clear. 

-Topic Knowledge, Specificity, and History are Pluses. This applies equally to “policy", “critique", and "performance" teams. Specificity won’t necessarily affect how I judge the arguments, but demonstrate an impressive breadth and depth of topic knowledge tends to garner better points. Historicization is usually more important than reading an extra card. 

- Style. There is a fine line between being sassy and polite, and being rude and arrogant. That being said, I really like the former and really hate the latter. When in doubt, err towards being nice. Respect your opponent.

6. Random quirks

-         - Internal links matter more than terminal impacts. I care less about how many scenarios for extinction or root causes the K controls than I do about the ability of the alt to solve or the magnitude of your link.

     - “Role of the Ballot” should be an important argument but in most instances has become meaningless to me. The framework for evaluating debates is important to me, but I don’t think about them in a vacuum. I.e. If a team reads and thoroughly extends “policy-wonkage good” evidence, I consider that an answer to “Your role is to be a critical intellectual.”

7. Theory/Procedural Predispositions – since the assumptions debates are often unsupported and come down to judge presumptions, I figure I should make mine clear.

- Context and concreteness are important. I don't like thinking about theoretical concepts like limits and ground in the abstract.

-         - I tend to lean more towards reasonability than most judges

-         - Impacts. Yes, I think debate is largely a game, but I think it’s too important to be considered JUST a game. That means, “fairness” impacts don’t mean a ton to me in a vacuum, I’m more interested in what kind of activity certain types of fairness can create.

-         - I don’t kick out of CPs or Alts unless I’m instructed to.

-         - I have a slight neg bias on conditionality, absent contradictions. The litmus test for a contradiction is whether a double turn can be conceded. 

 - I have a slight aff bias for the following arguments: 50 states, consult, conditions, most CPs that include the full text of the plan/compete through normal means. 

Update: I wrote this paradigm in 2014. Since then I have not judged college debate, although I have continued to be involved in HS debate while working at the UTNIF as well as keeping up with college debate folks now that I work at Dartmouth College.  I got a PhD in Women's and Gender Studies with a focus on Caribbean/Black Feminisms in the meantime. This will be my first time back to judging college debate in a while. I mention that ony to say that I am looking forward to returning and in some ways thinking through and rethinking my judging philosophy.

**********

Across my career I've debated a fair amount of different styles and for different coaches across the spectrum. So I am comfortable with any and all arguments and certainly don't categorically rule anything out. Here are brief comments on the type of arguments I tend to hear, but please ask if you have any other specific questions:

Criticisms: Specificity wins the day for me in all K debates. Reading more cards in the 2NC is generally less useful (depending on how specific the link cards are) then just doing specific application of 1NC cards vis-a-vis the 1AC plan/rhetoric. This is particularly true when trying to cast doubt on the truth claims of a "traditional" aff. Winning basic "predictions bad" arguments are a start, but they need to be articulated in terms of the affirmative. Role of the ballot questions are generally decisive for me. To be clear, this is not necessarily the same as stale framework debates. It is more about articulating the stakes of voting either way, for a simulation of governmental action versus some problematization of that simulation in different registers. If you win a role of the ballot argument and drop everything else, but the other team fails to impact the new role of the ballot, you'll win. 

Politics: I like politics debates, actually. I just want framing arguments for how I should sort through the inevitable stacks of evidence (qualifications debates don't happen enough, for instance), and why different aspects of the argument should receive more or less emphasis (links v. uniqueness, or the political science of internal links etc). 

K Affs: I will vote on framework, to be clear. But I have no predispositions against any affirmative position. I don't think the aff has an inherent obligation to have a plan text or even an advocacy statement. I think that is easily defensible. Again, much like comments on criticism, I want these arguments to be specific to the resolution in a sense: abstract framework debates are made interesting by focusing on what this means for the practice of debate in the context of the topic. This includes if you're an aff critiquing the topic.

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




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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Quick and painless paperless debate (flashing ev)

Humor

Intuitive CX Strategies

Prioritizing framing issues at the top of a speech

***FORMERLY THE ARTIST KNOWN AS ANGELA HO ***

Experience: 4 years policy in HS, former policy debater for UH, former PKD President of UH

FIRST, keep in mind that my husband and I do not talk excessively about theory, k’s, etc. in our daily lives. If you are preffing me because you hope I adjudicate with the knowledge depth of literature, you are in for a surprise.

Secondly, I'll tell you that being polite is the key because I don't think rudeness is necessary for debate and takes away from the actual education, being sassy is fine.

Third is that I judge based on logos. Make sure all arguments are logically thought out instead of just running them for the sake of running an argument and not being able to explain the argument. Make me want to vote for you. DO NOT scream over your opponent. I will also NOT vote for something I do not understand, you have failed to persuade my ballot.

*I CANNOT STAND excessive waste of time. As soon as the constructive is over, CX starts. As soon as there is silence, prep time needs to be used. Failure to be efficient will result in flashing counting as prep. No need to ask me if I am ready, I am ALWAYS ready once the debate begins.

Overall: There are no arguments that I won't vote on. I look at whatever you present to me. I am looking for a clear explanation of the function of the argument in the round, evidence comparison, and a clear impact calculus. I enjoy both K and traditional debates. I would like that both teams are clear on which side of the argument they are for. I have voted on plenty of arguments that I don't like so feel free to run whatever you are comfortable with but I will list what I tend to look at in my decision.

Do not get WILD if I cannot fully explain a theory/k background to you. I do not claim to be an expert in literature for different theories/k but if you fail to explain it to me or debate it, that will be how my decision is based. If I do not understand your theory/k then you have failed to explain it to me.

Flowing: I don't have a problem with spreading; however, I draw the line when you have to gasp and have become even incomprehensible to yourself. I personally think it's worthless to spread if you don't use up all of your speech time or not be able to explain your cards. Emphasize taglines. Make sure you pronounce words that will be repeated throughout the round correctly because it does get annoying hearing words incorrectly said over and over and over again. Do not "spread" if you are not able to cover more than regular reading, points deducted.

CX: I don't flow CX, but listen so you can bring it up in your speech for it to be included in my flow. I also don’t count flashing as prep as long as you aren’t abusing it. Include me if you are doing an email chain.

Things I like: Clash of evidence. Impact calc with proper weighing. I love a good statistic.

Topicality: Make sure you uphold standards and voters and give me a reason to prefer your definition.

Disadvantages: The uniqueness and link to the case are important to me. Push your impacts and weigh your impacts.

CP: Make sure you explain why it solves better than the Aff and why it is mutually exclusive.

Things I don’t like: Ks, Theory and Framework. It also doesn’t mean that I won’t vote for them. I just prefer concrete evidence as opposed to analytical.

K: I am okay if you run a K (In fact, I enjoy seeing which K is used for the round and how it is executed). I will only evaluate Kritiks if they are run properly otherwise I'm not the biggest fan of them. I will vote for them even if I personally do not agree with them. I do want a quick overview of the K being run, just because I am not fully read on all the different philosophies (but I have dabbled into them so I am not completely in the dark). If you run a K just make sure to explain the ideology of the author. Make sure the ALT is explained, carried throughout the round, and that it is a better outcome for the scenario. Once again, I do not claim this area to be my expertise so do not get wild if I cannot give you a long winded rfd because I do not know the literature.

Theory/Framework:It probably will bore me, not going to lie. I’ll listen but it’s not my number 1 voter. I will make an exception if you are able to prove to me that it should be weighed first. I will vote for it if one side drops the debate of theory being a prerequisite.

