Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.

PF: I did PF for the last year and a half in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you warrant it. I won't do any work for you so be clean with your extensions and weigh for me. 

LD: I did LD for the first 2 and a half years in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you sufficiently warrant it. I won't down you for running any argument, I try to be as Tab as I can. If it comes down to it I evaluate framework over contention level debate. That being said just because you win framework doesn't mean you automatically win the round. 

Speed: Don't spread. 

(i just copied and pasted from my judge philosophy wiki) 

I did LD on the Houston circuit all 4 years of high school at Clear Falls ('14), I went to UNT MGW'12 and qualled to TFA state. I coach as well.
University of Houston'18

s/o to pranav for pointing out my poor word economy on the paradigm
s/o to Sean De Stefano for giving me a bad shoutout in his paradigm :(
s/o to Daniel Conrad for an awesome shoutout, totes pref him a 1 if you can.
s/o to Angela Ho for being A. Ho. <3
no s/o to jessica until she gets better at extending.

For policy:
I don't judge policy enough. I think the LD paradigm should probably cover most things but if not feel free to ask. I don't judge policy enough but I'll try my best! Just weigh clearly and make clear voters.
- I don't count flashing as prep
- open CX is fine
- Prompting is fine

For LD:

I welcome unique arguments, as long as they're topical. I ran mostly plans and counterplans in high school, and default util when it comes to decision making, unless you tell me to evaluate otherwise. I'm totally fine with kritikal arguments, just slow down if you're going to read dense philosophy and explain the kritikal terms ("shadowboxing the system", etc). I didnt run too many kritikal things in HS, but I still think K rounds are pretty interesting. Let it be a fun round, just tell me how to evaluate it.
People tend to do better when they run things that they're comfortable with, so have fun!

It's really important that you explain your arguments and tell a good "story". I can keep up well with jargon, but I would rather you explain the implications and the links without having to rely too much on the terminology. I have to understand the argument, or else I won't vote on it OR will vote on the wrong way.

I love good link stories.
I try my best not to intefere (ie, if your link story/arg is weak, I'll let the debater point those out and make them voters. I wont make them voters myself unless I have to.)

Also make sure link chains in extinction impacts are really good. I'll evaluate a poor extinction chain, but I won't be happy. I'm better with link chains that lead to more reasonable impacts.

My prioritization of arguments goes like this: topicality, theory, ROB, substance.
I won't vote on blippy arguments. I feel like things should have a warrant.

TL;DR: do whatever you want, but explain things


Speaker Points
-Rudeness and being unclear will deduct you points. Arguments that I like will add you points. A 30 won't be hard to get as long as you explain well. If you're nice to a newer debater, I'll reward you. Weighing and good voters will bump you up as well.
-I almost always give over 28 points so don't worry about it too much. Generally it means I think you should break. Unless I really dont like something that you did in round.
-If a round ends up being messy or a "bad" round, don't worry. I feel like sometimes that will happen outside of the debater's control. I only penalize bad debaters/bad choices/bad args, so just dont cause a bad round.



Speed
I'm about a 7-9 on speed. I'll yell clear but if it becomes obnoxious I'll give you low speaks or won't flow the argument at all.
-if you're unclear I hope you lose every single round
-loud spreading is better than quiet spreading
-please give me a second to get used to your voice/speaking style, after that have fun.
-slow down on stuff you want me to really catch.

Theory/Topicality
- naturally, theory/topicality comes before ROB, then substance. Unless you tell me otherwise.
- I default reasonability unless you tell me otherwise.
- I actually love a good theory round
- Slow down when reading interp and violation.
- Weigh your theory shell and make it clear that there's consistent abuse in the round. You have to convince me to drop the debater, its easier for me to buy drop the argument. Impact it well.
- layer shells and weigh abuses when there's multiple shells in the round so i know which shell to prioritize
- Please dont make me vote on blippy theory.
- easier to win "drop the debater" with me
- I'll buy an RVI unless theres an untouched spike that says no rvi's. but the spike has to be extended (goes to all args of this nature)
- tbh I'll pretty much vote on any theory shell
- ill vote on presumption but you have to extend it for me as a voter and why theres an absence of offense.
- I'm okay with most theory/t practices in debate, just make sure you flesh it out really well and tell me how different shells interact with other args like ROB, burdens, other shells, spikes, etc etc.
-im okay with paragraph theory

Plans/CP/DA's
- good link stories in extinction impacts
- an uncompetitive cp will just be a second aff.
- really idk what else to say about this
- i prefer more reasonable impacts to large magnitude impacts but im okay with voting off extinction

Kritiks
- im slowly starting to get more kritikal, and im starting to like these positions a lot
- I'm better with low level theory than high level
- i can understand a cap k/fem k/ etc etc. When it comes to stuff like hiedegger, DnG, baudrillard, etc, please slow and explain.
- I'm pretty comfy with nietzsche, friere, zizek, marx, foucalt etc. Im also pretty comfy with general framework authors like rawls, kant etc etc. (ill try to update this as i learn)
- slow down and clarify if youre going to read dense philosophy. I won't vote on arguments that I dont understand
- some K's i noticed tend to be super nuanced in the link. I think it would be a better strat to use specific ac texts/cards to support the link.
- slow down on the link
- skep is fine, just dont use it to answer a structural oppression case.

Things you should do
- Slow down on card names,tags & claims, speeding up on warrants is fine.
- Slow down on plan texts, ROB, alts, theory interps/violations, or anything you want me to hear etc.
- Give clear voting issues and weigh, or else I will need to intervene. I'll try to make a fair decision every single round, but I can't always do that if you don't do the work for me. If I have to intervene expect low speaks.
-be consistent and clean on the flow.
-make impacts explicitly clear. I need to know exactly how you want this to interact with the ballot and other arguments
-actually follow the paradigm
-Extend correctly.
-explain.


Things you shouldn't do
- Debate the decision after round. it will just make me more mad, and less likely to change my mind and like you in future rounds. Questions are fine.
- Run morally repulsive things like "racism/homophobia/sexism good." I will actually drop you as a debater on face if you run that. If you need to clarify what I deem as unacceptable you can ask before round.
- Make me vote of stuff I don't want to, or go for arguments that I don't like.
- Be rude in round.
- Tricky stuff.
- If you're rude to your opponents during round (sarcasm, making fun of them, saying offensive stuff, overkilling on a novice, etc) I will tank your speaker points or may even drop you depending on the situation.
- if you're unlcear or being messy on the flow don't get mad at me for not flowing. I shouldn't have to work that hard to type an argument.
-Sketchy positions.
-run things are that are bad for debate.
-miscut evidence. I didnt run that much philosophy to be able to tell if a certain author actually concluded the claims youre running in round, with that being said, if you get called out in round I will call evidence. But please don't miscut evidence to begin with.



~some rounds I sign the ballot early, bc normally after the 2ar it wont take me long to put together who wins.However, I can still change my mind during the round. But after the round there's nothing you can do.
~I like to eat during rounds
~ignore my typing, I type comments during prep to help me sometimes.
~I update this a lot during tournaments.
~be nicer and louder during early rounds. I'm sleepy and I'm probably suffering.

Conflict: Clear Falls and Lamar Consolidated, anyone that I might be coaching


Please let me know if you have any questions. You're totally welcome to find me after round for questions about the ballot, or ask about my paradigm before round.

