I would like to think that I have a decent understanding in all base forms of argumentation, and do not prefer one over another. That being said, I default to stock issues unless told otherwise, I’m a policy maker at heart. Note that I am decidedly NOT a game theorist and will not vote for fundamentally absurd args even if you have a piece of obscure niche evidence to prove that it is the most advantageous. AFF- tell me what you're doing, what's uniquely effective about your plan, and why voting for you is the only reasonable call. NEG- prove them wrong, either solvency or harms is your best bet but T is an often underutilized tool.

All good with spreading, K, theory, any and all technical language you feel like using as long as everyone in the round has a clear understanding of what is going on. I will not vote on poorly constructed ideas made up of excess jargon. Content is the most important part of a round, but argumentation style is extremely important. My job as judge is to be able to listen to your speeches and vote on the best team. I much prefer a simple off case with solid presentation than for students to try and throw out as much as they can fit into 5-8 minutes.

If there is an email chain, please add me with oliviaddiaz06@gmail.com but I am equally happy to join a drop box, this is actually preferred. I will ask for evidence to be shared before each speech and would prefer if emails are sent during prep time; However, I'm not picky if evidence is shared in a timely manner. If feedback is allowed by the tournament without revealing the decision, I will share my thoughts. If not, find me after and I will answer any questions y’all may have to the best of my abilities. This is an educational activity, and I want all debaters to do well.

Have fun and be respectful. Good luck!

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

He/Him

Conflicts with Hendrickson HS

I did CX (TFA and UIL), extemp, and info.

Call me whatever, preferably Isaiah or Judge.

Add me on chains ! - isaiah.duvvuri@gmail.com

Speech

I will focus on structure and content when judging, but your body language and confidence matters just the same.

Logic and synergy between your subpoints matter the most, and make sure you are actually answering the question.

It is ok if you have brain breaks, take a breath, start from your last line and keep it pushing.

CX

Tech over truth, so I will do my best to disregard my preconceived notions and biases when judging. Both teams should write my ballot for me, and I will do my best to sift through y'alls own debating to find the technically winning argument.

That being said, my experiences in debate make me probably 65% a K debater and 35% tech, but do not let that stop you from running whatever you want. That is just to say that I can more confidently adjudicate some types of debate better, but I will not bring my own biases into the arguments you present to me. I am confident that I can judge any round no matter the style, but not confident you will effectively debate if you try to match my past experiences.

Have fun, don't be a meanie pants, I love speed (but I love clarity a lot more), open cx and prompting are great (not in UIL rounds), don't steal prep bc I will time (but you should time yourself and your opponents to be safe), and don't cut cards (or cheat at all !!!).

I don't want a card doc, just refer to evidence by name if it matters and I will look back at it when evaluating the round.

I've found that great analytics win rounds over bad cards a lot of the time, so please don't hinge your strategy on sucky evidence.

If you have any questions, I heavily encourage you to please ask before round !!!

Aly Mithani, Shauri Yedavalli, David Do, and Lawson Hudson have great paradigms and they have heavily impacted me in debate.

PUBLIC FORUM: Tabula Rasa ; Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

POLICY DEBATE: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; I'm okay with running Ks, as long as they are well explained and topical

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

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

TFA STATE:

PUBLIC FORM: I'm a Tabula Rasa judge on the surface and a classic debate judge in my core. Progressive debate is okay with me. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. I expect each round to be educational. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues , and my own expertise / knowledge.

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

UIL CX STATE:

I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. Frameworks and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I expect each round to be educational. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues and my own expertise / knowledge.

PHILSOPHY:

SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely understand your PLAN by the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SOLVENCY! USE FIAT WISELY.

NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. ALL ARGUMENTS MUST LINK TO THE AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with AFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED.

BOTH: WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

I was a CX debater at UTSA in the late 1980’s. I’m just now getting back into debate through coaching.

I am comfortable with fast speeches if they are clear, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. I have no qualms about voting for a policy that would normally be considered "absurd" as long as one of the teams can prove it in the round.

I have a low appreciation for evidence spewing. I shouldn't have to read your cards to understand what you are running. Also, don’t take cards at face value. Some evidence may sound better but are you sure it’s quality sources, etc.

I am familiar with many philosophers, but my ballot is determined by how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence, theory, etc. Be conversational and persuasive. I want to understand what you understand the debate to have meant.

I don’t favor technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round, especially if you dropped it too. You have to remain consistent: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round. However don’t presume to tell me how I should vote. Tell me how you win the point, not what you think *I* should do.

Be polite before, after and during rounds to partners, opponents and me. This means I don't want accusatory CX questions.

This is a speech event, so I am also looking for poise, confidence, eye contact, humor, etc. if you want big points.

I competed in Debate because I enjoyed it. Don't kill my love of debate because you take yourself or your opponents too seriously. Let's have fun.

email: mitchellhagney@gmail.com

I think debate has lots of epistemological value, though I have voted that it is bad and should be destroyed more than once. I competed at the TOC and NDT, but eventually stopped debating to work in sustainable farming. Today, I farm as the head farmer for the San Antonio Food Bank (www.safoodbank.org), operate of a hydroponic farm and coworking kitchen space called LocalSprout (www.localsprout.com), and push local policy change to advance a sustainable and equitable food system through the Food Policy Council of San Antonio (www.foodpolicysa.org). I made these choices as a direct result of a decision-making style that I got from debate.

Evidence quality is important to me. +.1 speaker points if you mention a methods section in your or their articles.

For critical affs, teams that admit to being outside of the resolution need to describe what content and arguments debates would feature if their interpretation were adopted wholesale. It's best if that sounds like a version of debate where both sides stand a chance and is pedagogically valuable. There need to be strong answers to a topical version and reasons why awarding the ballot in a certain direction is good.

I miss the diversity of structural Ks debate used to feature. For those critiques, I like to know what the alternative looks like or why the details aren't important.