LD:

I think it's important to uphold your arg and carry them through the entire round. If you have a more modern approach then I still expect you to attack the value/crit if your opponent is more of a traditional debater. I will not vote for RVI, so do not waste time with that. I tend to enjoy the modern single policy debate style more. Please do not delay the debate round with preflow, if would like to do that then do it in advance.

PF:

My main voter is the outcome of the round and the weighing of points. I like to be explain what does the pro/con world look like. Read at whatever pace you would like. In order to win my ballot you will need to be big picture and line-by-line as well as explain why your side outweighs the opponent.

Speaks: For speaker points I don't pay attention to the quantity of the argumentation: I look for fluidity, demeanor, tone and courtesy. I will give a low point win if the winning team is being disrespectful, racist, and/or offensive with profanity or anything I deem as inappropriate. I do enjoy humor, sass, Disney and pop culture references so if you can incorporate that appropriately into your speech, then your points will reflect (+.1).

Speech:

Extemp/Info/OO: I am previously a national finalist for extemp. Again, I love a good statistic. Looking for proper analysis of sources and evidence. Usually the one in the room has told me a fact that I did not know.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET/POI/POETRY: Synchronization into character with fluid delivery is key. I am looking for the emotion(s) of the piece to be conveyed effectively. I often do not react visibly so please do not be discouraged. I do have a hard time ethically evaluating a physically abled bodied contestant that chooses to portray a physical disability or interprets a physical disability onto a character, strike me.

**I will provide a quick key recap of my paradigm before the round starts, please listen because I will be VERY annoyed if you continually ask me if I am ready or anything I make a point to readdress from this paradigm. If you have any specific questions, ask me before/after the round starts. If not then have fun and run whatever you feel that is best for the round. Good Luck!!

Email: jjenningscrosby@gmail.com

Last updated: 10/4/20

General:

Summary - Read basically anything you want, go for what you're good at, try new things if you want, Don't be rude.

About me - I debated at Crosby highschool and middle school for a collective 6 years and I debated policy at University of Houston for 3 years. I used to help as an assistant coach for The Kinkaid School for about 3 years.

I am fine with almost any argument, so if you want to read it I'll listen, unless it's things like racism or patriarchy good.

Speed - Go for it. I will not say clear if you're partially unclear, unless its egregious.

Edit for online: remember, not all microphones are created equal, so make sure your microphone can adequately pick up how fast you’re going (maybe record you practicing a block to test it), because your mic may only be able to pick up about half of the syllables you say if you’re going too fast for it.

Cx: (LD is below this)

On topicality and theory, I default reasonability if there is no discussion of this in the debate because it's much less of a risk for the neg. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

On Counterplans, I love good counterplans, as long as your story on the world of the cp is clear and you're winning a net benefit that you solve, you should be fine. Do clear solvency/net benefit comparison.

On Disads, have a logical story as to why the aff links and how that causes the impact. Do impact comparison.

Non-traditional Affs - I will evaluate any affirmative even if it's non-policy, just make sure if you're untopical, you have a reason to be untopical.

Framework – I am not afraid to vote on this, I think there are benefits and disadvantages to policy debate and benefits and disadvantages to kritik aff debates. Make sure you weigh the Interp vs the counter Interp because a lot of people weigh the debate in terms of there being no counterinterp.

For LD:

I’ve judged a lot of LD debates. I have coached a few students in LD as well. I am a CX coach/judge/debater normally so do what you want with that info.

I will evaluate almost any argument, I tend to think of the debate round on the bigger picture focus (mainly because the 1ar I feel is rough and it allows better debates for LD), although I have no real predisposition against technical debate, the debaters should tell me how to frame the debate in the context they desire.

Framework: I'm fine with policy, whole resolutional or k debates, just debate out how I should evaluate who wins.

Topicality: I will evaluate T, I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

Theory: I will evaluate most theory, but it has to make sense and I tend to have a higher threshold on what I think is a voter, meaning most theory I've seen in LD doesn't rise past the level of reject the argument, while some LD judges would reject the team. I will not vote on RVIs. I also probably won't vote on frivolous theory (which I think is a very subjective term), which all I really mean is make sure theory has a legitimate reason to reject the team. I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way.

CP: I think CPs make the most sense vs plans and I can be convinced Topical Cps are illegit if you’re winning whole rez should be the focus of the debate (all up to debate).

K: On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com,

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (2.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
• If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
• Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
• All permutations must have a text.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Framework

Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.

If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.

Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.

Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.

I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.

Coach for the University of Houston, Langham Creek High School, and Memorial High School

A couple of thoughts before I address specific arguments

for Wake/UT - I haven't judged very much this year and don't know what the norms/args are yet

If it’s important say it more than once, I don’t necessarily mean that you should just repeat yourself, but make the argument in more than one place with more than one application.

Highlighting should be able to be read - I think that your evidence should be highlighted in a way that makes at least some grammatical sense - this is kind of subjective but if its a true abomination of words slapped together I won't read around your highlighting to understand what you're trying to say.

please time yourselves

I would like to be on the email chain, clarkjohnson821@gmail.com

CX

T debates (and theory debates) are already very blippy, if you want me to evaluate it, slow down. I like it when teams use T strategically in other areas of the debate.

DA's: good spin > sepcific ev > generic ev. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad. I think that

CP's: These are fine, if you want to know my thoughts on judge kick see Rob Glass's paradigm.

K’s: As long as you approach the debate assuming I won’t understand your version of baudrillard we’ll probably be fine. 2nr (and 2nc to some extent) explanation of what the alt world would look like, how the alt solves the links to the aff, and how the alt solves the impacts are important to me, I find myself to be much more persuaded by neg teams that can do this well.

K affs v fw: I think your aff should in some way be related to the topic, that's not to say that you have to be, just that it will make it easier for you to win those debates.

K affs v k's: this is by far the debate that I have the least experience with, something that's really important to me in these debates is clarity of how the alt/aff functions and how it interacts with the links to your opponent's argument, I tend to find myself being persuaded by detailed alt analysis.

if you’ve noticed a common theme here, it’s that I think the alt debate is important

Theory: Default neg and reject the argument, you should give me reasons to do otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it if you don't slow down and explain your argument, most debaters spread blippy blocks that make it difficult to flow and evaluate, if the 2nr or 2ar want to go for theory in some form or fashion you're going to have to do a modicum of work, saying severance perms bad for 10 seconds at the top of your 2nr is not enough to get me to vote on it as long as the 2ar makes any sort of response.

Counterplans bad is probably not a reason to vote aff

LD

I don’t judge this event as often so I may lack a more nuanced understanding of how things function in LD compared to policy, but with that being said I’m open to however you want to do it, be it traditional or progressive. Your phil and theory debates are a little alien to me coming from how we approach similar arguments in policy, so if that’s what you think you’ll be going for in your 2ar or nr be super clear. Most of my thoughts about args in cx will color my analysis of the arguments you make in LD.

PF

I dont consider the time it takes for your opponents to provide you their evidence as prep time, and I don't think you need to take cx time for it either. If you can’t tell, I am primarily a policy judge and as such I probably have a higher standard for evidence quality and access than your average judge.

other than that I don't have strong opinions when it comes to what arguments you want to read as long as you justify them (read: impacts matter!)

im not familiar with pf norms when it comes to whether you should or shouldn’t answer opponents args in summary or 2nd constructive. And sometimes I feel like I’m inconsistent in trying to figure out and apply what they are in my rounds judging it. As such I will treat it as I would a cx round unless you tell me otherwise - new args can be made in first two speeches, summary should not be new args (but can if they are answering a new argument, ie 1st speaking team makes an argument that directly answers a new arg made by 2nd speakers in the last constructive speech) in terms of extensions through to ff I don't think that saying something in grand is enough for me to weigh it at the end of the debate if you dont extend it through your last speech.