If you have questions, my email is Dar.Balybina@gmail.com, or you can add me on facebook to ask questions.
Have fun, and good luck

Paradigm - I believe more in a judge conforming to the debaters than the debaters conforming to the judge. In this regard I have experience considering all forms of debate in one regard or another. I would never tell a debater to change a strat simple because I am a judge and most people should feel free to run any arguments that they are comfortable with. That being said, I do hope for a great deal of clash in the round and I normally default to a policy maker stance if no ROB is given or if no other criteria is up for consideration. The most important thing I could say is just to be yourself, if you are a traditional debater go with it and if you want to run a critical narrative then lets do this. 
On a scale of 1 (Traditional) and 11 (Kritikal) - 6
Favorite Debate Argument: I love very squirrely arguments, things that seem utterly bonkers but that work. This doesn't mean that just because you have the coolest idea I will vote for it though, the ability to execute an idea is very important. A little more specifically I have a fondness for kritiks such as security but I find that they are often underutilized. 
Least Favorite Argument: I have never had a particular fondness for theory arguments, I understand them and will consider them but I just find them a bit duller than other arguments. 
Won't vote on: I will vote on anything if it is presented in the round. 


Other broad preferences: 


Specifics - 
Likely to vote on (1 is low, 5 is high)
Topicality 3
Theory 3
Disads 3
Counterplans 3
Kritiks 3


A good debate about Topicality A good debate about topicality should firstly have some legitimacy in my mind by being able to show some sort of in round abuse, potential abuse is a lot trickier to consider and is just not as convincing or as strong of a position. 


The standards debate should become rather clear cut by the end of the round, focused around just one or at most two standards that not only have implications within round but also outside of round. Fairness has a bit of an edge over education in my mind. 
A good debate about Theory:


A good debate about disads: 

A good debate about counterplans:
A CP should have some sort of mutual exclusivity to it, and having something build into the actual CP goes a long way with me since you don't have to depend on turns or a DA.  Additionally the application of turns on case can generate some exclusivity but you need to be making it clear that is what is happening if you go that route. 


A good debate about Kritiks: 


Other specific argument prefences: 



Other Things:
Speed: 4
Their flow: 4
Comments on flowing/speed: I am pretty good at understanding people when they spread, that being said. Standard stuff, go as fast as you are able while being clear, don't spread if you don't know how. If I don't hear the argument it doesn't end up on the flow. 


Gives good speaker points (1 is low, 10 is high) - Self rated-
8
Factors for speaker points: 


Other:

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 LD for 3 years under Katy High School at TFA, UIL, and NFL. I am studying Petroleum Engineering at UT Austin.

Speed: On a scale from 1-10 (1= local PF rounds and 10= a CX round at the TOC), I sit at around an 8. Make sure you slow down on advocacy texts. If you are reading dense philosophy, slow down on parts you feel will be pivotal to me understanding the argument.

General: I default to truth-testing. I’m open to adopting comparative worlds or anything that you can define as long as you warrant why I should.

I really like clean extensions. It’s as simple as reiterating a claim, warrant, and impact. Specifically, explain to me the impact of the argument in context of the round itself. Also, I really like voters. If you can effectively paint the picture of the round and argument interaction, it would favor you. 

Theory: Like other judges, I have a high threshold for theory. Things like running theory in the AC make me sick (that’s also not a good strat FYI). In the case that you do run theory, make sure it is actually for abuse and not because you could not answer your opponent. 

I default competing interps but am open to reasonability, etc. as long as you warrant why. Please emphasize standards and effectively tell me why I should adopt your evaluative mechanism. When it comes down to voters, don’t just read generic stuff about education and fairness. What is the concept of fairness and education? When it boils down, isn’t the abusive debater being more educational because he/she spent time to research the topic while you just recycle shells to use when you come across “difficult to answer” arguments? Tell me what it means to be fair or educational in this specific round. In the end, I feel like theory just invites even more judge intervention so don’t do it unless you have to.

Critical arguments: I really like philosophical arguments but to an extent. If you decide to read dense stuff on psychoanalysis and Deleuze, make sure you slow down and explain your position. 

Policy Arguments: I did not really use policy when I was in high school but feel free to run whatever you like. Make sure everything has the parts that it needs. Please incorporate some sort of weighing mechanism. I have seen too many CP’s without any. 

Speaker points- I’ll reward high speaks to debaters that do a great job of argument comparison. I’m so tired of the “two ships passing in the night” scenarios and enjoy seeing clash. I average at around 27-28. If you’re offensive or run theory unnecessarily, I’ll dock more speaks. 

I was a LD debater for four years in high school with experience on local and national circuits. I have also been a LD coach / judge. While my primary focus has been LD, I have also judged PF and been involved with Congressional debate and various speech activities.

I default to whatever the debater / speaker is most comfortable with in terms of speed and speaking style. In terms of argumentation, weighing and impact calculation is most important for me. Key arguments need to be extended and weighed in every speech, not just the final. I will flow whatever arguments you present but need to hear clear links / warrants / impacts. In general, I like to see clear, engaging, and interesting debate. I typically won't disclose after the round but will provide feedback if requested.

Thanks and good luck!

Background: I was a Lincoln Douglas debater from 8th grade to my senior year in highschool, with some experience in extemporaneous speaking and knowledge in CX debate. I am now a junior at the University of North Texas.

Logistics of the round: I have no problem with how fast you choose to speak as long as you are clear and slow down on tags. I will say clear twice, if I still cannot understand you I will stop flowing. If you go over one minute, flashing evidence does count as prep-time. Flex prep is fine as long as both parties agree to it. Don't be rude to your partner, you will lose speaker points. Part of communicating is how you do it. The real world doesn't lend well to rude, badgering speakers. Also, be sure to extend your arguments! 

Types of Arguments: I enjoy off-beat K debates, well explained logic positions, or the traditional impacts/disadvantages debate. Although, I will not vote against you based on the type of argument you choose to run. If you must utilze theory, be clear as to how the theory should fit into my decision calculus. You have the power to tell me what matters in the round, do not be passive of that. 

How to win the round: FRAME THE DEBATE. Framing is very important. I must have a standard to weigh the arguments. If you do not provide me with such mechanism I am forced to intervene (which I hate to do) and you may not like the way I vote. If you do absolutely nothing else in the debate, tell me why your standard matters, why it's the ultimate standard in the round, and how your advocacy links back to that standard, whereas your opponents does not. 

Any other questions, please ask before we begin. I wish you all the very best in your rounds! 

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Debate experience

I debated in Varsity policy debate for Trinity University for one year and in the JV division for one semester, then I quit college policy debate. In high school, I did LD and PF for one year, then policy debate for two years, all on the TFA high school circuit. One year, I coached two high schoolers in LD. If I’m about to judge you in a round, it’s probably been a little while since I’ve last judged a tournament.

Judging paradigm—policy and LD

I love strategic debating. Smart, strategic maneuvers are awesome to see well-executed. As much as I love technical proficiency, I’ve got to provide a big caveat: I used to be great with speedy debate, but I’ve been away from the activity for a little while, so you should definitely prioritize clarity over speed. I won’t hear you at your fastest, and I know that sucks. Sorry about that.