For counterplan theory, in each round there is an amount of conditional negative advocacies that is beyond the reasonable amount of testing the aff, which then degrades the quality of the discussion. Use your judgement on what that limit is. I don't like permanent/recurring inaction or attitudinal fiat. Solvency advocates are the best response to accused CP illegitimacy. If it was impossible to find a solvency advocate for a widely discussed aff, that's usually a bad sign. Multi-actor, international, and delay counterplans rarely seem to challenge the aff or the topic. They often put judges in a strange place between choosing between things no human has the authority over.

For politics DAs, I have a higher threshhold for the link debate than the community at large. I find fiat solves the link arguments persuasive if the aff requires that congresspeople change their mind. If it's normal means that the president expends capital to persuade them, I need reasons why that's normal means or why we should interpret the world that way. Delay, direct horsetrading, or focus links are different from usual political capital arguments and are often times more intrinsic to the aff.

Defense matters - No internal link, uniqueness overwhelms the link, empirically denied, impact inevitable - these arguments are some of the most persuasive to me and I am more likely to think you are smart if you say them.

I am likely to dismiss 2AR arguments entirely if I think they are new.

I usually make decisions based on comparative impact assessment. Relative to other judges, it seems like I pay more attention to impact uniqueness, which are often influenced by arguments like those that have been kicked earlier in the debate and turns case arguments. This is as true for critical debates as it is for policy ones.

My name is pronounced Leeee - uhh Where - ta

I did policy in high school at Winston Churchill, 2019-2023

Currently at UT ’27

Add me to the email chain: huertadebate@gmail.com

Top Level things:

Do what you do best.

Disclose to your opponents (good teams aren't scared of clash)

Do not be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, etc. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this behavior. Be cordial with your opponents. “If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.” - Yao Yao Chen

Do not say death is good in any context.

Please flow. It's a dying art. If you flow "on your computer"...stop. "A fairy dies every time you ask “Did you read x card”." - Natalie Stone

Tech> truth every time.

LD thoughts:

I'm fine with basically anything. The only things I do not like are tricks; RVIs and other fake arguments are annoying and bad for debate. Engage with your opponent and you'll be fine.

If you read more than 4 off (this is highly variable depending on the arguments you read) I will give you bad speaks. I believe to my core that you do not have enough time to develop these arguments and if you purely read them to throw off your opponent that is not a good strategy. Please engage with your opponent.

Please talk about the aff and not just the framing page. I need to know what I'm voting on rather than what lens to view nothing through.

If you have any specific questions it's probably answered in the policy section below.

Policy thoughts:

Case: I LOVE the case debate. Make it big if you can. Case turns, author indites, recuts/rehighlightings, responsive articles, any specific research makes the debate really fun and educational. I feel like everyone always forgets about the case page when it is supposed to be the “focus” of the debate.

Make it clean. Make it epic!!!!

I WILL NOT EVALUATE NEW OFF CASE POSITIONS IN THE BLOCK

Topicality: Really tough to sell sometimes but I applaud y’all who do it well. If it’s the 2nr you better have the goods. Please have real and contextual definitions from people in the field. I will default to that rather than a dictionary.

I default to competing interpretations rather than reasonability as there is no “reasonable” threshold or metric in deciding what is/isn’t “reasonable enough”.

Definitions that exclude specific actions rather than provide a caselist are more persuasive but obviously, both are great.

Disads: Severely under-utilized. Love em <3. I appreciate the in-depth research required for a good disad. Please have recent uniqueness.

Please have a specific link.

If you have an ultra-specific disad, I applaud you. Tiny debate is well-researched debate is good debate.

Counterplans: Love a really good creative counterplan. All are good with me, adv cp, actor cp, process cp, pics, etc. If you read a really generic one, I need you to have a really niche net benefit.

If you read a cp with a silly “internal” net benefit it better be real. Ie. “Do it this way because it will make x-thing better” is not persuasive. Please say something similar to “the aff causes x-bad-thing, and the cp avoids it.”

Kritiks: Preface: I am a K bro's worst nightmare. I have a VERY high standard for Ks. I was not a K debater and did not read much Kritikal literature. If you read a unique K I will need you to explain it to me very thoroughly or else I will have no idea what I am voting for. If you read something more mainstream ( Cap, Set Col, Fem adjacent args) I will have some prior knowledge but if you do not explain it well I will not spot you my understanding.

I need you to be ORGANIZED. Large stretches of text are boring and difficult to follow. Tell me where we are on the flow. Name links so everyone is on the same page. I am not a fan of big overviews with hidden arguments – I will not flow them. Put those arguments on the flow where appropriate.

For K affs - I need you to have a tie to the resolution and a thorough reason why the resolution mandates debaters to endorse/uphold/advocate for/etc what you are kritiking. I find really generic K affs quite boring but if you have something nuanced and in the direction of the topic, you’ve got my attention.

Framework – More often than not I will default to the negative in k aff debates. I need real explanations of your standards and actual responses. If your blocks don’t match up, I don’t care. Answer what is in the debate, do not rely on your preconceived answers. You actually have to think about what matters in the debate and most importantly WHY it matters to a “fair” model. Do not go for every standard in your final rebuttals. It only matters as much as you tell me it does.

ROJ/ROB: These arguments mean almost nothing at the end of the debate. I tend to default to the Role of the Judge is to decide who wins/loses and the Role of the Ballot is to indicate who won or lost. If you have a real reason why those should be different, you really need to sell it well.

For Ks on the negative – I need you to have specific links to the aff ie. Why does the aff action make your -ism worse or create a bad thing(s) for the world post-aff? It is far too easy for the aff to just say no link or win an easy perm if your link is just to the squo or a link of omission.

Floating PIKS – Do not lie to your opponents. If it’s a floating PIK tell them.

Theory: Generally, I need you to prove why the thing they did was actually bad or creates a really bad model of debate in the future. I’ll evaluate any theory arguments with some level of skepticism because you have to do an immense amount of work 90% of the time to prove violence.

Conditionality: I tend to lean on the side of "condo is good" with the caveat that all arguments need to be real and viable arguments. If you are an older team debating younger kids do not dump on them “for fun”. There is no real bright line for “how many condo is too many condo” because I think it is highly subjective to the debate itself, where it is, who’s debating, etc.

