Refutation is extremely important, but I am primarily a stock issues judge. I love speed as long as it is understandable. I will keep a perfect flow so I do not like debaters who are all over the place. Be organized and be clear with analysis.

I am primarily a stock issue judge, but if you have any argument that is supported with evidence and has structure it will have standing in the debate. I want to hear Topicality, DAs, Counter Plans, and Theory if it works in the round. I think there should be new args in the 2NC; however, keep in mind that in a round there should be evidence read and applied/explained in your own words throughout the debate. I also want to hear impact calc in the debate and your reasons for why you should win the round especially in the rebuttals.

I believe that in a debate round the AFF team has the burden of upholding their entire case and the NEG has the job of breaking it down. I will not listen to spreading or Kritiks as they do not help produce education through debate.

I tend to be a fact and evidence based judge. I find opinions and assertions unconvincing in the absence of such evidence. I want to see a clash of Core Values, and engagement on all contentions. Dropped arguments will be judged accordingly. I use speaker points typically as a way to separate otherwise evenly matched arguments.

Bring me supportable, well researched contentions and you will have a good chance to emerge the winner.

I'm a tabula rasa judge; I will evaluate the round based on what I'm told is important. The only prerequisite is that you are kind and professional, and remember that debate is about fairness and education, which is the easiest way to access my ballot. I am perfectly fine with speed, as long as you signpost, and any arguments are good with me. Thank you for your time and for allowing me to judge.

It’s your responsibility to convince me as to why you should win my vote. I will not do the work for you.

I am open to any type of argumentation in the round. Stock issues, DAs, CPs, Kritiks, theory, etc. are all acceptable. Make the round as simple or complex as you’d like, just keep it interesting. To me, a competent, in-depth analytical argument is more convincing than just reading a card.

Kritiks require a little more work for me to vote neg on. Prove to me why they are issues that need to be addressed, why they should be held as more important than other viable arguments, and, most importantly, why you should win for bringing them up.

General

colinami@live.com

Last Updated: January 2025

Quick Stuff

My name's Colin

Clash, clash, clash! Explain, explain, explain!

CX heavily influences my perception of an argument

Assume I know 0 literature

Post-round is fine (depending on tournament)

Sympathetic to novices

Debate is for education, debate is for fun

You need evidence!

Non-negotiables

Blatant racism/misogyny/homophobia/transphobia/etc -> lowest speaks + L

Clipping claim -> one team gets lowest speaks + L

Do not lie to me.

Speech times and CX times = tournament standards

I will not evaluate anything that happened outside of the round/pre-round disclosure

General Preferences

Be nice and kind

Precision > prose

No time-wasting arguments

Too much jargon makes you to be harder to follow

Offense defense thinking means a happy judge

Argument = claim + warrant + impact

Stake an argument, give evidence to back it up, and then EXPLAIN WHY IT MATTERS

Tech > truth

If you are straight up lying to me, i will not flow your argument and you will hear about it.

If your argument obviously lacks connection, it loses weight

Cross applications should be verbal

Spin > evidence quality

All links are fine, but closer to plan bad = better

Fairness is impact if fairness leads increased participation/changing opinions

I don't care much about evidence ethics arguments that don't change substance/spin

Speech/argument etiquette preferences

Start with a roadmap- tell me your arguments and the order to expect them

Helps with the flow, and is just good courtesy

Slow, precise, deliberate

Quality > quantity

Every argument introduced should matter

Kick out of arguments if you think you're losing them

No time-wasters: don't make me lower speaks

Explain each argument and why I should care

Tell me how to vote! Say the words "You vote on this"

Kritiks

I don't like them, will almost never vote on them

If you seriously want to try, though

Ks should either rely on a causal chain or indict AFF's entire thesis (i.e. running cap bad on cap good aff)

Framework > everything

I want something tangible by default

EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENT THOROUGHLY- run me through it

If you clearly don't understand your argument, you lose the K

The K is your argument- you do not get to use it to overwhelm

Topicality

Probably my favorite debates

Caselists, please

You are probably not factually correct

I weigh limits/predictability vs arbitrariness

Reasonability is technically strategic but means nothing to me upfront

Counterplans

Specific counterplans, PICs, re-highlighted-1AC-card advantage counterplans = great

I'm like 60% aware of what functional/textual competition is -> go slow

Probably won't reject competitive CPs

If you have an internal NB/process thing I need to know what the key difference

I default to judge kick

Good for creative perms if explained well

Disadvantages

Politics DA is certainly an argument!