I’m very familiar with kritikal debate, but I enjoy listening to all sorts of arguments. Nothing is sacred to me; I love listening to far-left kritiks and performance debates as much as I enjoy well-done topicality and framework debates against such affs, and the usual policy and LD shenanigans are just fine too.

I’ll pull the trigger on theory and I don’t have strong opinions about most theory arguments. “Kritiks are bad for debate” might be a tough sell, but literally anything else—from conditionality good/bad to all kinds of counterplan theory—is fair game. Please slow way down for theory. These debates are technical, fast and sometimes blippy, but you want me to have all of your arguments down. Spreading through prewritten theory blocks in the rebuttals is not the way to win my ballot on these debates.

Policy and critical debate alike are great, just be sure to be smart on the flow. Demonstrate strategic vision and situational awareness and you’ll be rewarded with speaker points. Similarly: strong signposting, or being able to guide me to distinct parts of the debate (from overviews, to the line-by-line, to different flows), is very much appreciated; poor behavior on the flow will annoy me, and I’ll probably subconsciously or unintentionally penalize you for it as I evaluate the arguments—and will definitely penalize you for it on speaks.

Despite my experience with K debate, you shouldn’t assume that I know everything about the theory you’re reading—your link, impact, and alternative explanations should be clear enough for me to articulate the kritik to your opponent, for instance. That can go for non-K concepts as well. Core concepts don’t need to be reexplained in the last rebuttals, especially if significant time has been spent on them in earlier speeches or in cross-examination, but it’s always good to be able to effectively respond to generic and specific responses on the line-by-line with nuanced takes on your critical theory.

I love LD framework debates. Policy debate doesn’t have enough philosophical deliberation. Just make sure to explain everything well enough for me to understand. Philosophy students are taught to write in such a way that a reasonably intelligent everyperson could understand them; similarly, you shouldn't come in with the notion that I already know the bulk of the literature behind your framework, because I probably don't. But I'd love to, so this shouldn't keep you from going for the NC instead of the impact turns (as fun as both options are!).

Debate is fun, and debate is a game. Debate can be personally meaningful and rewarding, but don’t forget that it’s a competition. At the end of the round I have to make a decision, sometimes when arguments relating to students’ personal livse are at stake, and I have to choose a winner and a loser. I hate that this can really hurt students’ feelings. I know I’ve been hurt by decisions before. Take pride in your hard work, no matter how I decide the round.

Judging paradigm—PF

Everything written above holds true for public forum debaters, generally; as weird as it is to hear about kritiks and theory in public forum, I understand that these arguments are becoming more popular, and I’m fine with you reading them. Don’t let that make it sound as if I’m unreceptive to traditional PF debate, though. I should emphasize that I will evaluate the debate based on who is winning the most important arguments. Your job is to focus the debate to a few issues that you’re winning and prove that they outweigh any issues your opponents might be winning. I’m not looking for techy line-by-line here, but responding to your opponents’ warrants and extending your most important arguments is crucial if you want me to be persuaded to vote for you. The worst is trying to vote after a PF round with very little, or very unfocused, clash—making my job easier will be rewarded in speaker points and ballots!

Theory stuff

I figured it’d be helpful to put a list of my default positions on theoretical issues in debates, so here I go. This is just a guideline of how I’ll consider things if these aren’t ever brought up in a debate, but I can be persuaded otherwise in a round, no problem.

• Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies.
• Presumption goes aff if the 2NR advocates anything other than the status quo.
• I will not judge-kick an advocacy unless I’m told to. (And if I’m told not to, I probably won’t.)
• I usually regard dropped arguments as true. That doesn’t apply to dropped shadow-extensions of claims without warrant.
• On that note, smart analytics are way better than mediocre cards. Also, explain why your cards are good and why theirs are bad. Evidence analysis is undervalued and too rarely done in all forms of debate.
• I’m receptive to total defense take-outs. The mere possibility of an impact scenario doesn’t make “try or die” work.

Speaker points

Impress me and you’ll get more. I’ve noticed that I’m a speaks fairy as it is. Maybe I’m too easily impressed, but things like clearly spreading, clear and technical line-by-line, well-executed strategic moves and going for theory well (and slowly) are all pretty neat stuff that I think should happen more often.

Contact information

I’m a big fan of discussing rounds in great depth after the round, but tournaments rarely allow for the time needed to really dissect a good round. Email me anytime at daniel@dconrad.me if you want to discuss a round in greater detail, or find me between rounds at the tournament and we can discuss stuff in our free time.

Shout-out to Darya Balybina for being a cool badass, y’all LD folk should pref her highly. Same goes for Cathy Terrace.

I debated LD at Cy Woods but haven’t been very active in the community for a while.

I would like to consider myself pretty competent in most things so complex cases and arguments shouldn’t be a problem and neither is speed. That being said, look up every once in a while and make sure that I haven’t lost you. Emphasize anything you want me to pay special attention to and I will make sure to flow that carefully.

Defaulting: I don’t like saying that I default to this or that paradigm because I don’t want to seem inflexible. But I am more comfortable assessing comparative worlds.

I’m pretty open when it comes to arguments, if you want to run it I will listen. I will vote for any intelligent argument that is well warranted and well explained. I like policy arguments and kritiks. When it comes to dense philosophies or complicated frameworks don’t assume that I will fully understand how it interacts with different arguments in the round, I’m going to need you do some weighing and thorough explaining, I can’t vote for it if I don’t understand it.

Theory: I will vote for theory but only if the abuse story is well fleshed out and unique and it isn’t some stock argument that is obviously pre written (poorly so). I will only reject the debater if you give me a really good justification to do so, otherwise I will only reject the argument. I don’t love or hate RVIs, I think that a counter interpretation will need it more often than not though. And I think that offensive counter interpretations are not really strategic but you do what you think is best.

Framework: If you give me something to evaluate the round by and you win the justification for it that is how I will evaluate the round. I am not a stickler for traditional frameworks or a stock value/value criterion system.

Weighing/Extensions/ evidence analysis: I don’t feel as if people do these things enough in debate rounds. And please don’t assume that I will do any of these things for you. I will give leniency to the 1AR because of time constraints but that doesn’t mean that you can leave arguments unanswered or don’t have to put in the work. Don’t read 15 cards and leave it at that, tell me what that does and why it is important in the round. Otherwise it is just going to be floating on my flow. (Emphasize names and tags to make sure that I get it please)

Advocacy: I think advocacy is really important, even if you advocate the resolution I think something should be done

Decorum: I don’t care if you sit to read off your laptop just make sure that you are sitting up straight and I can hear you.

Speaker points: I will say clear or slow down a few times but if I don’t think that you are paying attention or heeding my advice then I will just stop flowing. You will notice. You will not be docked for the first few times I correct you. You will be docked if you are rude to your opponent or me or say something that is offensive or morally reprehensible.

Please feel free to ask me anything before the round! Have fun, this is a wonderful activity that affords a unique learning experience and I want to make sure that debaters enjoy their time in round and make the most of it.

I will do my best to fairly assess any round. I take judging very seriously, I know how important this activity is to a lot of people and so I will give you my full effort and attention.

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org (for speech docs).

I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, oratory and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF.

As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters.

I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'.

If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points.

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault.

Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.

I do not accept spreading.  You can speak fast, but cannot spread.  If you are going too fast, I will alert you to slow it down.  I will only issue two cautions.  The third caution will result in you dropping the round.