Random details:

I do not follow docs while you speak. I will open them after your speech to read ev. Please do not wait for me to receive a doc to start your speech.

Please do not send card docs at the end of the debate. I will ask if I want one.

I will say “clear” but if I can’t understand you, I will not flow you.

You will be able to tell what I think of your arguments as I am a very expressive person. Please do not take it personally.

“I won't flow things being said by anyone besides the person giving the speech.” – Ian Dill

Number or say “and” in between arguments ESPECIALLY analytics – walls of text are boring and hard to flow. If you want me to flow your arguments, be organized.

If you “insert” a case list or rehighlighting I will not evaluate it. Read it.

Hey, I’m Naade and I competed in policy throughout my four years in highschool, along with being involved in various other speech and debate events. PLEASE make sure to include me in the email chain using jamalinaade@gmail.com (Which you can also utilize to email me questions post-round). I am new to this topic do not assume I know anything. I’m kinda cool with spreading, just ensure that every tagline is loud and clear, and that you are not eating your words as you go. So, if I have a good understanding of what you’re saying, you’re good, if not I’ll say clear once and after that it will reflect on your speaker points. When it comes to analytics, be extremely clear and tangible, as I need to be able to flow the arguments to end up making an accurate decision in the debate. I’ve researched this years’ topic thoroughly, and am well-versed on it. Off the bat, I heavily value impact calculus and stock issues, and am almost always a tech over truth judge. Realism is important to me, but argue a K well and I’ll buy it.

Topicality: Topicality is not my favorite, but if the violation is not a stretch, and your voters is solid enough it is still something I would vote for.

CP: CP’s are extremely logical arguments to me, and for that reason I value them highly. If the Negative can adequately explain why they can do the plan, and the plan’s net benefit is inclusive of everything the Aff does, plus their advantage, then I am for sure going to vote for them. Make sure to not drop arguments and you can win on CP. Though, if the perm from the Aff is strong enough to overturn that CP, then you lose it. As Aff, try to keep the perms limited, I’d rather have one or two fleshed out permutations than a bunch thrown at me.

DA: Again, due to their logic, DA’s are heavily valued by me. But, if the Aff can disprove the link of a DA, you automatically lose it, and if they link-turn it, even worse. But, if you're the Neg and give me a good internal link it'll be hard for the Aff to beat. This is a part of the debate where I would love to see impact-calc and clash between the Aff and Neg.

K: This is all circumstantial. Depending on the K, and it’s link to the Aff, it can for sure be solid. But make sure the link is not too broad, otherwise you’re simply arguing your opinion without it actually pertaining to the Aff. I was a K debater, and have debated in favor and against afropress, set col, cold war, cap, governmentality, necropolitics, along with feminism to name a few. So, I’m definitely well-versed in this aspect I just want to see a linked K. On the alt, realism is not as important to me. For the Aff, the best thing I’d say is to always perm and attack the link, and if you can link-turn then amazing. Also, the impact for K's are usually something far fetched, so if you can throw in impact calc here that would be great.

FW: Framing the round and making it extremely clear what is important and what is not and saying EXACTLY why you deserve my vote is something I want to hear. I know you’ve read the word realism a lot in this ballot, but if you can convince me whatever way that you debate is good for education and debate space as a whole, then you can for sure get my ballot.

Conditionality: I side with the Aff here, do not run seven half-baked off cases and drop them mid-debate, I would rather have an in-depth debate on a few offs and you have a good back and forth debate filled with clash.

Overall, just be nice and respectful to each other and have fun and your speaker points will reflect that. Debate is a game so treat it like one!

UT 28’

Yashas Mallikarjun (He/Him)

BASIS Shavano '22 / Johns Hopkins '26

1N/2A

Qualified to the TOC senior year. Broke at NSDA, TFA

Email Chain: basisxm@gmail.com

I am not familiar with any topic knowledge or generics from this year! I am back in town so I am judging this tournament.

1. Mostly Policy --- My 1NRs ranged from Politics DAs, Process CPs, to Policy-focused Ks (Cap/Neolib). The affirmatives I read were mainly big stick, but I have gone for some soft left affs before. The fact that I was on the 'right' side of policy debate should not deter you from making progressive argumentation.

2. Framework --- Go for fairness if you are the negative. Clash is a good defensive argument vs education arguments. I do not have an ideological preference to either side, but I never read non-T affirmatives on the circuit, so make of that what you will.

3. Theory --- Reasons to reject the argument, not the team. Unless it is condo of course. My ideological predispositions are: Condo good. International fiat, object fiat, private actor fiat, and multi-actor fiat (not states) bad. However, I can be convinced otherwise for all the above with particularly well debating.

4. Counterplan --- Probably the most important negative tool. I understand competition debates. Smart permutations are a great way to beat back against process counterplans, then you will understand that they are not the scary thing that all policy debaters make them out to be. Agent counterplans good, Process counterplans good, and 50 state fiat is good. Again, I can be persuaded otherwise with all of the above.

5. Disadvantage --- Specific DAs are nice, but I understand if the topic gives you nothing. There is nothing wrong with states + politics if that is the case. Strong impact and internal link calculus is important when you are going for DA vs case, especially because the 2a will cheat you out of the ballot otherwise!

6. Kritik --- I am pretty familiar with setcol because it was often a central part of my negative strategy; however, that does not mean that I will give you any leeway to get away with explaining it badly. Contextual alternative and link explanation to the affirmative is always important. I am also not particularly persuaded by nebulous negative serving role of the ballot claims without any clear semblance of procedural fairness on both sides.

7. Topicality --- Evidence is important in topicality, rehighliting opponent evidence and vice versa will get you a long way in the interpretation/counter-interpretation debate. Predictable limits is the gold 'standard.' The way I evaluate topicality will be decided in the round, i.e. under an offense-defense paradigm/competing interps or reasonability. I see a case for both. It is up to the debaters to convince me on what paradigm I should use to evaluate the topicality debate.

8. Speaks --- I am not familiar with how they are given out these days, but I will try to stay in the 28 - 30 range. Of course, I will give speaks out based on the quality of argumentation, not the style of your speaking. If you want a 'slower' policy debate round let me and your opponents know, and I will attempt to make it happen.