I will probably call for evidence. If you paraphrase, expect me to not treat your evidence with the same level of veracity as someone citing specific parts of their cards.

Fall 2014 Update:

As I am entering my second year of law school and have joined a law journal that focuses on critical race theory, I have discovered a rich tradition of legal scholarship that focuses on utilizing critical race theory as a tool to evaluate U.S. policies. Translating this to debate, I think this means that "clash of civs" debates are actually very important and can be quite interesting if done well. I am willing to hear any type of argument, just win that your form of engagement is more productive (or explain to me why that doesn't matter).

A second result of law school has been my shift away from radical disengagement. I spend my time now (what little free time law school affords me) trying to create scholarship that can bring critical attitudes to the establishment and produce social change. Again, translating this to debate, I think this means I have a preference for criticisms that are paired with actions rather than total disengagement.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

Note: I think this section is actually the most important, so read this first before going on to read what I think about specific arguments. Thanks!

-In-round spin > “read this after the round”

-I’ll vote on terminal defense in some cases. I can be persuaded there’s such a thing as proving the aff has 0% chance of solvency or there’s a 0% risk of the disad. 

-Write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR.

-Do what you’re best at! I think I’m in the room to adapt to you.

-No ink next to an argument doesn’t mean it’s “dropped” – if the other team conceptually answers an argument elsewhere in the debate, the argument was still answered.  

-paperless and jumping times: I generally don't count jumping time as part of prep time, but everyone should try to be efficient with jumping. If you start taking too long to jump things, I'll only stop prep once the jump drive is in the other team's hands. 

ARGUMENTS

Case: Mitigating the case’s impact can’t harm the negative, so why not do it? 

Topicality: I used to default to competing interpretations absent any arguments to the contrary by either team but now that I'm in law school, I've found that reasonableness probably makes more sense, though I can be persuaded otherwise. I don't particularly enjoy these debates, but I'll certainly vote if you win it. 

Theory: I’m probably fairly willing to pull the trigger on theory, assuming you have a clear interpretation, a clear violation of that interpretation by the other team, and reasons why you should win the debate because of that violation. Don’t let the explanations come from your blocks. 

DA: I reward specificity in these debates. When I can repeat your link analysis after the round to tell the aff specifically why they lost, you’re doing a good job.

CP: On questions of competition, I find myself leaning aff in situations where the CP could result in the entirety of the aff being put into action. Consult counterplans are probably cheating.

K: I’ll do my best to follow your theory, but I’m not extremely well-read in every single branch of philosophy. The brief summary of my history with the K is as follows: Zizek, (mostly Lacanian) psychoanalysis, Taoism, Anthropocentrism, Buddhism, Nietzschean pessimism, Baudrillard, Agamben. Make of that what you will. 

K affs: If you’re not going to defend implementation of the resolution, tell me why you're doing what you do and why that means you get the ballot.

Background: 

Debated at Westwood 2008-2011. Debated at Gonzaga 2011-2013. Debated at NDT freshman year. Took time off from school 2013-2017 to work in politics & legal field. Currently finishing undergrad at Gonzaga. 

I was a 1a/2n, although I have experience in all speaker positions. I was a policy debater in high school and took a k turn my final year at Gonzaga, so while I've got some experience on both sides of the aisle I have far more experience actually debating the politics disad. That said, I seem to have judged a lot of k on k only debates over the last few years. I'm happy to hear your critical arguments - I just want to remind you that I may not be an expert in whatever your k of choice is. Keep that in mind and rely on well explained and well warranted arguments, not author names and taglines.

Meta Level: 

Honestly, I would rather hear you debate what you're good at than what you think I want to hear. What I want to hear is a good debate - make the choices most likely to give me that, rather than choosing a specific argument solely because you think I'll like it.

I am not going to call for every card/read the entire speech doc and just vote for whoever had the best cards. I don't think that's the point of this activity. I will only read the cards I think I absolutely have to read in order to make a decision. I am likely to also read any topicality/theory cards. Don't rely on me reading all the cards at the end of a round.

Topicality: 

- I tend to have a very high threshold for reasonability arguments on topicality, and will default to competing interps when evaluating the debate unless you tell me what I should do instead. I do quite like topicality debates but this is an area where I will be hyper-technical when looking at the flow, so please keep that in mind. 

K Debate: 

- I am tired of links of omission. If you aren't talking specifically about the aff, I'm not interested in hearing another regurgitation of a generic k that isn't actually engaging the aff. 

- I'm probably naturally inclined to lean towards a perm, so make sure you spend time there that is most fleshed out than repeating "the perm is a link though" several times. 

Counterplans:  

Generally, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that the neg doesn't get to be conditional. I wouldn't suggest you sink a ton of time here. I will vote on theory arguments about the specific CP, but I will not vote for one tagline extension - it needs to be invested in just like any other argument. I tend to default to theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team, unless you tell me how you would prefer I reconcile those situations. 

Mostly importantly - just ask questions if you have them. Have fun!

Eric Lanning

I've been involved in policy debate for 15+ years as a debater and coach on the national circuit, including at the highest levels at the Tournament of Champions and National Debate Tournament.

I do my best to evaluate arguments based off what's said in the debate, but like anyone else I bring some preconceived notions about the activity and world that create "default" positions. I'll do my best to detail these below. I am very expressive and communicative and often provide "instant" feedback in the form of non-verbal expressions.

In general you should feel free to make whatever arguments you'd like! Debate is for the debaters and I will do my best to adapt to you.

I think the best debates are between two well researched opponents, and that predictable limits on the topic are important for in depth debate. I don't think that means the affirmative must necessarily defend "implementation by the federal government". I often find framework debates stale and difficult to resolve.

I am often quite skeptical of negative strategies that focus on multiple conditional counterplans or process counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive . I wish more affirmatives would object to the proliferation of 2-3 conditional advocacies and strongly believe that "rejecting the team, not the argument" is the appropriate remedy.

Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate.

While I will often ask to see a card document - I tend to default to the explanation/spin of debaters in the round. IE its very important for you to explain and compare evidence!

Quick Summary:

I'm okay with everything I just want it to be run well.

That means:

Yes I'm okay with everything from stock-issue based arguments to Kritiks/Framework/Performance. I just want a good-clean debate.

Open CX is fine by me, I leave it up to the debaters to decide unless the tournament dictates otherwise. I will keep a universal timer (but I prefer the debaters also keep track, I am only human) just in case there is a disagreement on prep and whatnot. I do not count flashing as prep-time as long as it's not excessive. 

Longer Version:

I'm a firm believer in debate as an activity in which debaters should be capable of expressing themselves in whichever means they wish. By that I mean everything is game, you may even debate about debate. This does not mean I side with either "traditional" or "progressive" norms. Rather I like a good debate I have seen incredible Debaters argue both regards so what I want to see is a good clash. Fair warning, if you believe an argument is dumb and choose not to even address it (and it is in fact utilized well by your opponent) that will likely be a major factor in my decision. I respect the community's split opinion on what debate should be but until there is a set standard of debate (which to be frank, I don't see that happening without restricting speech) every argument should be given respect. You owe that to each other as debaters at the very least. I have debated CX for 3 years in Highschool and debated for UTDallas for a bit. I am capable of judging LD or CX. Same ideas on arguments with CX apply to LD. I understand many LD'ers are "traditional" LD and I respect that but that doesn't mean you can ignore your "progressive" opponent's arguments. All in all, have fun if you have any questions feel free to chat with me if you see me walking around. The most important thing to get out of this is to have fun!