I prefer classic debate style and am not very comfortable with Ks.

Debated 4 years at Stratford High School (Houston)
Competing for University of Houston in Policy

Questions? Email me at gravesbila@gmail.com

Speaks:
I heard from someone once, can't remember their name: "You have a 30 until you start speaking," and I believe that to be the case. In all seriousness though I'll likely start at a 28.5 and go up and down from there. Sometimes I won't start at the 28.5 and whoever finishes speaking first I will try and rank them and rank the other person based off of that. It depends on the round. But I will try and stay within the 28-29 range if at all possible.

LD:
I did LD for most of high school and I feel like I'm one of the few that likes the direction that it is taking. But with that in mind I feel like I have to say this before anything else: IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENTS, DON'T JUST READ THEM. That is a huge pet peeve of mine, if you can't explain what your argument is saying in CX or you read a Counter-Plan and can't tell your opponent if it's conditional or not, these are instances where you shouldn't be reading these arguments. Pretty self-explanatory but it happens all too often. I'll try and go through all the concerns one may have, starting from what is asked the most.

Speed:
I am totally fine with it, if you aren't clear or loud enough I won't be worried to say either of them. However I won't say them a total of more than twice, after that I'll drop speaks. I'm pretty good with understanding you even if you aren't the most clear but that doesn't mean that I won't have issues. On that same point, I don't think being fast for the sake of being fast is worth it. If your opponent isn't comfortable with it, don't do it just to get an advantage. Debate is an educational activity, if both sides are fine with it, speed will be fine with me. If it makes it completely one sided then I don't necessarily think anyone will be learning things from the round.

Theory:
Legitimate abuse is needed for me to vote on theory. Don't just read shells because you think you can get away with it and opponents can't answer. As I said, debate is about education. While theory can sometimes be educational, more often then not theory really just seems to be a time suck. The next question normally asked about theory is what do I default to? I tell everyone that asks me this that there really isn't a default. Both are good things for debate but be sure to implicate why I should prefer one or the others. One line in theory shell that says: "prefer competing interpretations" then moves on doesn't give me a reason why I should buy it. You're just saying the words. Give me a theoretical reason WHY I should buy competing interpretations or reasonability. Both have reasons why they're good, I've heard them tons of why. But debate about those reasons. Theory should be debated well and if it isn't implicated why do I vote? What role does theory play? How should I evaluate it? All of these questions should be answered. I'm a bit more lenient on Topicality shells as opposed to any theory violations, but there still has to be actual abuse. All of the above still applies.

Kritiks:
I'm fine with you reading them but I'm not super versed in the lit. I have a basic understanding of most but don't expect me to know the tiny distinctions between the arguments that you're reading. I feel that a lot of the time the alt needs to be pointed out much more which doesn't happen all too often. Try and be sure to explain this and contextualize it, weighing it against the world of the Aff. If I don't get how the alt works by the end of the round, then it's very doubtful that I'll vote on your K. Impact analysis is still important and you have to engage arguments made by the aff. Just saying K outweighs or making generic claims isn't enough. Do work just like any other argument.

CPs:
If you spend a minute and a half in CX trying to answer if your CP is conditional or not, you probably shouldn't be running it. With that being said, I'm fine with them as long as you understand how it functions in regards to the aff. You don't have to read a competition section that's longer than whatever your net benefit is, but it should be competitive in some form or another. Overall I'm fine with them, but most of these are arguments that I like, so I will hold you to a high standard and your ethos will tank with me if you do them badly.

Policy:
A lot of what I said above applies here but I'm not going to hold you to as high of standards on things like theory. How it's evolved in the two are completely different, and they can be debated as such. The biggest thing for me is that you have to read case arguments in the 1NC, starting case in the block isn't fair, and especially as a 2A I feel very strongly about this. The main thing however I think I have to say here that wouldn't have been addressed above is that I will buy pretty much any argument. Obviously there are thresholds with blatantly offensive arguments (racism good is really the only one that comes to mind) but for most anything I can be persuaded. Debate well and you'll do fine.

PF:
I don't really know what paradigm questions you'd have for this, but the biggest one I can think of is big picture v line-by-line. And I'd prefer line-by-line for sure. That's really the only thing. Make the debate interesting educational and all will be good.

As a former CX Debater, I generally vote on stock issues and whatever a team signifies is a "voting issue", and do not automatically count drops unless they are actually outlined. I do not prefer to vote on K issues unless they are solid and well debated, and I will always enjoy good clash in a debate round. Spreading is definitely not encouraged, as what cannot be heard will not be flowed.

I did LD debate for four years at Dulles High School on the TFA, UIL, and TOC circuits and graduated in 2012. During college at UT Austin, I coached and judged. I have taught at TDC and NDF.

Establish with your opponent how you are going to share digital files (flashing, email) before the round. I won't count flashing against your prep, but you need to be ready to hand the flash drive to your opponent when prep ends and not still be compiling a doc. I don't care to be in your email thread. I will ask to see anything I need at the end of the round.

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" once before docking speaks. Please slow down on tags and authors, make author names especially clear.

I will answer any specific questions you have before the round.

I consider myself a "tab" judge. I believe that debate is your game, so I will do my best to not express a preference for certain arguments. I want to see arguments that are fleshed out and properly implicated, meaning that a well made stock argument will sit better with me than a floppy critical one. What it means for something to be true or for the resolution to be true or false is for you to tell me. This means that "comparative worlds" or "truth testing" are just examples of ways you can set up this framing, and I would appreciate if you clarify your framework beyond saying "I use truth testing."

If you plan to read a card against an opponents case, please respond to or explain the interaction with the original argument, or if I have to chose between them, I will default to the first argument because it was read first and was uncontested.

I probably have a high threshold for theory compared to some judges, but I have no issue with it. I do not automatically prefer fairness over education, reasonability over competing interps, or vice versa. I will not automatically presume RVIs, but I think they can be justified.

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

I am a 20+ years, 3 diamond debate coach. I am a flow judge, and I will judge what I see to the best of my ability.

Speed: If one side drops an argument simply because they are spread out of the round, I will drop it on the flow. Some speed is fine if it's clear.

Lincoln Douglas - A value and standard are the basis for this debate style. Therefore your framework should link in to your case and be upheld in the round. My opinion is that morality as a value is equal to not having a value. But if the debater wants to kick out the value and have me vote on the standard, I'll do that. See policy below about Critical Affs.

Public Forum - Speed is one thing, spreading is another. I'm flexible on extending the case in the rebuttal, but I prefer not to hear an entire half of the case in the rebuttal speech. Please don't ask about standing during Crossfire. If you CAN stand, please do. This is debate. Most Ks I've seen have just been generic DAs that the debaters CALLED a K, so I'm generally good with that. Plans and Counterplans are extra and unnecessary to the resolution, but fine with me if the debaters want to argue it. Otherwise, I will judge what I see in the round and do my best NOT to impose my own preference to style or arguments.

Policy - I prefer stock, but will vote on what you give me. I'm open to a lot. However, a critical AFF is NOT fair or educational. Period. Schools and coaches voted on this topic and you chose to ignore it. I don't care if you posted your case on another website (Wiki). There is nothing about posting on a wiki in the National or state rules and procedures. Same is true for LD regarding critical affs.