Specific DAs are great, awesome, beautiful

Turns case should be contextualized to the AFFs internal links, not just impact cards

1NR with spin and less cards >>

Idk what intrinsicness is, explain slow

Case

Contesting case is good!

If the 2NR goes for case, 1AR is binding

Theory

I didn't touch theory in high school- assume I know nothing about it

Misc.

Inserted re-highlightings are fine

Don't read into my facial expressions!!

If I don't look like I am flowing, I am not flowing- slow down

I will treat CX as binding unless both teams or the tournament disagrees

I will flow CX regardless

Hesitation is defeat

Might forget to set timers

Feel free to ask for clarification before the round! I intend to be in the room early

CX (Cross-Examination): As a policymaker judge, my inclination is towards evaluating arguments based on their policy implications. However, I am open to various argument styles and will not dismiss them solely based on personal preference.

Topicality (T): Topicality arguments are acceptable if they are well-structured and avoid sloppiness. While I appreciate topicality, stacking multiple topicalities is not preferred as it may lead to confusion and a less effective debate.

Disadvantage (DA): Disadvantages play a crucial role in shaping the debate. I expect DAs to be specifically tailored to the affirmative they are addressing. A well-articulated DA can significantly impact the overall debate.

Kritik (K): I advise new debaters to approach Kritiks cautiously. However, I am open to well-founded K arguments that make sense and are presented efficiently. I am yet to see a strong K argument, so surprising me is encouraged.

Framing: While not a strong advocate of framing arguments, I am willing to consider them if presented coherently and effectively. Convincing framing can influence how I evaluate the entire debate.

Case: Case extension through each speaker is crucial. Lack of repetition may be interpreted as a dropped or unchallenged case. Thoroughly addressing and attacking the case is key to securing an advantage in the debate.

Counterplan (CP): Counterplans are welcomed, but execute them properly. A well-run CP can enhance your position, while a poorly executed one may result in skepticism and reservations on my part.

Speaking: Speak at your desired pace, but clarity is essential. If your opponent struggles to understand you, it is their issue. However, if I, as the judge, cannot comprehend your arguments, it becomes a problem. Effective transitions, clear plan/case statements, and optional roadmaps contribute to a more favorable evaluation.

Flowing: Explicitly stating the flow and reasons for doing so is mandatory. Failure to do so may result in issues with my understanding of the debate. While roadmaps are not obligatory, they can significantly aid in maintaining a structured and organized debate.

Spreading: If you are a spreader, providing a copy of your case is preferred. Failing to comply upon request may impact your speaks. Keep in mind that I cannot effectively judge without access to the necessary materials.

Overall: My role as a policymaker means I prioritize arguments with tangible policy implications. Effectively highlighting the strengths of your case or demonstrating the counter-productivity of the opponent's case is crucial. While I consider various argument styles, proving the validity of your claims is imperative for a favorable decision.

LD:I've done LD for a year, but I am not as familiar with it as I am with Policy... That being said, everything I said above also applies to LD. If you run tricks, I will probably not enjoy it (99%), but feel free to surprise me. If you run philosophy, please just don't. Treat me as that policy judge who doesn't like LD. Give me mostly Clash pls and walk me through everything.

Other:Just be fair lol. The UIL circuit allows internet. More experienced debaters are likely to have an advantage but don't be mean, and adherence to rules, such as no side-coaching, is expected. I will start running ur prep time if I hear you talking outside of your speech, switching laptops, silently communicating with your partner in any form, etc. This is all silently enforced and I will not give warnings. Prep time is available for you to prepare your speech, so listen to your opponents when it is their turn.

I debate for UTD ('28) and previously debated for a small school in you guessed it! The middle of nowhere! (I still know a bit about debate though, I promise.)

I currently coach for: Athens and Dallas Highland Park

add me on the email chain: robunderdebate at gmail dot com

last update: 3/3 (t-usfg/FW)

Top Level stuff

tech>truth, but I also have some places where I find myself evaluating the bigger picture of the debate and not all of the ticky tacky arguments that others feel justify a win or a loss.

I think EVERY argument has a time AND a place - maybe this policy debate round is the place, maybe it is an argument that applies to the aff, but not strategic in policy debates, who knows... that is the question of the debate right?