I am a traditional stock issues judge. I am not a fan of counterplans or kritiks. I will vote on them if they are applicable to the round. I will also consider theoretical arguments as well. I believe that Debate is first and foremost a communication event. Therefore, speed is ok but if you notice that I am not taking notes/flowing that means the argument doesn't exist for me.

Debated at Mercedes High School for 4 years, and the Uiversity of North Texas for 1. I coach at Coppell now. 

Short version: I'll vote for anything if it's impacted well. The below is brief, so ask questions before the round.

Theory - I'll vote on it. I'm not the fastest flow, so don't speed through these arguments please, particularly in the later parts of the debate when your doing impact work. 

Topicality - I love a good topicality debate. I usually default to a competing interpretations framework, but there are good reasons to prefer reasonability. I appreciate clever "topical version of the aff" arguments and if you do go for T well, your speaker points will show. 

Counterplans - they're cool. Fair warning, I find the aff's cheating counterplan theory arguments persuasive. Don't let this dissuade you from reading them though if that's your game. 

Disads - they're fine. Like I said above, I'm not the fastest flow, so when there's a big link/link turn debate happening here, it would benefit you to slow down a bit. This wasn't my game in the years I debated, so being clear about the intricacies would be helpful. 

Kritiks - Like em'. These are what I've dedicated most of my debate career to. I understand most of the theory that is popular in debate, but that should not mean you don't have to explain the theory in its application to the aff (i.e. I get what the Lack is, but why does that turn the aff?)

Debated @ UNT 2009-2014

Coach @ St Marks since 2017

Coach @ UTDallas since 2018

If you have questions, feel free to email me at mccullough.hunter@gmail.com

For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.

T-Theory

-I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

- Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins.

- I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation. I also don't think that's a very high standard for the negative to be held to, as many interpretations (especially on this space topic) will be hot fiery garbage.

- My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff to win these debates if the neg can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff is better read as a kritik on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.

- "The aff was unpredictable so we couldn't prepare for it so you should assume it's false" isn't a good argument for framework and I don't think I've ever voted for it.

CPs

- I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive.

- I think the neg gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's solvency evidence is really bad. - Absent a debate about what I should do, I will kick a counterplan for the neg and evaluate the aff v. the squo if the CP is bad/not competitive

- I don't think the 2NC needs to explain why severence/intrinsicness are bad, just win a link. They're bad.

- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff.

- I don't think illegitimate CPs are a reason to vote aff.

Disads

- Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say.

- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well.

- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. "Disad/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg advantage".

Ks

- My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying.

- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation.

- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff is lying/wrong.

- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well.

- If you're aff, and read a policy aff, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.

Case

-Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg is no different than conceding a disad on the aff. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier.

- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense.

- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg argumentation.

Paperless debate

I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence.

Clipping

I've decided enough debates on clipping in the last couple of years that I think it's worth putting a notice in my philosophy. If a tournament has reliable internet, I will insist on an email chain and will want to be on that email chain. I will, at times, follow along with the speech document and, as a result, am likely to catch clipping if it occurs. I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'm unlikely to say anything about a missed short word at some point, but if I am confident that clipping has occurred, I will absolutely stop the debate and decide on it. I'll always give debaters the benefit of the doubt, and provide an opportunity to say where a card was marked, but I'm pretty confident of my ability to distinguish forgetting to say "mark the card" and clipping. I know that there is some difference of opinion on who's responsibility it is to bring about a clipping challenge, but I strongly feel that, if I know for certain that debaters are not reading all of their evidence, I have not only the ability but an obligation to call it out.

Other notes

- Really generic backfile arguments (Ashtar, wipeout, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are really terrible, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout debates) and bad for debate.

- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.

Finally, here is a short list of general biases.

• The status quo should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality. It does mean that I will, absent arguments against it, judge kick a counterplan and evaluate the case v the squo if the aff wins the cp is bad/not competitive)
• Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really)
• The aff gets to defend the implementation of the plan as offense against the K, and the neg gets to read the K
• Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude 
• Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education
• Consult counterplans aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable.
• Rider DA links are not intrinsic
• Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts
• The aff should defend a topical plan
• Death and extinction are bad
• Uncooperative federalism is one of the worst counterplans I've ever seen

Brief Debate History:

Debated for Texas 2001-2005; College: Coached New York Coalition 2005-2006, occasional coaching for Texas 2014-2016; HS debate coaching Kinkaid 2003-2014; worked for NYUDL 2005-2007; worked for a CDC (Chicago Urban Debate League) school 2007-2010

Personal stuff: I am an assistant professor of government and gender, sexuality, and women's studies at the College of William & Mary. I specialize in feminist, disability, and democratic theory and reproductive politics.

Update 10/7/2023: I have not actively coached debate since 2016. That means I don't have feelings on any particular fault lines that define contemporary debate controversies. It also means I may not be on the same page as you in terms of shared implicit understanding. Best to clarify explicitly if it's important to your argument.

Update: 2018

Some notes:

I try to maintain close fidelity to the debate I see. If evidence doesn't support or add to the claim and warrant being forwarded, it isn't very useful for me.

Debate is engaged in narrative construction and then deconstruction, which means if you have developed an insufficient narrative or deconstructed it in a way that is not helpful to you and only helpful to your opponents, your performance will suffer (as in, you might lose).

I am very tied to reasoning through an argument; if what has been presented doesn't make sense to me, I won't vote on it. What makes sense to me, as in the case of any sense-making, is probably not entirely transparent, but I will try my best to follow the argumentative threads presented to me. I am raised in debate which means I am familiar with the logical leaps that are commonly accepted; if those are questioned and not defended, then that's a problem. But I also won't vote of something just because it's tricky/unexpected/sophistic. Logic without application is just as bad as illogical application.

The HS paradigm has nitty gritty about arguments, but as with most philosophies, is more about teaching what I think debate is and less about how I judge. I still don't read a ton of evidence; the flow matters unless you explain to me why it doesn't; I don't have ego investment in debate so it's ok with me if you don't like me. I'll still try my best in every debate and I consider my role to be primarily that of an educator, so my post-round comments will be about the round itself and advice I would give to improve one's performance.

Old high school wikispaces philosophy:

Philosophy:
A caveat- I think I'm kind of bad at writing these things because what becomes important in a debate matters so much on what happens in the debate in question. I'll try to be helpful though. Philosophies require a degree of introspection and consistency that I'm not sure I quite possess.

First, do not make fun of your opponents and don't steal prep. Beyond those things, I love debate and I want everyone to enjoy their experience.

Preparation time ends when you have pushed "save." This is aspirational, because sometimes I forget.

Also, if you would like me to disclose points and my reasons for giving them, just remind me and I will. My points are solely a reflection of my evaluation of the performance I just watched. Also, if you or your coach would appreciate a written RFD, let me know, and I will prepare and email one.

I think defense alone can win a debate; that is, it is possible to win no risk of a disadvantage or no risk of solvency. I vote on presumption and my belief is that if the 2NR contains a counterplan or a kritik alternative (even if they were conditional), presumption shifts affirmative unless the debaters contest this point with a warranted argument.