Ben McClean

High school: Cypress Ridge HS

Current school: MDA School of Health Professions 

Experience: I have judged mainly at HUDL and TFA tournaments. I have participated in LD, CX, PF, and WH debates for 3 years at HSE. 

LD: 

I'm a very traditional LDer- I love stock issue and non-interventionist style judging. You have to weigh all your arguments for me, and at the end of the day your main job should be to tell me how to judge; give me up to a few key points of your argument and convince me why they're worthy of my vote. 

Don't sacrifice clarity for speed; although I can keep up with speed, if for whatever reason I don't catch what it is you're trying to argue, I won't count it in the flow. Basically, if you see my pen drop, it's a sign you should probably slow down a bit. 

When it comes to Impacts, you should have a specific link. The more specific, the better. 

Your time starts the moment you talk, and your prep starts the moment you stop talking.

I vote on Values and Analysis. 

Questions/inquiries should be directed to: benmcclean@sbcglobal.net 

LD:

I did LD in high school. I do policy at UH. I am open to pretty much whatever you'd like to run, and below I will talk about some specific preferences 

- flow>truth 

- I will not vote you up on any morally rephrehensible arguments--you know what I mean (impact turns on racism, rape) and your speaks will be pitiful 

K: 

I preface this by saying that kritiks are my favorite argument to hear and it's because of this that I have a lot of k specific paradigms (it's not because I'm anti-k!! My little brother told me it sounded this way)

- you need to clearly articulate a link SPECIFIC TO THE AFF. Generic ks are fine, but please--do a little analysis of how it interacts with the particular AC in question

- do enough work on the alt-- don't wait until you have a few seconds left in the NR and then scramble to make an extension 

- I will get ANNOYED if you try to run Ks you clearly don't understand. It's very obvious (I will be able to tell), and if you try this you're pretty unlikley to win because you probably won't be able to do a good job

- k affs are fine

CP/DISAD:

- they're fine. Run them well or don't run them at all

THEORY:

- fine, whether there is in round abuse or not. I default to reasonability

TRADITIONAL: 

- I prefer progressive, but will totally listen to traditional. Do whatever you're best at. 

SPEAKS:

- Usually, the problem with clarity is not that the debater is too fast, it's that the debater thinks they can spread clearly at a fast pace when in reality they can't . I will say clear two times and then start deducting speaks. I will never put down my pen because you're unclear, and will try to get down what you're saying, but what I don't write down I can't vote on...remember that 

I did LD in high school as well as some extemp. Generally I'm open to hearing any argument, and I'm not going to vote anything down a priori. I view theory as a necessary check on abuse, and judges and debaters shouldn't feel bad in using it to maintain reasonable boundaries for the debate. Critical arguments are fine with me but the link to the resolution and/or the opposition's arguments should be strong and clear. I have a pretty good tolerance for speed, but if you're going to give an especially complex or dense argument, make sure that at least the key points are slow enough for me to digest, since I can't read your case.

Name: Tyler Morris
High School: Clear Lake (Houston, TX)
College: University of Houston

Background and TL;DR: I debated LD and PF for 4 years at Clear Lake High School, and am currently in my 3rd year of Policy Debate at UH. I tend to prefer “traditional” debate, but I also consider myself flexible in this regard most of the time. I’m willing to hear you out on any argument, but you’re probably going to be more successful in front of me if you “color inside the lines.”

I am theoretically willing to accept any argument; this philosophy is only to clarify the biases that I come into the round with. I am not as objective as either of us would like to pretend I am, and this should let you know how my biases tend to manifest themselves.

As a side note that I feel needs to be provided, I am not very expressive in round. I will try, but I was never good at interpreting body language as a debater, and I am equally bad at expressing myself as a judge. Please, for your own good, do not try to interpret my body language in-round.

General Stuff:

Paperless & Prep: Prep stops when the flash drive is pulled out, or when the other team receives the e-mail.

Speaks: I generally tend to give pretty high speaks, with an average somewhere in the 28-ish range.

Speed: I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast, or aren’t being clear enough. It will also impact your speaks. You should probably keep it a little on the slow side, though.

Decorum: It's a part of your ethos, and you should do what you feel comfortable doing. Just make sure that if you're deviating from the standard "office dress" or whatever, you're able to pull it off. Don't do something that's not you. Feel free to make jokes or get excited about the round and stuff like that.  Debaters with a personality are a lot more fun to judge.

LD: A thing that you should keep in mind when I’m judging is that LD was the first event that I competed in. That means that most of my other debate experience has been framed in the context of LD, and as such I’m probably one of the more progressive LD judges. Generally, if you don’t think it’s necessary to have a Value or a Standard, I’m not going to insist that you have one either. You do your thing.

The one thing I do insist on is analytical argumentation. I would much rather have an analytical argument against something without a card than a card without any substantial analytical argument backing it. As for specific stuff:

Kritiks: I’m actually a lot more friendly to Ks in LD than I am plans or CPs – I feel like they fit much more naturally in LD than anywhere else, including CX. As far as the types of Ks you should run in front of me and how you should run them, I’m gonna copy and paste this from my CX paradigm:

Theoretically, I like them. I’m not too well-versed in the literature, though, so if you choose to go that route, you’re going to have to slow down a bit and cut back on the jargon a lot. This should be pretty easy with stuff like Cap or Fem, substantially less so with stuff like D&G.

I’m also unlikely to buy anything where the link is dubious. If your link is to use of the USFG in general, you probably don’t have a link. The more specific the link, the better. Links to a claimed impact will do the trick, as will a link to a specific harm of the plan.

Plans/CPs: I naturally default to a truth-testing role, but that’s very much flexible. If you can explain why it’s necessary or preferable to have a plan or a counterplan in the context of the resolution, I’m willing to buy some of what you’re selling.

Topicality/Theory: In LD, I don’t believe Topicality is an ipso facto voter in the same way it is in CX. Where possible, I typically reject the argument, not the debater. That being said, it’s not particularly likely that a debater running a plan will lose a Topicality argument and go on to win the round.

One thing I hate more than anything else is when debaters run Theory arguments as a time suck. You’re not just wasting your opponent’s time; you’re wasting mine too. While running a ton of theory arguments won’t cost you the ballot, it will likely hurt your speaks.

Policy/CX: I prefer a “traditional,” plan-centered Aff, and a DA/CP Neg, but I’m not hard-and-fast on that by any means – it’s a preference, not a rule. I’d rather have a fleshed-out debate over something boring than a skeletal debate about something odd, but if you run them, I definitely do like seeing creative arguments – a lot of the stuff that other judges write off as trying to be “sneaky” is the kind of stuff I like seeing in round. Well-developed debates over unusual arguments are a lot of fun. Actually, well-developed debates over any arguments are a lot of fun, but this is particularly true when the arguments get weird.

Disads: Sure, whatever. Politics is fine, so is whatever else.

CPs: I’m okay with a lot of CPs, with the exception being Consult CPs. If you’re going to run an Agent CP, ask about their agent in CX, otherwise I’m likely to buy a perm.

Topicality: I am absolutely pedantic about T. I love seeing a good T debate and have no qualms about voting for a well-executed Topicality argument, even if – especially if – the definitions that the Neg chose were a little bit out there. I am not a judge that you want to run a blatantly nontopical Aff in front of. That being said, I do tend to give the Aff’s interpretations on T more weight, since T can only win the round for the Neg.