Have fun! I do not tolerate any type of discrimination or cheating in the debate space. Don't clip! I will know if you do.

Mercedes ISD (2013-2019) 2A/2N

UT Austin (2019-2023) 1A/2N

__________________________

Short Version: Tab

I'll vote on anything as long as its impacted and developed well. I think debate should be about the engagement between teams' arguments and what they ultimately mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other.

Don't be racist, sexist, ableist etc...

Any mention of Sexual Assault, Self Harm with any language requires a TW - I'll dock your speaks if you don't

email chain: benjaminnoriega9@gmail.com

__________________________

"Long" Version:

People that influence the way I think about debates: Sammy Healey, Zach Watts, Pia Sen, Will Coltzer, Brendon Bankey, Azja Butler, Will Baker, Texas DK, Jose Alaniz, PJ Martinez

My own thoughts:

I think debate can be a lot of things, but at its core it’s a space for teams to have interesting and impactful discussions about differing perspectives. That being said, I believe that it’s important for teams to demonstrate their ability to explain a clear narrative and deploy that narrative to generate offensive arguments against their opponent’s position.

I think there are a few things that teams can do to grab my ballot:

1.) JUDGE INSTRUCTION: I think it’s to your benefit to explain to me what I'm supposed to do with the things you have said. There are questions that I need answers to (What does the aff do? What does alt/cp do/why is preferable? What is the role of ballot and how should I use my ballot? Etc.) I also think attaching offense to your judge instruction can be useful in swaying me a particular way, especially for K teams. Clearly define what action I should take given the comparison of impacts and offense in the round.

2.) FRAMING: I was a big FW debater and think that winning the FW debate coupled with clearly articulated judge instruction is a slam dunk for me most of the time. Framework determines how I evaluate other portions of the debate, so even if I think your winning some compelling arguments, you need that FW push to justify prioritizing those arguments. A 2AR/2NR centered around what voting for your framework and evaluating the debate through that lens means in the broader sense paired with an offensive comparison of the arguments on the line by line proper will help me gravitate towards voting you up.

3.) OFFENSE: Forwarding a few key pieces of offense with a clear explanation of what they mean in terms of you're opponent’s arguments is necessary for me in terms of impact calculus. It’s also important for you to recognize and problematize your opponent’s arguments and not let this portion of the debate become two ships passing in the night.

4.) This is me (ask anyone) but BE PETTY: I am here for the spice, and you will be met with bonus speaks. You’re there to win, and you should let it be known. This is also super helpful because moments like these can open opportunities to exploit your opponent’s reactions and the way they articulate responses to these moments. Read my Wiki, you’ll see how out of pocket I was, there really is no limit to the things I will vote on.

Random things about me that may or may not be useful to you and your ability to adapt to me:

1. I was mainly a K debater, read policy in High school, went for Cap for like 9 years and was a Policy 1A for a little under 2 years in college…don’t really keep up with ‘TIX updates, read a lot more K lit.

2. Mainly went for Cap, Racial Cap, Disability, Frame Subtraction, Petty RVI’/IVI’s, and PIKs.

3. I flow on paper…’cause that matters to some people.

4. Truth over Tech

5. Once again, check my wiki – your judge’s wiki tells you a lot.

Random thoughts about certain positions:

Framework/T USFG – Been in this debate many times, and I think for me, it centers around a question of offense against your opponent’s model of debate. If at the end of the day your model of debate may have some imperfections, if you are able to problematize your opponent’s ability to resolve the offensive questions you have posed, and set up some defensive explanations about how maybe your model of debate could resolve to some extent the questions that may linger, even if only partially, I should default to your model of debate because of the risk you demonstrated is associated by voting the other way. I think big picture explanations are much more conducive to the way I think about these debates, however judge instruction and framing mean I’m pretty open.

K – Most familiar and preferred argument – lots of K tricks that can generate offense. Main questions I need answered are 1. What is the link? 2. How does the alt/permutation function? 3. How should I evaluate your arguments and what does it mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other? You should articulate a clear link and impact story that allows you to generate a beneficial narrative to push in the final rebuttal. K debates can also be benefited by being observant and reading the room, generating performative links, taking note of people’s reactions to things that are said, or using what people say to demonstrate your link arguments allow you to take the debate to a different level or mitigate your opponent’s offense by demonstrating performative inconsistencies.

DA – Not too many thoughts – DA turns the case when your Neg, Case o/w when your aff. The Link/Uniqueness portion becomes super important and should be coupled with in depth impact calculus. For a CP/DA combo, demonstrating the magnitude of the DA allows you to sell the “any risk of the net benefit” line better.

CP – The permutation is my main area of focus when it comes to these kinds of debate, no functional or textual competition probably persuades me to vote aff…that being said “perm do the cp” is cheating and lame. Net benefit work also needs to be done to the extent that I am willing to dismiss any risk of the aff, otherwise the permutation probably resolves any residual offense.I do need a little more help and explanation in intricate Process CP debates

T – Not my favorite debates, I think they become fairly generic by the final rebuttals. That being said, I have a couple thoughts:

1. Predictability is the internal link to all your terminal impacts, not a terminal impact in and of itself.

2. I am less persuaded by the Limits and Ground DAs as terminal impacts – I think limits controls portions of the internal link to ground and ultimately is a subjective notion…like is there really NO ground or just not the ground you want (Aff’s you can back file check and replace two or three cards).

3. I can be persuaded that risk of the case should come before T.

Random things that people may or may not like:

1. I’m totally cool with using CX as prep, it’s your time.

2. I think Condo is probably a good thing but that’s not a set-in stone notion.

3. CX is binding – these are things you have said to explain and defend your position, they can and should be used against you if you open the door.

I have some other random thoughts so feel free to ask questions.

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

Hey Guys, I'm Ashu Panda I've been involved in debate for over 3 years, I was heavily involved in policy but have competed in almost every type of debate. Spreading is fine as long as the taglines are loud and clear. I am heavy on technicality over truth, I believe that it is the competitors job to explain, contextualize as well as explain to me true impacts and weighing of the round. I love analytics so please read them slowly and If i can't understand them, I will not be able to flow it. At the end of the round, each side should pretty much write my ballot for me at the end and outline why your "plan" is better. (Any references to demon slayer within round is .5 speaker points).