Evidence Evaluation: I will not read every card you reference in the 2NR and 2AR as a general rule. I only read evidence if a) there is no other way to resolve the debate, b) substantive parts of the debate rested on good evidence comparison, c) I am curious what the evidence actually says and/or d) I think reading the evidence is necessary for making my oral critique better. I am averse to the style of debate where the 2NR and 2AR substitute evidence citations for warrants, but when both teams do this, I default to my subjective interpretation of the quality of evidence. I prefer instead 2NRs and 2ARs that go for less but do more explanation and comparison of warrants. I reward those debates with higher speaker points, but I won't refuse to evaluate the debate just because it is in a style I dislike.

Below are my predispositions. I can be persuaded in the debate to think otherwise. I write the below in order to let you know when I will need to be persuaded.

Theory beliefs: Except for a couple of exceptions, I evaluate theory debates based on a disad-esque paradigm. That is, what is the link, internal, and impact? Is the impact unique? Do the turns outweigh the impact to the theory objection? I also need meta-issues to be debated, such as offense-defense versus reasonability, whether I am evaluating abuse claims or questions concerning what debate ought to look like. When these don't happen, I think I tend to be on the reasonability side of things and I am evaluating what debate ought to look like.

The exception to this is permutation theory, which I will be hard pressed to ever consider anything but a reason to reject the argument, even if the theory is dropped. I realize this is judge intervention because my standard for this debate is so much higher than for other theory debates, but given how perm theory proliferates in a debate and how poorly debated it usually is, I think this is more a rational response to a debate that rarely rises to the level of argumentation.

Impact comparison: Impact comparison in the last two rebuttals is indispensable, but it must also start before then for me to consider things like "magnitude outweighs probability" or refutations to the other team's impact calculus that began in speeches before the final rebuttals. Comparative risk analysis has to take into consideration how much counterplan solvency can be expected or how much solvency of the aff has been mitigated. Not taking this into account usually leads to me inflating the value of defense more than you probably want.

I am open to however you want to make use of the time you have to speak in debate. If you want me to evaluate a debate in a way that integrates a direct evaluation of performativity, methodology, ethics, or knowledge production (or anything else), you must communicate that to me. You also have to demonstrate why you win in either a new framework or a more traditional framework.

My theoretical biases in terms of counterplans are most pronounced against process counterplans, including consultation counterplans.

I like discussions of the case, though I'm often stymied in my decisionmaking by the lack of clash or meta-level questions, such as uniqueness or inevitability, for many case arguments.

Counterplan perms: If the aff wins the permutation, I default to thinking that this has proved that the counterplan was not competitive and thus goes away. While contemporary debate considers this "judge kicking," absent another explanation of what happens when the aff wins the perm, allowing "perm shields the link" to mean that the disadvantage goes away as well strikes me as allowing the aff to advocate the perm. I'm not really wedded to this interpretation because I feel like there is a logical inconsistency in how we think about perms/tests of competition/shifts in advocacy. If the aff, in going for the perm, argues that the counterplan doesn't go away, and that winning the perm means that the existence of both options shields the link to the net benefit, without a counter-argument from the neg, I'll vote aff. When no discussion happens, though, the neg gets to lose counterplan competition and still win on a disad that was a net benefit.

Politics DA: I think I have an idiosyncratic interpretation of what it takes to win the politics disad as the negative. I think arguments that deal with either the larger political climate or the meta-theoretical notion of how politics functions are more important than compartmentalized claims of the direction of uniqueness, link, etc. This means that if the affirmative wins these meta issues with no contextualization of how I ought to evaluate things like the direction of uniqueness by the negative, I will find that the politics DA is incoherent. As the negative, you may win some arguments that X will pass, but if your claim is that in order for these things to pass, X,Y or Z must happen, and the aff proves those impossible, I'm not going to vote for the politics DA. This may be the result of my training as a political science or my desire for logical coherence in arguments. Regardless, understanding my bias in terms of these arguments will help you do what is necessary to win politics on the neg. How to win Politics as the neg: understand the meta-theoretical basis of your argument/wider political climate; explain that to me so that I understand your vision of the political process, and answer any counter-theoretical understandings of political functioning. OR explain to me why these things are irrelevant to issue specific uniqueness or the other first order claims you make.

Kritiks: I think kritiks are a valuable part of debate, and so I think it is a legitimate expectation for teams to respond to the kritik offered. I do not exclude kritikal affs (I don't presume a team has to fiat the plan). But I do think kritikal affs ought to have some relation to the topic and am hard pressed to understand why the aff gets to reject the resolution in most debates.

I do not value framework (vs. neg Ks) debates very highly. Their value, in my eyes, is to get the entire K excluded (which is functionally like going for "no neg fiat" in my mind), get certain links or alternatives excluded (which seems less fruitful than just debating the merits of the alternative or link), being allowed to weigh your impacts (which is a misnomer in most good kritik debates) or protecting yourself against an increasingly abusive shift in the evaluative criteria of the debate (the most strategic use in my mind). Usually, people invest either too much time for their limited goals, or too little time for their grandiose goals.That being said, you usually do need to engage in a framework debate; otherwise, you leave yourself open to a debate that shifts in rules decidedly against the one who is answering the kritik.

I am relatively well-versed in many critical literatures. I say this not to encourage you to go for a kritik, but to signal to teams less familiar with the kritik that some of what you may consider incomprehensible jargon makes sense to me. For the team going for the kritik, do not make jargon your crutch because usually you aren't saying anything or are talking in circles. You still need to be making arguments.

I really dislike the kritik being debated like a disadvantage, or the kritik turning into a vehicle for a variety of tricks that avoid debate (eg, Kappeler-style no fiat claims, multi-verse/reincarnation debates make impacts irrelevant, Floating PICs with no rationale, etc). If you are running a kritik and want good speaker points, win the substance of your link and impact claims, contextualize the politics or ethics of your alternative, and win why they prove the aff is counter-productive.

Framework versus non-plan/non-USFG implementation affs: These debates discourage clash more than any other debates I see. If your impacts to why excluding a particular type of affirmative advocacy are not contextualized vis a vis the aff's claims for inclusion, you will lose these debates. Affs, the less responsive you are to the negative's claims or the more nebulous your cross-ex responses, the more likely I am to vote neg on framework.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Beyond that, I believe a judge is meant to facilitate the debate you want to have, so all this is open to criticism and revision based on what actually happens in your debate. Have fun and I'm glad you're participating in this activity!

Point Scale:
Below 26.5 - you have done something offensive in the round
26.5-26.9- The debater either made it structurally impossible for the team to win the debate or had such limited participation that it is difficult to evaluate their contribution.
27-27.4- The debater demonstrated some capacity of argumentation but fails to demonstrate an ability to win the debate through their own strategic initiative
27.5-27.8- Demonstrates some capacity of strategy but little understanding of execution
27.9-28.1- Average
28.2-28.5- Demonstrate strategic vision and execution
28.6-28.9- Excellent execution and displays of intelligent strategic vision.
29-29.4- Excellent execution and displays strategic vision well beyond prepared strategies
29.5-29.7 (I don't think I've ever given above a 29.7)- Near flawless execution, displays of intelligence and excellent strategic vision.


Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm:

All the above still applies in LD. As is common, because of my policy training, I think I have a higher threshold both for what constitutes an argument and for evaluating theory. I think the shift of Lincoln-Douglas to adopting many of the conventions of policy debate is unfortunate; I genuinely enjoy seeing LD debates that offer me something other than utilitarianism. That being said, when a debate is in the vein of utilitarianism, I will use policy-debate conventions of risk analysis to evaluate your impacts.

email chain: wfudbt@gmail.com

Richard Min - things about debate

Speaker points: demonstrate situational awareness, out-execute, and be clear.

I enjoy arguments from both the left and the right (not only "debate right..") - the horseshoe theory exists for a reason. The activity is a marketplace for ideas and arguments. I would prefer they be relevant to the topic at hand, but I understand that too is up for debate. I would prefer debaters giving it their best with whatever argument it is they're good. Convincing me to sign the ballot in your favor is a matter of out-executing the other team.

This means the burden of proof is high for all sides, and I'll evaluate the flow with strict scrutiny.

-All arguments require impacts.

-Impact (doesn't have to be terminal - e.g. link calculus, but often is and should be) calculus wins debates.

-Evidence is good.

-Stacking up evidence necessitates framing.

-If the case doesn't specify their solvency, the mechanism up for grabs through evidence.

-Conditionality could be good and bad.

-No bias for / against any kind of counterplan.

-Advantages and disadvantages should be intrinsic - teams should be testing the link / internal link.

-Presumption could go towards least change or the tie could go to the runner.

Situational awareness is not only a necessary life skill, it is a serious debate hack. the integrity of the flow and evidence that both sides expect me to evaluate represent that larger variables that balance the debate's decision.

I think it's unfortunate that line by line debate has mutated into embedded clash and that many debaters are reading entire speeches off their computers - but I don't blame the debaters - rather I'll reward you with better speaker points for breaking those expectations.

For me, the ballot doesn't represent anything more than a win or a loss. If your argument requires that it serves a larger purpose of remediation, please impact why this should be the case.

Re: the topic - National health insurance is a specific phrase not to be used in a lay manner, but it's also not capitalized. Maybe that means there are more affs than single payer, BUT if that's the topic we're debating, I hope that the NDT brings affs that innovate their funding mechanism, targeted populations, and types of services.

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

My background is in policy debate.

As a judge, I appreciate organization and a debater's ability to "connect the dots" between their arguments and responses. I tend to view things through an offense/defense paradigm. I want debaters to clearly impact out their arguments, or in other words, tell me why what they are saying matters, and it matters more/is more true than whatever your opponents are saying. At the end of a debate, I do not want to be trying to guess what a team meant or be in the position of relying on an assumption to decide a round.

Debate rounds have winners and losers as well as individual speaker points. Debate is also a persuasive activity and is meant to be a competitive educational extracurricular activity. These are all reasons to consider how you approach cross-examination and interacting with people during the round.

Please do not speak loudly during each other's speeches & clearly state when you are/are not taking prep time.

Congress Paradigm:

I have judged congress for over two decades, even before it became a National standardized qualifying event and have advocated for it all that time because I believe it to be the best overall, well-rounded event that we offer in forensic competition.

It encompasses the benefits of acting because you are playing a role as a representative and the more you understand the motivation of your position, the greater the performance. It is one of the purest of speaking events, because a great representative is a great orator, in life and in your chamber. The writing and interpretation of legislation is at the core of the event and illustrating your deep understanding of that legislation is paramount in your performance. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a debate event, where civil clash is necessary.

All that being said, to understand how I view the event holistically, there are specific standards I prefer.

I do believe that in a three to four minute speech the speaker should get our attention in a creative way and give us a clear call for action and preview of their arguments, coming back to that AGD at the end, time permitting. Preparing us for what you are about to argue is important. There is no actual grace, so 3:08 is abusing the time of the next speaker. I prefer fewer, well developed arguments, than many blipped ones. Sources are important and both the quantity and quality of such sources, Q2, are vital. Representatives do not just rely on periodicals, but government reports, experts in the field, think-tanks, etc. These considerations are important, not just the number of sources. Consideration and knowledge of how our government actually works and the type of legislation at hand is also vital. We are debating issues present in the real world, so take that into consideration and consider what are the real-world implications to your constituents? Know and use parliamentary procedure to benefit the progress of debate; do not abuse it.

PO's are a vital part to any chamber and I look for a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure and efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance. If you have not read "Robert's Rules." it behooves you to do so, then be aware of all NSDA guidelines in adapting them. A good PO should run an efficient chamber and be pro-active in enforcing a fair chamber. Any perception of recognizing speakers unfairly will be penalized. Make sure you are clear with your procedures from the start and follow them consistently.

Overall, consider the above standards in your performance and you will do well. Remember, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are truly representing your school, your state, and your nation. We need good role models.

Policy Debate CX Paradigm:

I have judge policy for almost three decades and prefer traditional policy making focused debates with well weighed impacts.

That being said, I can handle speed, but clarity and articulation are key. I will not say clear, so if I put down my pen and you don't adjust, it is on you. If I don't flow it, it's not on the flow; I will not just read your files. This is an oral exercise in debate, so if it's important, make sure I get it.

My teams also have had great success with progressive arguments and K's, so I'm fine with it if you really know the literature and have clear links. I don't like K's, so make sure the story, links, and alternative are clear. All types of arguments are fine, as long as you know how to run them and they are relevant to your debate. I don't vote on T often, but it must be ran and answered correctly, not "they aren't topical, or "yeah, we are topical", and there should be clear in-round abuse.

Make sure there is direct clash and not just random generic arguments with weak links and no direct weighing. I love those debating actually debating case, so don't ignore it.

Probability and meaningful impacts are a must.

Be civil and debate well and every round will be fulfilling.

For email chain: empireofme@gmail.com

currently teach and coach debate at Saint Mary's Hall in San Antonio.

experience:

high school 4 years cx/ld debate at laredo, tx united
college: 3 years policy at the university of texas at san antonio
coaching: 2 years coaching policy at the university of texas at san antonio, coached nine years as director of debate for reagan high school in san antonio, tx. 1.5 years as the director of speech and debate at San Marcos High School, 2.5 years as director of speech and debate at James Madison High School... currently the director of debate at Saint Mary's Hall.

former writer/ researcher for wisecrack: this does not help you.

***note: please don't call me Matt or Matthew, it is jarring and distracts me. If you must refer to me by name please call me reichle [rike-lee].

(updated sections are marked with a *)

*TOP SHELF COMMENT*

Please, please, please slow down a bit, stress clarity when speaking, and give me pen time during analytic/ theoretical arguments. I AM NOT FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE SPEECH DOCUMENT--I genuinely believe that debate is a communicative activity and I should not have to rely on the speech document to decipher the arguments you are making. If this sounds real grouchy and sounds like "get off my lawn" old man talk... fair enough.

What I mean is this: I like to think that I am working hard to listen and think during the debate and looking up from my flow makes me think about all sorts of things that are not helpful for the debate... (the posters in the room, fashion choices, the last few words of episode 12 of Andor, the amount of Hominy I should add to Pazole... etc.)... all sorts of things that are not helpful for your decision. So help me out a bit. Please.

***The Rest***

*Digital Debates:

Please consider the medium and slow down a bit/ be more purposeful or aware of clarity--the added noises of a house (animals, small children, sirens, etc.) make it a bit harder for me to hear sometimes.

Please try to not talk over one another in cross-examination: it hurts my head.