Framework: I don’t like Framework arguments. I default to a policymaking framework and it will be very difficult (though not theoretically impossible) for you to get me to deviate from that. The Aff has to defend the resolution, and if they have a plan text, that’s just a specific means of doing so. I’m going to be skeptical about any arguments that claim to have an out-of-round impact.

Theory: By default, I tend to reject the argument, not the team. It’s very unlikely that this is going to change. I don’t particularly like judging Theory debates.

Kritiks: Theoretically, I like them. I’m not too well-versed in the literature, though, so if you choose to go that route, you’re going to have to slow down a bit and cut back on the jargon a lot. This should be pretty easy with stuff like Cap or Fem, substantially less so with stuff like D&G.

I’m also unlikely to buy anything where the link is dubious. If your link is to use of the USFG in general, you probably don’t have a link. The more specific the link, the better. Links to a claimed impact will do the trick, as will a link to a specific harm of the plan.

Performance/Narrative stuff: I don’t know how to judge this, so it’s probably not a good idea to read it in front of me. I don't have a lot of experience judging this, so run it at your own risk.

PF: When it comes to PF, I am a stickler for stasis. No plans, no Ks, no spreading, debate jargon is acceptable but I’d prefer if you’d discuss things in layman’s terms. I have strong opinions about this. You should treat me as if I have no prior debate experience, and only an average person’s understanding of the topic area.

I competed in speech, interp, and debate events for seven years. I competed for four years with Hightower High School and have judges HS debate and speech.

DEBATE

As a general rule:

I'm old school and like to see competitors stick to the boundaries of their debate events. I have experience in all of them and they should be quite different from each other. If you are in PF, then you should not be spreading.

Sign post, I always flow.

Remember, stacking evidence does not replace in depth analysis.

Show me that you understand what arguments are the most important.

Simply name-dropping an individual or a source does not tell me how their work plays into your case. Quality impact statements are necessary for good education in a round.

1) Be courteous- Please respect the intelligence of your partner and opponents.

2) Speed- go as fast as you want so long as you are coherent. I will stop flowing if U can't follow you. I will assume that the most important points will be said slowly.

3) Burdens:

Aff: must defend the resolution. prove the harms of the status quo or that an alternative proposal is better. When proposing an alternative, do explain how the harms of the status quo are resolved.

Neg: has to negate the aff case or negate the resolution as a whole.

4) As always no new arguments in a rebuttal

SPEECH

1) Let your Oratories be speeches and not interps.

INTERP

Unique interpretation is the most valuable element. If I see that your interp is copied from the internet, it's an automatic down

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 32 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well-signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP, and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond rejection.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding-based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree except at UIL tournaments where the rules forbid it. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. I will not vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

LD Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are sometimes out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a huge fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down. When there are policy-based resolutions, they often get my vote.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

PF Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have. In PF in particular, I think slower debate is better since the intent of the event is for everyone to be able to understand it.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the pro wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the con wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, you put yourself at risk of me simply judging on policy impacts.

EVIDENCE- I think paraphrasing is fine, but be sure those that paraphrasing can be defended with actual correctly cited evidence.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- In my opinion, there is very little time to flesh out arguments like this in a PF round, so unless they are extremely easy to understand and carefully linked to the resolution, I would prefer debaters not use them.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- While the arguments do not have to be labeled as advantages or disadvantages, in most PF rounds I actually weigh impacts to make my decision so regardless of what you call the arguments, you should impact out this way.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- In my opinion, plans and CP's are rarely a good use of the limited time in PF. Occasionally, CP's work if they provide a counter-narrative to the resolution.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss-based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the con to sit on the right and the pro to side on the left.

1/8/24-edited to update years experience

I competed in LD for 4 years at Clements High School and qualified to TFA State twice. UT’18

Argumentation:

·      I have been out of the game for a year so I’m a little rusty, but as long as you’re stating what your argument is and how it functions in the round, you should be good. I’m fine with good traditional frameworks, plans, CPs, DAs, GOOD Ks, and most other things.

·      Some things I’m not the most familiar with: topicality args, pre/post-fiat args, skep triggers. Again, if you articulate what these are and what you’re trying to do with them, I will vote on them.

·      Most stock Ks are fine, but I’m not too familiar with very philosophy-dense critical arguments, so be extra clear as to what you’re advocating or I’ll be lost. Be clear with your philosophy in general.

·      Don’t like pre-standard arguments too much as they’re usually blippy claims, but if you must run them, label them so.

·      I will vote on theory if there’s abuse in the round, but I don't feel that theory should be used as a strategy to win the ballot. I default to reasonability and drop the argument unless given a reason otherwise. I also don’t vote on presumption args.

·      Won’t vote on morally repugnant args (rape good, etc.)

·      Read what you’re comfortable reading! Just make sure I understand it.

Delivery:

·      Deliver how you’re most comfortable. Some strategies (e.g. standing up vs. sitting down) may affect volume and perceptual dominance, but it’s all up to you.

·      I’ve never been the best at flowing speed, so be sure to slow down during tag lines and authors. I’m fine with going fast but I’m nowhere near accustomed to the CX speed, so definitely no double breaths. I would say that my comfort zone is about a 5 or 6 on a speed scale of 10. Also, signpost effectively or you’ll probably lose me.

·      I’m really not a stickler on speaks; just try to remain fluent and perceptually dominant. That being said, unless you say something offensive, are rude, or lack composure and stutter like crazy during round, you’ll get high speaks.

·      I prefer clear extensions to help me weigh the round easier: extend the claim and impact and tell me why it matters in the round.

Miscellaneous:

·      Weigh your arguments! Make the decision calculus clear and well warranted and you’re Gucci.

·      Don’t presume I know everything. You should do the work for me.

·      CX is binding.

At the end of the day, I hate judge intervention. Debate is an activity for the participants to strategize and execute however they wish, as long as their arguments are courteous and sane. Just tell me why you’re winning the round and have fun!

I did speech and debate all through high school and college. I have been to NSDA Nationals multiple times in LD, Congress, and DX. I grew up debating in Texas and have about five years judging experience in LD, Policy, and DX.

Overall:

• Fine with spreading, I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand you. By the third "clear" I expect you to slow down. For policy and nowadays LD, no double breaths, super distracting and it's never going to help you.
• Do not lie in round
• Should go without saying but be nice to your opponent and the judge.

POLICY PARADIGMS -

- I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I don't flow it. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.

- When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like.

- If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.

- Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

- Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

- I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.

LD PARADIGM -

My background is in LD and so I love judging it. I want to know that you know your argument, the philosophy, etc. Like I said above, I am fine with spreading but be clear.

• Impact calc is a must here as well.
• If the round comes down to definitions, make sure you're clear on why your def. trumps.
• I see who wins the value/criterion debate and then view the arguments through that lens
• tell me the links to everything
• I like seeing clash, make sure you address what your opponent said. If there's gaps in the flow I'll see that as a concession.
• Fine with K and T for LD.
• Spreading is fine, be clear.

Excited to see everyone compete. Good luck to everyone.