Email Chain: panda.ashutosh44@gmail.com

Policy Debate:

Topicality: I love topicalities, and run as many as you would like. I will always listen to why the negation should not be allowed to run that many topicality arguments but that is up to the affirmation. Always indicate standards and make it clear, if not clear- then I will not flow or weight that argument in the round. Always compare Topicality arguments and weigh them for me instead of having me do any work.

CPs: CPs are very interesting to me and is an easy voter for me if neg is able to explain the Net Benefit as well as the Mutual Exclusivity. Perms are good from aff, but need to be clear on why they are good perms or why they go for that perm. Simply claiming 8 different perms with no explanation will not be weighed. If the neg can't defend the perm or perms, then aff wins.

DAs:DA and CP paired together is amazing, love specific links especially if it connects to Aff's case. If the Aff is able to provide a no link or non unique argument, then aff wins. A Da needs clear impact as well as an impact chain, these make it easier to weigh the DA. Aff's case can also outweigh DA overall.

Ks: Framework is very important, without a fw i cannot make a decision as I don't know whether I am voting for good policy or whatever the neg may be advocating for. Prioritize Framework as well as make it clear in the contextualization as well as emphasize why the K is important. Alternative needs to be present and it can be contested by Aff, both sides need to be very clear on why the K is essential or material policy is.

FW:Both sides need to give a framework. without framework from one side means I default to the Framework that is given to me. Explain to me why it is essential for the round to be evaluated in that manner in comparison to bad and good policy changes- compete frameworks and explain why I should prefer one to another.

Condo/Theory: Run whatever you would like in this, I am used to theory as well as condo, give clear standards and be able to outline why that theory is essential!]

Cross X: I do not flow this unless repeated again in the speeches, Be nice to each other!!! No reason to get heated within CX and attack the case, not the person.

Public Forum:

in the works

If you have any questions please ask before round.

Hey Guys, I'm Akshath I've been involved in debate for over 3 years, I was heavily involved in policy but have decent experience in other forms of debate. Please include me in the email chain, my email is akshathprasad05@gmail.com. Spreading is fine, just make sure the taglines are loud and clear for me to follow, but it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. Please please please read analytics very very slowly and clearly so I can understand, if you don't I simply will not be able to flow them. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow if any or given. I have a decent knowledge of this year's topic. I am a technicality over truth judge and I definitely play impact calc into my AFF voting decision. Think of me like a blank slate, it is the debaters' job to educate me with all the information.

Like any other judge, I love well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments, quality over quantity any day.

Topicality: I was never too much of a fan of Topicality, if you are a team that goes for T please explain it thoroughly and why I should vote for it, walk me through the T's. Make T arguments interesting, and take it to another level.

CPs: I love a good CP, CPs are game-breakers to me and I will very much vote on a CP if the NEG can easily explain to me the Net Benefit and the Mutual Exclusivity. Perms are great responses from the AFF, Explain to me why the CP can be permed and if the NEG is not able to explain why the PERM fails, AFF wins CP.

DAs: Just like CPs I love a good DA, emphasize the Uniqueness, link, and impact, extend the DAs throughout the neg block, and keep on pushing them. If the AFF is able to provide a solid non-uniq argument or no link, AFF wins DA, but once again the neg needs to find ways to counter this. I prefer specific links to the DA over broad links.

Ks: Ks are very interesting to me because if the K is solid I will easily cast my ballot for the neg, prioritize the framework and the role of debate and focus a lot on the theory aspect. Frame the debate space around the K, but if the K is too sloppy and not properly organized and read I will most likely not vote for the K. I love a great K. Expand on the Alternative and the link, please please, please. I love Roll of Ballot arguments when they are connected to K's.

FW:Arguably the best part of the round, is framing the debate round in the same way as your arguments. emphasize ROB

Condo: not really a fan of

Brandeis 23'

UT Austin 27'

IE

I am comfortable judging any speech event, but am best when I judge extemp and oratory. I favor content and substance over style but believe that both are important in speech rounds.

Congress - I judge speech content/presentation over procedural skills. I will strongly consider a PO for advancement unless they are acting in an unfair way or significantly struggling with recency. Remember that where you are in the speech cycle impacts what your speech should be doing.

CX Debate

I try to be open minded in arguments but with this topic I have been more drawn to traditional policy case arguments and disads. With that said if you prefer to run kritikal arguments be prepared to show solvency arguments for the affirmative advantages. Too many people cannot explain what the K world looks like and I do not like it when K debaters go down the rabbit hole without a clear idea of what the world looks like.

Do not run T as a time suck only.

Framing arguments are crucial.

Some speed is ok but I have old coach ears, if you move too quickly. If I cannot hear or understand it. I will not flow it.

LD

I try to be open minded but I hate progressive debate for the sake of progressive debate.

Some speed is ok but understand that historically LD was created as an alternative to CX Debate. In the final set of speeches you need to slow down and explain the argument that you are going for and why you should win the round. If you are spreading in the last two rebuttals it will not impact win/loss but it will impact your speaker points.

I look at arguments over presentation and believe that criterion are especially important.

Do not run generic link disads or K arguments. The evidence needs to have specific links and specific impacts to the resolution and the value/criterias used in the round.

I do not buy CPs in LD rounds since there is no presumption in LD.

Since there is no presumption in LD, negative must run a case and value/criteria not just respond.

Debate is a uniquely adept at developing critical thinking skills, fostering open-mindedness, and sharpening articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thought as well. It’s far more important that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any argument as long as you can tell me why you win it. I’m good with Ks, I’ll vote on T, do whatever you want as long as you can defend it. (Seriously, I ran extinction good regularly, a counterfactual aff, delay CPs with international politics scenarios nearly every round, a Taoist performance K, Zombie apocalypse scenarios, and a Burkian pentadic rhetorical analysis of 1AC as a piece of literature, etc.) It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events.