*proclamation:
I proclaim, that I am making a concerted effort to be "in the round" at all times from here on out (I suppose this is my jerry maguire manifesto/ mission statement moment) . I understand the amount of time that everyone puts in this activity and I am going to make a serious effort to concentrate as hard as possible on each debate round that I am lucky enough to judge. I am going to approach each round with the same enthusiasm, vigor, and responsibility that I afford members of a writing group--and as such I am going to treat the post round discussion with the same level of respect.

Ultimately debate is about the debaters, not about the ways in which I can inject my spirit back into the debate format. That being said there are a few things that you might want to know about me.

I debated for four years in the mid-to-late nineties in high school and three years at UTSA. I have debated ‘policy’ debates in several different formats. Because I ended my career on the ‘left’ of the debate spectrum is in no way an automatic endorsement for all out wackiness devoid of any content. That is not saying that I don’t enjoy the ‘critical’ turn in debate—quite the opposite, I like nothing better than a debate that effectively joins form in content.

*I prefer explanation and examples in debates, these make sense to me. The more depth and explanation the better.

*strategy is also something that I reward. I would like to know that you have either thought about your particular strategy in terms of winning the debate round--and I don't mind knowing that you accident-ed your way into a perfect 2nr/ar choice. Either way: the story of the round is important to me and I would like to know how the individual parts of a round fit together (how you understand them). I think this is part of effective communication and it's just helpful for me in case I am missing something. Illumination brought to me (by you) seems to be the crux of getting a decision that is favorable (to you) with me in the back of the room.


*I flow. I may not flow like you, but I keep a flow because my memory isn’t the best and because at some point I was trained to… it just kind of helps me. But I flow in a way that helps me arrange my thoughts and helps me to keep what is said in the debate limited to what is actually spoken by the debaters. I flow the entire round (including as much of the the text of the evidence as I can get) unless I know a piece of evidence that you are reading. That being said… If I can’t understand you (because of lack of clarity) I can’t flow you. also, some differentiation between tag, card, and the next piece of evidence would be great.

Topicality—I don't know why teams don't go for topicality more... it is a viable strategy (when done well in most rounds). In high school I went for T in the 2NR every round. In college I went for T (seriously) no times in the 2NR. While I give Aff’s lenience on reasonability—there is something hot about a block that just rolls with topicality.

*Counterplans/ disads. Sure. Why not. Win net benefits. Answer the perm. Make it competitive. Win your framework (if an alternate framework for evaluation is proposed by the aff). more and more i find the quality of the evidence read for most cp and da's to be shaky at best--not that there isn't great evidence on political capital and the role of popularity in certain aspects of the political economy as it pertains to pending legislation... i just find more and more that this evidence is either written by some rand-o with a blog or is great evidence that is under-hi-lighted. please read good evidence, not evidence that can be written by one of my children on the cartoon network forums section.

Performance/ The K/ the Crazy/Whatever you want to call it: Do what you have to do get your point across. If you need me to do something (see the way I flow) let me know—I will comply willingly. Just warrant your argument somehow. As before, this is in no way a full on endorsement of ridiculousness for the sake of ridiculousness. Win your framework/ impacts and you should have no problem. Please help me out with the role of the ballot. Please.

*theory: I need to flow. I can not flow a theory debate where the shell is read at the speed of a piece of evidence--tag line speed at the fastest for theory, please. Also if you have no differentiation between tag speed and card speed (good for you) but people are only pretending to flow what you are saying.


*paperless issues: prep time is up when the speaker's jump drive is out of their computer/ when you are ready to email your cards (not continue to write blocks as you 'send' your email). Completely understandable if you send the other team a few more cards than you are going to read but please do not jump the other team an entire file or seventy cards in random order. Learn to send evidence to a speech document.


It becomes harder every year for me to think of a way to encapsulate how I view debate in a way that somehow gives a useful suggestion to debaters. It seems that each philosophy follows a formula--assure everyone that you were a good debater up to and including past experience, make sure they know that you are either open or receptive to all types of argumentation while still harboring resentment to anything progressive and different from what is deemed acceptable by personal debate standards, which is then followed by a list of ways the judge hopes everyone debates.

While the formula will apply to some extent I would like to say that i am in every way honest when I say this: do what you do best and read the arguments that you prefer in the style that you prefer in front of me. Do this and I say unto you that it will do less harm than running around in circles in round for the sake of a paradigm. Be the debater that you are, not who you think I want you to be.

That being said; this is who I assume you should be: kind. Be kind to your opponent and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems. There is probably a list that defines shadiness but it follows the same rule as inappropriateness: if you have to ask if something is shady--it is.


have fun. have a nice year.

I am a debater raised off of policy debate, then eventually trained in World Schools, Public Forum, and LD Debate. I am a judge who sees debates as a policymaker. When cases are presented to me, I like having the cases explained in detail for example: if you are working on the affirmative, explain how your plan helps the people at large, and if you are negative, explain how the affirmative plan is a bad idea and should not be passed. I like having my debaters comfortable because i feel they perform at their best when comfortable with their environment. I want a civil, clean, and respectful debate. The thing I like to look for in any debate, is flowing, clash, and reasoning behind your arguments. When Using Counterplans and Kritiks, explain how they are connected to the case or solve the resolution.

Edits - minor 11/13/14

Director of Speech & Debate - University of Houston

Previously coaching at (Iowa, Miami (Ohio), Wake Forest)

As of the 2014 Shirley - I have judged (according to Debateresults + tabroom):

475 - College Debates

I have voted AFF in 226 of those debates (47.5%)

I have voted NEG in 249 of those debates (52.4%)

First rule of judging - judging is subjective. 
Second rule of judging - get over it. 

Judge philosophies are in fact an attempt to compensate for this inevitably subjective activity. We try to minimize personal opinions, but in the end who you vote for is more than often related to how you feel and the style of the debaters as much as it is about any particular argument. You have to convince the judge (me) to vote for you. This is as subjective as really any other activity. 

T - A paradox - I am a bad judge for T. I love T debates. 

Competing interpretations doesn't make much sense to me because the aff can't win on T. Reasonability is largely good (I am not a good judge for trivial interpretations like "and/or means both") - see above re: subjectivity. Reasonability is also a good answer to most affirmative theory complaints.

Legal topics are ideal for T debates, given that the law is all about definition. I find these questions interesting, but in order to win on T with me as a judge, you typically need to have insightful argument and some decent evidence about the educational harm (and not just to negative ground) of the affirmative's interpretation. These arguments, of course, can take many forms, but be careful.

Avoid specification arguments. Please. While implementation might be 90% of whatever, ASPEC is still not a reason to reject the affirmative. 

I think T is an important check against non-topical affs, you have to read a plan and defend the federal government and your plan, reading the resolutions does not seem to be enough. Switch-side debate is a good thing. 

Framework/Non-plan Topicality arguments - 

Framework debates are not fun. I judge them a lot.I think that these debates have both gotten stale and also very detached from the actual arguments at hand. Both sides would do well to connect their arguments to the actual positions relevant to their debate. My previous statements about reasonability tend to apply in these questions as well. A small advantage to an very limiting interpretation is often not enough for me to justify a ballot. 

The best framework debates don't read the Shively card.

My suggestion is to try to have a good interpretation that takes the middle ground, this will make me much more sympathetic and open to listening to your arguments. A violation is often overlooked by both sides, but is often where the crux of the decision lies - don't neglect this (or the "we meet")

Theory – I think in general most aff theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team. That means theory is rarely rarely a voting issue for me.