About Me: I graduated from Clear Brook High School in 2014, where I debated LD years on the TFA/TOC circuit. I did FX for 4 years as well, on the TFA/TOC circuit

General Preferences: The most important thing for me is always clear arguements, both in hearing it and understanding it. No matter how objective your victory should be, you will lose if you havent adabted to me and convinced me of it. Be clear and treat as if im not flowing.

Voters: This is ultimately what I make my decision off of. If you don't make why you should win clear to me here (no matter how much you should objectively win) you will lose.

Speaks: Be clear, courtious, and consise. A great speaking style can go a long way in perceived dominance in round (which def has an effect on voting). I do enjoy quick paced speaking but **If i dont understand anything, I will completely disregard it.** I will not say "clear". Categorizing arguments, specially numbering. When you number arguements I can understand easier, and it helps a lot, most with voters. Slow down on key/vital points (Tag lines/Plan Text/Etc.)

Tabulsa Rasa: I will take any argument that is argued well. I  don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments (e.g. extinction good or oppression good) However, this can easily change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc).

Cross Examination: You must extend args to speech to matter. I dont care about flex prep but you have every right to refuse Q's during prep. Look at judge. Dont be an ass.

Framework:  opposing framework (as the neg) isnt required. Linking into a winning framework is. No impact weighs outside a FW, and its through the lense of the winning framwork that I will win the round. Super-fw arguements need to be explained clearly.

OffCase: I love substantive offcases that make sense, or even more farfetched arguements when executed correctly. I don't like arguements that are convoluted and meant to put your opponent in disarray more than have a debate.

Theory:  slow down and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell. Make sure there is abuse in the round. Still, don't make it obvious that you're just running theory when you don't know how to debate substance.

NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. Abusive ones only require a short rebuttal to for me to disregard them.  If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them.

Extensions and Signposting: Do not extend authors or cards. Extend an argument; be clear and include the warrant (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). No "shadow extending," (extending arguments by just talking about them in round) Signposting is vital - I'll probably shuffle my flows a lot if I'm lost.

Outweighing: Please make Timeline vs Magnitude vs Probability arguments when outwieghing.

Timing: I will roll prep-time (start at end of speech/cx, end when speaking starts). Time yourself, don't rely on time signals. I will police going overtime, give "fist" signal if you think your opp. is over time.

tl;dr

• Adapt or lose
• Be clear or disregarded
• Any point is valid unless rebutted sufficiently
• Look at me during CX
• Impacts must link into winning FW
• Only use of FW unless argued differently
• Abuse should be argued against clearly
• Signposting/Extending is vital.
• Extend arguments/ideas not cards/titles
• Bonus: my facial gestures = Live feedback on
• Take into advantage

Langham Creek '13
UT '17

Background: I debated for Langham Creek High School and I am now a student at the University of Texas at Austin. I competed in PF, in which I qualified to state in. Don't let my background stop you from doing what you would like to do. I always do my best to keep my own personal ideologies out of judging and understand the arguments you choose to run. Btw this paradigm is mainly written for LD but I mainly judge PF so feel free to ask me for paradigms before the round in PF but the general philosophy, speaker points, and other stuff sections probably have some relevant information in them.

General Philosophy: I think debate is a fun and interesting activity, in that it provides a unique forum for students to discuss a variety of topics in an educational manner. I will vote off most types of arguments as long as they are well-warranted and impact back to some sort of weighing mechanism. A clearly articulated weighing calculus is a very easy way to my ballot. It is your job as the debater to do the work for me. Keep a clean flow i.e. roadmap, signpost, etc. I use the flow as a tool to help evaluate the round but ultimately I must be convinced of the argument to vote off it.(I think my PF background heavily influences me on this) This means that I probably won't call for evidence after the round unless I really really need to come to a decision. I find that it's always best to do what you do best. Ultimately, just be nice, be funny, be you, and have fun. 

Speed: Speed is usually fine. Clarity is always more important than speed. I will yell clear twice before docking speaks and also before I stop flowing. I ask that at the start of your speech, you don't go super fast, but rather give me time to warm up and adjust to your speaking. Emphasis and ethos really help me not tune you out and understand your arguments better. Also, please slow down for tags, authors, and dense material(I actually really mean this. SLOW DOWN A LOT for tags and authors or I will miss them). Remember that if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. Also, don't spread through speeches needlessly. Just win the round. 

Theory: I haven't seen enough theory debates or have enough background in it to default to a certain paradigm. In the rounds I have judged in which theory was run, I find myself only buying theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than reject the team. Theory read just as time suck for your opponent will cost you speaks because I think there are far more educational ways to win rounds. Given that, if there is clear abuse, I will evaluate theory. However, if you were to just make an abuse argument to throw out that argument, I would also buy that assuming it's not a huge argument that you're claiming is abusive. Feel to argue against my view of theory, I will certainly listen and evaluate your arguments. However, I would make sure theory isn't your only offense in the round. If you choose to run an RVI, make sure there is actual offense linked to the RVI, which means "I meet" arguments would not justify an RVI. Also, be very clear explaining the RVI and the impact of it on the round and give me clear weighing analysis between the standards to minimize the amount of intervention that I have to do in the round. 

Policy Arguments: These are generally okay given that each has all the necessary parts. Don't read recycled DAs or CPs that don't have specific links to the resolution. I won't vote off them and will lower your speaks. Weighing through a clear impact calculus is a must to these arguments. Don't be surprised if at the end of the round I find a lot of the debate here a wash because there was no evidence comparison and weighing. Also, be sure to spend more time explaining links to extinction scenarios and make sure they're reasonable. 

Critical Arguments: I haven't read any critical literature, but I do find them to be interesting so I will vote on such arguments. Because i'm not familiar with the literature, you're going to have to slow down a little and spend more time making sure I understand it especially the alternatives. I prefer Kritiks with specific links to the AC with an alternative, as opposed to generic Kritiks that can be recycled on every topic. 

Speaker Points: I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. The easiest way to win speaks for me is through humor, strategy, and confidence. Making the round easy to flow and follow will also win you higher speaks. I don't want to be the guy who stops you from clearing because of speaks, so after the round tell me and I will grant you speaks accordingly (somewhere between 29.5-30). Other than that my range is typically from 28-29. If you make racist, sexist, or straight up asinine comments in round, I will give you a 20-25. Debate is fun and educational. Don't make it a hostile environment or I will tank your speaks and potentially drop you. 

Other Stuff: 
CX is important. I will listen to CX. It's an easy indicator if you actually know your case and what it's saying. Use it wisely. Ask questions, don't make speeches. 
Be sure to impact your extensions. I give the AFF leeway for this in the 1AR but the 2AR should clearly explain the impacts of the arguments you extended and how they function in the round. 
You don't need to be winning everything and you're more than likely not going to win every issue in the round. That's okay. That is why it's important to weigh between what you're losing and what you're winning to make sure it's clear what the biggest arguments are at the end of the round. Thus, framework becomes important. I don't think I do a good job deciding on which framework is better mostly because my personal, subjective beliefs become more relevant even though I try to stay objective. So just make it clear on why you're winning the framework. Also, typically framework and pre-standards aren't really voters. They mostly tell me how to evaluate the round in terms of the actual offense. Framework has offense that's linked to it that are voters. But just because you win framework usually doesn't mean that's enough to win the round. Make sure you're still winning the actual offense linked to the framework. 