Good line-by-line and organization is extremely important. Don’t frustrate me with careless and sloppy speech structure. If you don't answer an argument, it is conceded. If you don't extend it, it’s not extended.
Don't spread analytics like they’re cards. If I don’t hear it, you didn’t say it. And if I can’t write it, I might forget you said it. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency is how you make up time, not by being faster than you are clear. If you’re super super quick and also clear and easy to flow, then by all means. But most of you ain’t.

I want good overview and synthesized analysis in the 2Rs. Draw me a blueprint of how these moving parts connect and interact one another to make your win machine make a win. And then do good line by line.

I debated CX on the national circuit in high school, and policy and international parli in college. I have judged tournaments for 18 years in debate and also contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools.

CX Paradigm: I am a policymaker judge; I am most likely to decide the winner of any given round based on which team has most cogently and coherently argued that their position results in the best policy for the USFG. This means that the AFF must prove their case is better than the status quo and/or the NEG's counterplan. I am unlikely to look favorably on a perm/do both strategy. I will vote on a Kritik that proves substantially that it will enhance some given policy need of the USFG. I'm not likely to vote on a Kritik that enhances participation in Debate, or society as a whole, unless it links directly to the stated point of the round. Debate is a speaking event, and I don't hear as well as I once did, so if you're mumbling or slurring your speeches, I can't vote for your argument. I can understand you if you spread, but if you're sacrificing volume and clarity for speed, it could cost you the round. Rudeness can cost you speaker points

LD Paradigm: LD is not policy, LD is an argument on morality. You should establish a value and criterion for your side of the round. A round which has clash on these points makes a good debate. Clash is better than rehash. If you don't attack your opponent’s argument I will not make the connection for you. Explain warrants. Impact your arguments. Use comparative statements and weighing in last speeches.

Extemp Paradigm: ANSWER THE QUESTION! Answer the question you drew, not the one you wish you drew. Give a coherent, clear response that is definite. Use sources for each of the main points you are making in your speech. A canned, forced analogy that only vaguely ties into the topic annoys me. Movement is ok in the virtual realm, but don't get too far from mid screen. Make sure your lighting is good, that I can see your face.

Interp Paradigm: I'm always happy when interpers give me clear, compelling characters that pull me into the piece. HI's that are gimmicky and wildly overblown are NOT my cup of tea. You can be humorous WITHOUT being ridiculous. I like to see levels. If you start at 11 and stay there the entire time, it doesn't show versatility.

OO Paradigm: Give me a great opening that pulls me in. Lay out what your call to action is. Guide me through your points. Use solid sources for your evidence. BE PERSUASIVE! Movement is ok in the virtual realm, but don't get too far from mid screen. Make sure your lighting is good, that I can see your face.

INF Paradigm: Let me know why I should be listening to your topic. Give me that little pop that makes sit up and think "Wow, that's COOL!" Make sure your speech is well organized. If you are using props, make sure they ADD to the info, not distract from it. Try to use props seamlessly. Movement is ok in the virtual realm, but don't get too far from mid screen. Make sure your lighting is good, that I can see your face.

Vanguard Debate, The Kinkaid School

NDT Doubles

ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

The aff should read a plan. The neg should disprove the plan by demonstrating the status quo or a competitive alternative are preferable or the plan is not topical.

I am not here for spurious critiques of assumptions, tricks, or RVIs. I am willing to vote for non-consequentialist normative frameworks, but I find these debates uninteresting and they are not my forte.

The negative gets unrestricted access to unlimited conditional advocacies.

Last updated: Spring 2024 -

I'm a third year student at Trinity University studying Sociology and Education. I did college policy for 2 years at Trinity and competed at the NDT twice reading both policy and k positions. I did primarily LD and Policy in Highschool, but have experience in most events.

I'm also currently an assistant coach at Basis Shavano in San Antonio (2022-).

Please add me to the chain --- wwalker1@trinity.edu

Please create the subject in this format: "[Tournament Name] [Round number] [aff teamcode] v [neg teamcode]"

Please have the email chain and disclosure done before the round begins.

Tl:DR: Do what you do best, I'm open to evaluate anything. I recognize how much effort teams put into this activity and take judging seriously, my goal when judging is to provide a comprehensive and thought out decision in any given debate I judge.

I do start from the position that the 1AC should establish some advocacy and mechanism to justify it, and the neg should forward some reason why the 1AC, 1ACs model of debate, etc. is undesirable. This view is certainly not set in stone; my decision is always based on what happens within the debate, but without an alternative way of viewing the debate, that is how I default. Winning offense in the last speech and weighing it against other offense in the round is really what is most important for me. LBL and warrant analysis is everything.

I prefer quality over quantity when it comes to evidence. High quality, well researched and applied evidence means much more to me than dumping a tons of low quality evidence. Making explicit comparisons to the quality of evidence when responding to cards is very appreciated and makes breaking ties between arguments far easier for me. One excellent piece of evidence can beat a dump of trash cards.

Speaker points - They are based on the strategic decisions made in a debate. Effectively collapsing, weighing, and making your line by line easy to follow is how you get good speaks in front of me. Please signpost, i find it hard to follow debates when there is minimal or subtle signposting. Please make it explicit so I know where to flow.

I flow on my laptop but don't flow of the speech doc and won't even really look at it during the debate, I'm entirely listening to the words you say for my flow, This means I value clarity more than raw speed.

I have noticed I'm not a speaker point fairy. I think what's really most important to get good speaker points from me is executing a well thought out strategy. I think this also needs to be supplemented with really good evidence. The teams that get high speaks with me have a very solid strategy from the 1NC/2AC, and they executed it with cards that have highlighted warrants and good explanations and extensions in the latter speeches.

Topicality & Theory - I really love technical T debates. However, I think many teams don't execute it very well which makes it frustrating to judge. What's most important to me in these debates is judge instruction and warrant explanation. As in, I find these debates normally leave me with a lot of questions that could easily be resolved with better impact calc, as well as better line by line the teams actual warrants. Essentially, when these debates are super block heavy and/or aren't executed well, it can be frustrating to evaluate. When reading these positions, please just clean it up in the final speeches and articulate a clear interpretation of what debate should be like, how they violate it, and why it matters with impact calc that explains why your thing matters.