Conditionality - I think conditionality is a good and necessary thing. Dispositionality is not a thing. I am open to kicking CPs on my own (without the encouragement of the negative) - I do indeed possess that power.

PICS (or whatever) is not a reason to reject the team, only the position, in these cases if the CP goes away the aff would still win. 

International agent fiat, in some cases, may be a legitimate test of the necessity of USFG action.

50 State Fiat - eh?

Disads – Politics DAs are my favorite.

I won’t vote on 1% risk.

Magnitude and probability are far more important than timeframe.

"DA turns the case" by itself is not a full argument.

Also "DA turns the case" is often wrong, the DA impact must complicate the aff's ability to solve or access the internal link to the impact, not just be the same impact. The aff should point this out. 

Don't read a bunch of new impacts in the block unless you've got a real reason to do so. Most teams won't have a reason beyond, we didn't feel like answering their arguments.

Case debate. I think debate should be more in depth debating of the specifics of an aff, I will reward hard work and understanding on the topic, which is often demonstrated in good case debating. The more specific your strategy is, the better.

Reading impact defense to all of their impacts does not count as a case debate (maybe necessary, but certainly not sufficient).

There are rules for debating the case - http://goo.gl/FliJY The treaties topic was awesome because of case debates. 

CPs – Most are good. I really like a smart advantage CP. Consult CPs and Condition CPs are cheating. How much cheating? It depends. See above on theory. 

Ks - 

Critiques are often times strategic and I also think can be won very easily because the aff doesn’t attack the argument at its weaknesses. Weakness include, the alternative, the links to the aff (and not to the law, society, etc), other stuff. I often end up voting for Ks when the aff fails to contest these issues.

Framework arguments are usually underdeveloped on off-case Ks, this makes me not vote on these arguments.

Like any other argument, it has to be well explained. I also have an inherent distaste for generic backfile Ks (or consult CPs or Framework ....) that you have resurrected year after year because you were too lazy to do any work. I like debating new topics, don’t just cut one new Zizek book and consider your work done. 

As an academic, I think I know a bit about critical theory and so forth -as a rhetorician there are things I like by trade - critiques of rhetoric, language and discourse, well executed understandings of theory, that is to say criticism of actual instances of things that are objectionable. Things that I don't like (or understand very well) include vague psychoanalytic theory (ie Zizek) or rabbit-holes of very complicated post-structuralism - the event of the non-part or something. 

Other things – I don’t like reading a lot of cards after the debate, although I know I will at times, I change my mind on this every couple of months. Right now, I'll probably skim a lot of cards and read some carefully.

I will also probably be open to getting emailed your evidence during the debate, but won't really want to look at it until the end of the debate. Maybe during CX or prep to figure out something I missed. Maybe. I do think it is incumbent on the teams in the debate to communicate to the judge verbally, not via email.

If I have to reconstruct the debate I might not see it like you think it happened. The final speeches MUST do this for me. 

I've taken to answering some questions in CX, particularly informative questions, especially if I think an answer might be confusing. How many perms? I'll answer. If you are just wrong about something, I might say something. 

I'm very emotive during debates, you should look up and see if I'm scowling or nodding, this can be a clue (to what? I don't know, but to something).

Underviews are the worst thing ever. 

I also think the 1NR should not be used to make new arguments. It is a rebuttal not a constructive.

Terms that have lost meaning to me - "Role of the Ballot," "the debate space" (more later)

Speaker Points – I think I give fairly good points, simply because I think most debaters deserve a chance at clearing if they have the wins.

My scale goes something like this;

26.5 and below – bad debating,

26.6 - 27 - Needs a lot of work,

27 -27.5 – average, but has a way to go,

27.5-28 - better than average, some things to work on,

28-28.5 – Good varsity debating.

28.6 - 29 - Very good - should be in contention for a speaker award.

29-29.5 – Excellent debating 

29.6 - 29.9 - Almost Gabe.

30 – Gabe

I will punish your speaker points for lack of clarity, rudeness, or inappropriate language (these issues could also result in a loss). 

I think clipping is bad, though I'm not sure what the threshold is to warrant a ballot. These questions stop the debate. If you are making an accusation of cheating, I will decide the debate on that question. You need to be fairly certain to make this kind of claim, so be ready to explain.

debates take a long time, already. 92 minutes, optimistically. please, please dont make them last any longer than they absolutely must. if you, for any reason, must take a break or stop the clock, that's totally okay. but for the sake of us all getting off campus at a reasonable hour, and for our hosts who put together a schedule for a reason, lets all try to keep our debates to, like, 105 minutes.

--

"i don't want magic word invocation to stand in for final rebuttal work weighing and comparing potential outcomes. 'extinction' and 'nvtl' are not arguments.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Policy
Former policy debater, so I am okay with speed as long as words are articulated clearly. I will intervene as little as possible in debate rounds. Please be professional, I heavily detract speaks if I see rudeness in a debate round. Case debating is great; engage the aff and make smart arguments. Concerning disads, relevant impact comparisons are infinitely better than extinction magnitude or 100% probability. Also please choose your arguments wisely and please do not go six off in the 1NC. Topicality is always a voting issue and outweighs theory. Concerning kritiks, contextualized link analysis is persuasive; the alt is part of the debate the neg usually fails to explain fully.

LD
During LD, I prefer debaters to avoid speed. I can flow as fast as debaters can articulate however speed is not essential or even necessarily desirable given the complex philosophical issues encountered in LD. I take flow very seriously and want to see clash. I have a fairly comprehensive understanding of theoretical issues. Really want to hear debaters telling me why I should vote for them with specific reference to reasons why the arguments the opposition made are less valid; voting issues should be clearly articulated in final rebuttals. I believe that resolutions have meaning, therefore my preference would be for less framework and more discussion of resolutional issues, but I will follow where you go.

Top-level: 4 years of high school policy in Houston, occasional judge on local Houston circuit. Topic knowledge will rarely be in-depth and nuanced, but I am comfortable with general policy tech. My biggest priority is the flow, and how arguments interact on the flow. Thus, I am a huge fan of direct, efficient line-by-line. Overall, debate what you're comfortable with; while I would prefer a more policy-oriented round, kritiks/performance/whatever is fine and I would urge you not to compromise your strengths.

T - Fine. I feel like this is dependent on the topic, and since I have little topic-specific knowledge, I most likely would default aff unless it was especially egregious of a violation. 

DA's/CP's - The more case-specific, the better. Probably my favorite option (DA/case or CP/DA) if done well, but I will heavily rely on the flow to make decisions. 

K's- Great! I think more and more debaters have become proficient at kritik debating on both sides, and I find these debates much more interesting and thought-provoking as an intellectual. I don't have the most expertise in kritik debating, so I would appreciate elaboration and explanation at all points of the round as necessary, something that should be a priority anyways.

Theory - I'm fine with theory, but not fine with the speed at which theory is usually vomited out. I would rather you slow down especially on theory if you're going to make substantial and real theoretical objections.

At the very core, I am a flow judge - regardless of the topic, I can always rely on the flow to tell me who won/didn't lose. By extension, you need to tell me who won or lost so that it can get to the flow. Whether this means impact comparison or role of the ballot arguments, tell me explicitly.

Misc. - Speed is fine, prep ends when flash exits, open/closed CX at discretion of debaters. 

I am a pretty relaxed judge, and have been involved with forensics for over 4 years. For acting/interp events I look for great technique and characterization. In regards to debate, clarity is important. Looking for an educational civilized round. I consider myself a TAB judge.