I find it silly for judges to say that they won't vote on particular arguments, and then exclude arguments that they find morally apprehensible (unless there is some bigorty involved - then the round is over and you lose) - I think that if an argument is wrong on a moral level/truth level, you can read it, but I also think that these arguments have a hard time winning debates and I am VERY easily persuaded to vote against them

I want you to tell me how to vote and explain it to me. (i want to take the path of least thought/resolution that I have to do to the ballot). be clear. be nice.

I am a blank slate going into the round, I throw out all prior knowledge of IPR, the way the government functions, the political environment of the country. THIS GOES FOR K'S ESPECIALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! (just bc I know ur lit doesn't mean that I will give grace for bad lit explanations)

decision process: I look at the top level issues of the 2AR/2NR - answer those questions, and once I find an answer I will move on - I close the doors... however some doors have windows or structural issues. This effects how I frame the rest of the debate in my mind - if I have too many questions, I keep searching for answers, and if I don't have an answer to the question from the team that poised it, then it may not be a persuasive - I will look at the specific parts of the debate post-decision if you ask me, but they probably did not have an effect on the way that I decided if I do not already have some mention of them in my RFD - If in my general RFD I cannot explain the reason I made a decision a particular way to a particular team then that team likely confused me, and their arguments went over my head. I like explaining worlds of debate where I can understand what is happening - if I cannot explain it back to you clearly, I will not vote for it. I also make decisions pretty quick, I think about the debate as the debate happens and close a lot of the doors during the 2AR - it has no indication about the level of the debate

you can go as fast as you want, but I will not be forgiving of unclear speeches, I am not going to look at the doc unless you tell me to - please just be clear. - if i cannot understand you, I will not flow it- I will clear you TWO TIMES -I also flow on paper most of the time - if I miss something and it isn't on the flow but it is the biggest part of the 2AR, I will let you know in my decision.

I don't want to read your evidence, and I probably won't. I generally don't want a card doc. It is YOUR job to explain it to me, after all debate is a communicative activity.

--------------------

Specifics

I know that debate is hard, it is exhausting, it can be unhealthy at times, and I have so much respect for you all who show up to these things, and with that, I am open to all questions after the round. However this takes place after my ballot is submitted so being hostile with me will not do anything except make me grumpy. I am open to admitting when I am wrong. I, as all humans, make mistakes, overlook something, or mess up completely. I just ask that you be nice about it and respectful when you tell me that you think I made the wrong decision. I have been in your shoes, I know how frustrating it can be, but taking a breath and thinking about your question before asking can change everything.

probably don't steal prep! I might (will) tank speaker points!

I am not interested in voting on anything that happened outside of the round ( This only pertains to personal issues. The lines here are blurry... disclosure? yes. personal beef? no. bigotry? maybe. I also think that you should be consistent in your argument choice, if your aff is about debate changing something and you read FW on the negative, I am somewhat persuaded by this as a form of solvency takeout.)

There have been a lot of influences on the way that I think about debate, a lot of my knowledge and opinions come from/are informed by the goats Sam Gustavason, Erik Mathis, the UTD debate team, all of the folks I have interacted with, and the folks that I coach.

--------------------

policy debate stuff

I think that all approaches to policy debate are fun and can be rewarding in their own individual ways. I have a bit of experience debating every "side" that policy debate has to offer - I have no real thoughts about the way policy debate should work - i don't "hack" for one argument or another - they are all fun and cool, and all have a time and a place. I may read the K, but I also cut a lot of policy cards for the high school level - I have a general idea of the topic and the way that it works, but I also think there are a lot of nuances that I do not understand so err on the side of over-explaining IPR

as it goes for FW or T-USFG, I think that education is a real imapct, fairness probably not so much, clash is maybe an impact in a particular situation but also an internal link to education. from the aff I am persuaded by strategies that talk about ethical forms of education, and from the negative I am persuaded by arguments about why talking about IPR (the topic) is better

--------------------

LD Stuff

I did LD for a quick second (one semester) my senior year - I do not know much about the way in which LD works, but I do know how policy debate works so take that as you will

I am probably not the best for Tricks - I will get lost in the sauce and probably drown on the way (but I think it would be silly for me to say that I am Tech>Truth and not vote for it)

I am probably good for the K

I am probably good for whatever policy shenanigans you folks get into

I MIGHT be good for Phil, idk, test the waters, see where it goes

--------------------

PF Stuff

... am I in the right room?

email:

vasquezamandarenee@gmail.com

-- add me to the file share -- please send speeches --

CX/Policy:

No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments.