Disadvantages & Counter plans - Not much to say here; I really like these strategies a lot. Well-executed policy strats make me very happy, and you shouldn’t be afraid of reading your process counter plan or disad + case strat with me in the back. As long as you can explain it, I should be able to hang. Ask specific questions pre-round or email me.

I think extending the counter plan into the 2NR does not automatically forfeit the ability for the judge to weigh the net benefit + status quo against the aff. Its a question of what the best policy option is that are being defended in the 2NR and 2AR. I think most of the weird ambiguity with when I should or shouldn't judge kick the counter plan can be resolved by more judge instruction, but as a default, I treat judge kicking the counter plan as a logical extension of conditionality and will default to it unless told otherwise.

The K - I enjoy well-executed critical debates, but I have found that I really dislike when they are poorly executed (aff and neg). I've spent most of my time in debate, reading, and learning about the K, and I really enjoy it. Rather than just listing off all the lit bases I've heard of or read, I'm just going to say that I am down for anything you can explain. Explain to me what debate is, why we should (or shouldn't) be here, and win offense. Technical debate does not disappear in K debates without some justification for why I should abandon the flow, but that would itself require the flow, so it's an uphill battle for me. Also, I'm a massive fan of K v Policy debates, they are what I have thought about the most and feel most comfortable evaluating.

I appreciate Kritiks that function as impact turns to affirmatives, they are very persuasive to me. I prefer these styles of Kritiks more than when the alt is just framework. Not that I am opposed to those flavors of Ks; I just tend to like Kritiks with large substantive components.

In K debates, I find that teams that don't establish a clear articulation of what my ballot does normally don't win in front of me. This looks different depending on what position you are going for; however, I think what it really boils down to for me is explaining what my job is, how I'm supposed to view an argument or debate, and a clear articulation of what I do with an argument if it is or is not won. This is really what makes the difference between a confident decision and an unsure or confused one.

K v K - I appreciate these debates immensely and am always down for it. These debates can be incredible, but the issue often comes down to weighing and clarity in establishing how offense works. When these debates become both sides defending a truism it can be impossible to feel settled in any decision, generating offense and linking it to a role of the ballot, judge, or any other framing mechanism is really important to me. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask.

T-FW/USfg - I don't think affs necessarily have to be instrumental defenses of policy to be topical. I really love these debates when done well and there is lots of clash on both sides. I really enjoy when affs have creative definitions of topic words for their counter interp. I think the most persuasive framework 2NRs capitalize on switch side debate or the topical version of the aff, Clash is a tiny impact so explaining how your model can solve or mitigate most of the affirmatives offense against framework is a persuasive strategy when going for framework.

Just for reference, I have defended, coached, and judged both plans and planless affs throughout my career and love a good clash debate. I am absolutely willing to vote on framework against planless affs and will not hack one way or another.

LD -

Phil - This is where i have spent the least amount of time thinking about in debate. I am totally fine with the basic common frameworks, and okay for presumption and permissibility triggers. I'm most well versed in the Util v phil debates, so if you are not planning on reading that, err towards over explaining your arguments.

K affs in LD - I find teams often don't execute and/or allocate enough time to the fwk sheet to realistically win the debate by the 2AR. This does not mean that you should not read critical affirmatives in front of me; on the contrary, however, I think the 1AR should be much more offensive in most k aff debates that I judge.

Tricks -I require a high level of warrant explanation for arguments like this because I think most tricks don't actually have warrants. Presumption and permissibility negate unless told otherwise. Tricks need to still be extended correctly with a claim warrant and impact; if there was not a sufficient level of explanation of the argument in the 1NC/AC and it was pointed out, then that would likely be sufficient to answer most tricks. I'm also likely to be extremely persuaded by any criticisms of trick debates or just some dump about why I reject them, which would likely be sufficient for me in most instances.

Note: I think it is almost impossible to win skep in front of me, absent it being almost completely conceded. I won't hack against it, but the 1AR uttering the words "pascals wager" and "morally repugnant" will always be wildly persuasive to me, and I don't think there is a skep debater that will be able to explain to me why it is not unethical.

None of this is to scare you away from reading your tricky 1NC; what the debate is about is always up to the debaters, but you should just be aware that I have a higher threshold for these types of strategies execution wise than other judges might.

If you still have any questions, please email me or ask me before the round!

PF - All that is above applies here. I have no experience with 'progressive' PF. I am very familiar with kritikal arguments and theory arguments, and I am not opposed to these arguments existing in PF in principle. However, my expectations for a competently run kritik or theory argument are not different, and I will evaluate these arguments to the same standard as I would any other argument. I'm not well versed in any PF jargon or techne. I am also not convinced that PF can facilitate a quality K debate given just the structural time constraints unless teams are willing to completely forgo cards and have actually done the reading. Feel free to prove me wrong.

He/Him

Judge or Shauri is fine, if you call me Mr. Yedavalli or sir part of my soul will wither away

Add me on chains - hendricksondydebate@gmail.com

Did policy debate + speech events at hendrickson hs, current student at UT Austin not competing in anything

Extemp:

I usually don't pay much attention to things like body language as I spend half a speech typing and will instead try my best to focus on content and the logic of your analysis within subpoints.

Make sure you're effectively analyzing why these subpoints matter, I think some people fall into the trap of just trying to make it down their flow and that leads to pitfalls when it comes to synergising components of a speech with one another, you should be explaining to me why your subpoints and the analysis of them supports your point and answer to the question at just about every opportunity.

LD:

I'll understand most of what you talk about, but I honestly have no clue what a trick is so I'm probably not the judge you want to run it in front of, unless you like explain it to me pre-round or something and believe in your teaching abilities.

I'm decently familiar with k lit bases but try to explain your K like I have no clue what you're talking about

PF:

Tech > Truth

Do your thing I'm a policy kid but that probably means I'll have a higher standard for progressive pf stuff. If you run it well though then I'll vote on it.