Arguments, I will reluctantly vote for (with low speaks): 
1. Skepticism
2. Presumption
3. Unwarranted Pre-Standards
4. Unnecessary (Time-Suck) Theory
5. Arguments read just to confuse your opponent (and potentially confuse me)

Tl;dr-
Just do what you're comfortable with and do what you do best. Be smart, be persuasive, and use your common sense. If you think that it might be a bad argument then it probably is. Have fun. Don't be a jerk. You should be fine. 

As always, this is just basic information, but if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Thank you and good luck!

LD Debate is values debate.

 Framing issues are often more important for my decision than minor drops. This does not mean I do not appreciate good technical debates- I think this is a very important part of any debate- but it is the debaters’ responsibility to provide me with a lens for how to evaluate technical details.

Spread responsibly

LD is still values debate

Three main things I evaluate

1) Framework and pre-fiat arguments

2) Evidence Comparison: give me reasons to prefer your evidence especially to set the record straight about something.

3) Impact Calculus

Topicality is something I will vote on

Kritiks must have an alt. it must be clear through Cross X and Speech what the world of the alt looks like.

The Kinkaid School (2014)
University of Texas – Austin (2011)
Mercedes High School (2007)

I probably approach debate with a little more interest in how you are communicating ideas to me than simply the ideas you are communicating. I tend to place a stronger emphasis on persuasion, clarity and depth of analysis than debate “strategery,” i.e. reading as many cards as possible as quickly as possible without much analysis beyond that. This isn’t to say I’ve never voted quantity over quality, but it doesn’t happen often.

You’ll find that I will follow, flow and like your debates better if these things occur:
- You are organized and signpost well.
- You slow down on tag lines and, at the very least, pretend to care about the arguments you are reading
- You don’t rush through one-line hyper-technical arguments like theory 
- You frame the debate clearly, by telling me what arguments matter and why
- You are responsible with your arguments and kind to your opponents

I like debates the best when there is a clear explanation of what it is I’m supposed to do. Tell me what to do. Tell me how to vote. Tell me why you want me to vote that way. Absent those kinds of instructions, I’m likely to defer to however it is I defer in any given debate round, and this could frustrate you. So, tell me how you want me to view and understand things. I’m not telling you to read framework, but I am telling you to frame the debate. Do that kind of meta-analysis that explains how arguments interact and how they should lead up to a decision in your favor and you’ll make me as happy as a clam. As a result, you’ll rarely hear me complain about an overview in the 2NR/2AR. 

I despise debates without clash because I’m ultimately left debating the issues myself and that annoys me greatly. 

While I’m likely to prefer a good “K” round over a good “policy” round, I would prefer a good “policy” round over a generic/bad/confusing “K” round. At the end of the day, I want you to be smart, avoid cheap shots and make good arguments. 99% of the rounds I debated involved “K” arguments, so I tend to approach debate with that kind of background.

I imagine this philosophy may leave something to be desired, so you should feel free to ask atsydney.vanberg@gmail.com and I’ll adjust my philosophy as need be.

Updated: 12/19/18

Unfortunately, my old judge philosophy has been deleted from wikispaces. I'll try to be brief here. You are always welcome to message me with questions on Facebook or send me an email.

I debated on the TOC/TFA circuits several years ago for Dulles High School. I judged at many of the larger tournaments for a while in college, but I have since essentially stopped judging rounds altogether.

Short version: I will vote for anything that is not sexist, racist, etc. as long as it links back to some sort of decision calculus. Your job is to outline what that decision calculus is and weigh back to it throughout the round.

Longer version: Since I am out of the activity, please give me time to adjust to your top speed. I will call slow or clear if necessary. In high school, I primarily read policy arguments. CPs, DAs, Ks, T/Theory are all fine, but again weighing is the key here. I default competing interps/RVIs but can be persuaded otherwise. I am not familiar with dense, philosophical literature. If you are reading something of the sort, slow down and explain it in detail. I give high speaks for strategy, humor, and being nice.

Have fun, good luck, and see you at the tournament!

I debated for Spring High School, in Houston, all 4 years of high school. I am a double major at the University of Arkansas (Philosophy, History). My beliefs about debate have drastically changed from what they were when I competed. I will evaluate whatever is run in front of me; however, you should be mindful of my personal preferences about specific arguments as well:

Some General things

·      Speed: Please know that I am not the best at flowing. I have no problem saying “clear” or “speed” a few times if I cannot understand or can’t flow your arguments. Be cognizant of this and help me, help you. Because I am bad at flowing, tricks and spikes have a poor chance of making it on my flow, so if there is something you want me to hear SLOW DOWN. If it is not on the flow I will not vote for it.

·      Debaters who can combat the spread in a slow, communicative way impress me.

·      I no longer find it necessary to provide a traditional value/criterion framework structure. Just be sure to give me an explicit standard to weigh offense with. 

Policy arguments

I am probably most comfortable judging these types of rounds. You MUST provide a solvency advocate if you plan on running a plan/cp. To be clear, I don’t think that you will solve 100% nor will your opponent so it becomes a matter of who solves the best/most. Additionally, please weigh your arguments!! If you don’t, I will be forced to do the weighing for you and intervene. I tend to think that conditionality is bad.

Kritiks

Chances are I will understand whatever philosophical content you use. However, you should not assume that I know what you are referencing or how you are applying it to the round in question. Rejection is typically not a sufficient alternative in my eyes. Furthermore, these debates, in my experience, get very muddled very quick. As such you should slow down and explain how the argument functions in round. Getting my vote with a K is probably harder than winning with other arguments, but if you do I will reward your speaks.

T/Theory

I have really come to enjoy T/theory debates. It is extremely important that you slow down for these arguments. Standard comparison is a must. I find it difficult to vote on an RVI, but it has happened before.

             Theory:

I default and am easily persuaded that it is a matter of reasonability and to drop the argument. Education trumps fairness. In all honesty, I don’t believe that fairness is a voter. These are just defaults, and they are exactly that, I will evaluate whatever you run. Disclosure theory seems to be an argument that evades debate and therefore, is not one that I am particularly fond of.

             Topicality:

I default that this is a matter of competing interpretations, that education trumps fairness and that I should drop the argument.

Speaks

You start with a 28 and it goes up or down from there based on your clarity and strategy.

I am pretty much open to whatever you want to run. If you have any questions just ask, and I will be happy to clarify.

 http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Xiong%2CShawn

I'm an international teacher and former debate coach.

6 years judging at local, regional, and national tournaments

General: I'm a traditional judge. I like to evaluate stock level issues of the topic. Just make very clear weighing arguments and argument interaction. Please do not read any off position cases that are adapted from policy debate.

Speed: Please don’t spread. Moderate speed is okay, but I will not tell you clear. If I miss an argument, that is on you. So be conscious about your speed.

Specifics:

PF: I prefer to judge this style of debate. What was said above basically applies here. I will vote on offense with the best impact weighing.

LD: I will vote on the offense to the winning framework. Generic frameworks i will understand (ex: Util/Structural Violence. Remember, STOCK. So no progressive arguments like K’s. Plans/CP and DA i am ok with. General above applies here as well

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

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

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

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

Interp. Paradigm:

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

PF Paradigm:

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

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

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

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

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

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

CX Paradigm:

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

Congress Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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