Speed : I don't care, just make sure I can understand if I don't have the doc. Signpost and clearly read tags. Also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow. Watch me/my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I'm not following you, and the only saving grace is the speechdrop/file share.

SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. SIGNPOST THROUGHOUT THE ROUND

Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with (IE CP, K).

I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument. It lets me know you know what you just talked about.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING TEAM DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

LD Debate

No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments. I will say that I don't have much experience for "progressive debate" so keep that in mind when developing arguments. If I can't understand it, I can't vote on it.

Speed : Know your circuit and the expectation. I don't want to hear spreading in a UIL round.

Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. Aff/Neg or Neg/Aff.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING SPEAKER DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

I will also add that VERBALLY SIGNPOSTING is big for me. Make the body points super clear. Also, I love when you tie your hook back into your conclusion. It makes the whole speech feel very well rounded.

Interp

I don't mind extensive blocking, nor do I mind profanity as long as it serves a dramatic purpose (basically don't cuss just to cuss). I also try to evaluate on "topicality". I need to understand in your intro how you link to the category you are reading. The more you can look up from your book the better! Don't completely ignore it, but I want to know you are familiar with your piece.

Overall, I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

CX:

As a judge, I start with the stock issues, but then I am a blank slate. I want to hear good clash on the arguments in the round. Outside of stock issues, I will flow anything you explain well. I'll entertain CPs, DAs, Ks, and Theory as long as you give me a different framework by which to judge the round.

This is a policy debate. Topicality starts with the Constitution, and if a plan is unconstitutional, I want the neg team to call it out and explain it. Federalism is also a core tenant to consider in our system of government.

I will judge your round based on the rules of whichever circuit the tournament is affiliated with. UIL debates will be different from TFA or NSDA. If the circuit does not allow open CX, I will not.

Debate is a speech event, so while I will flow spreading, if I cannot follow your case because of rapid delivery, I will stop flowing and your speaker points will suffer.

My ballot will show you what I flowed. Comments in Roman characters are about the case and arguments. Notes in italics are suggestions or related to speller points.

Good Luck and have fun!

I am a new judge with just a handful of CX rounds under my belt. However, I have a good understanding of the UIL rules and have completed NSDA Level 2 Accreditation.

I am comfortable with a quick rate of speech, but I won’t be able to understand your points as well if you utilize spreading. I will take some notes, but I can process your argument without writing everything down which allows me to also stay focused on your style. I prefer a good combination of argument and style, and I leave my personal biases at the door.

You are welcome to track your own time, but I will also monitor time so please be clear when you start and stop a speech or prep.

I look forward to meeting you and judging your round. Good luck!

General

neonzheng41@gmail.com

Put me on email chain if possible

University of Texas at Dallas

Debated for 3 years at Midway High School

Judged for 2 years

He/Him

Debate well, have fun, be respectful

Quick Stuff

I am ok with spreading as long as you go slow on the tags

I do not flow CX

If you have any questions, feel free to email me after the round or ask before the round starts

I won't keep time

Non-negotiables

Blatant racism/misogyny/homophobia/any other kind of discrimination is ground for 0 speaks and an L

Presumption always flows neg by default

General Preferences

Argument = claim + warrant + impact

Tech over truth, cross apply evidence for me, I will not do it for you when looking at my flows

Specific evidence > general evidence for any argument

T

if you have a graph, I might not be able to see it on my screen, so assume that I can't see it

AFF:

Have a caselist of affs excluded by T

Try to have a plan specific counter interp

Neg:

Have an overview of what is on the T going into the neg block

Counterplans

Any CP is fine, but CPs with warrants are not i.e. CPs with only a plan text

Default is that CPs are textually and functionally competitive

Disadvantages

Will vote on any DA as long as there is an uniqueness, link, and impact

Turns case and impact calc are very important in the neg block for a good 2NR

Analytics for DAs are good, just go slower if you want it on my flow

Case

For both sides, articulate your cards. Don't just restate the tag of the card and for me to understand the implications of the card to the round

Dropping case in 1NC is an aff win in most cases

K's

I understand Cap and the gist of Baudrillard. If you want to run K's, by all means go for it, but make sure I understand what is going on during the 2NR/2AR.

Theory

Not too familiar with this area, will vote on it if you decide to go for it