Most of the PF theory I've seen looks incredibly shoddy and focused on indiviual events rather than standards, I'm not sure what the community thinks is best practice here but I'll probably judge theory the same way I would in cx or ld looking at it at a meta level of whats good for the resolution and the debate space so in a round where a big school runs disclosure theory I'm not as receptive to rambling about how that school is weird for running it while having resources as much as I am an argument in the abstract about structural unfairness between big and small schools in debate with the real tie in potentially augmenting it as an in round abuse claim or something.

Have fun, try to gain something from your rounds, and be chill.

Worlds:

Please do your best to stay organized in some consistent manner down the bench, I make my best effort to flow rounds and keep stuff in mind but it is made infinitely harder to do so when debaters randomly switch between cases, contentions, and arguments in a consistently inconsistent manner.

I know truth over tech is a world school norm so I will try to follow it, but I will give a decent amount of leeway to any technical wins a team gets especially in rounds where I'm personally predisposed to one side of the debate given that I think topics are all too often slanted one way or the other

I will be more game for a "shady" framework strategy than most likely will and will readily judge a definitions debate but the way you should do this in front of me is by focusing on meta level reasoning for each of your sides and why a resolution with your framework/definition/model/whatever is good for the topic (education, clash, reasonability, framers intent, etc..). A team going against a framework that they feel unfair should use their first speech to implicate why it harms the resolutions debatability and impact it out rather than simply saying it's biased.

Please use your POIs - but don't barrack - My favorite part of this event are the POIs, on the speech giving side I'd say take 2-3 I won't care about how many you reject throughout a speech if you do but on the listening side take every opportunity you can to call them out for stuff and push them to respond in a way other than "I'll get to that later in my speech".

A team not responding to prop arguments in the first opp speech isn't a functional concession - it's a suboptimal strategy but not one that means they auto lose a round

Something that feels incredibly common in world schools and debate rounds in general is acting like you're opponents arguments are the worst version of themselves and debating that argument. There's a few issues with that:
• I am at least partially aware of what an argument is and you spending 8 minutes debating a worse version of it will likely not successfully gaslight me

• It gets you whammied in later speeches when you completely ignore the core of an argument to instead focus on periphery areas and leaves your rebuttals without ammo to extend

• It isn't perceptually great to spend the entire round punching down at arguments that again I'm aware are usually not that bad, instead I'd implore you to use a high-ground low-ground approach or an even-if approach where you combat an argument at different levels based on how much of it I buy so then you can actually win a round even if you lose one part of it because you've given me warranting for why your logic is triumphant 'even-if' I buy something that they are saying

• Debating a quality argument even if it doesn't really exist makes you better at debate and inherently makes speaker points higher, so if you are convinced you're arguments are miles ahead of the other teams still treat is as a competition throughout all the speeches

Try your best to actually clash with what your opponents are saying using comparative analysis- Going to a claim they make then extending a counterclaim you make isn't clash it's two boats passing one another in the night. In order to win rounds that are in the balance you need to be able to articulate why their warrants backing their claim are incorrect and why yours are correct - this should be the core component of your speeches and what you really dig in on doing. A ton of blowout rounds are decided upon an opponent dropping an argument and a team capitalizing on it but in the rounds that are done well you need to engage in the actual debate part of debate to make your arguments stick

My rfds will be similar to that of a cx rfd wherein I explain my thought process on arguments then explain why that results in me voting a certain way on the entire debate, feel free to ask any questions after the round reflexivity is how debaters get better and even if you feel that I am wrong on something and my answer to the question confirms that feeling you may gain a better understanding on how to present your ideas to judges in a way that they understand

CX:

Top Level stuff

Overall I'd put myself at about 60% K debater and 40% policy debater so you should probably just run whatever, that being said I'm really bad about knowing K lit bases so don't assume I'm gonna understand more niche k topics or an author who I've heard the name of twice in passing.

I got indoctrinated into policy debate by Aly Mithani so if you want a better paradigm just look at his and imagine a more K version of it

Being fun is fun, try to enjoy yourself during rounds, make jokes and stuff, try to care a little bit, it just makes tournament days go by a bit faster so it'd be cool if you weren't a cx robot but if not that's cool too I guess.

If you're stealing prep trust me I'll notice, stare at you and take off speaks.

Open cx, prompting, spreading are all chill but my flow is mediocre so if your gonna do a card doc try to be clear on analytics

I'll follow along with your doc and read your cards

I'll probably forget to start a timer at some point so time yourself and your opponents

If your a varsity debater hitting a novice you do not have to destroy someone new to the activity to make yourself look/feel good your not gonna lose the ballot or anything but I'll just be bummed out and you'd probably prefer that the person filling in your speaks is not bummed out.

Don't be a bad person - y'all can figure out what that means

Biases

I think condo is probably good, and if a team that everyone in the room knows is losing goes for theory I'll have a harder time being objective on it

If you read an RVI I will unconsciously and consciously take you less seriously for the rest of the debate

I think competing interps > reasonability, but T v policy aff is something I'm not great at judging and if it's muddled I'd probably be biased by if I just think the aff should be part of the resolution

As someone who has only been a 2N I have a neg bias when it comes to most things about the model of debate cause I think the neg side is already on the short end of the stick

Entertainment bias: I kinda just like seeing more creative strategies and usually it'll help speaks in particular eg (against planless affs running a pik that displays research instead of framework + cap, or adv cp with 1AC ev as a solvency advocate)

If your opponents read something that you'd think any slightly competent judge would ignore (i.e. absurdly random and subjective procedurals) feel free to give a thumbs down and move on. On the other side if you read one of these your kinda just throwing away time.

Framework/T-USFG

I evaluate this through a lens of offense-defense of each teams model of debate

Aff teams have to give a clear role for negative teams within their model of debate and should be able to adequately differentiate that from if the sides were just swapped in a given round because ssd just solves that

I think debate probably is just a game (I read K's against warmakers all of last year but will definitely pick up the phone if Lockheed Martin gives me a job offer). Though at the same time being stuck within this space probably does change your subjectivity at least a little bit (I'd feel kinda bad about working for a hedge fund)

Fairness isn't a terminal impact and definitely is non-unique but it's the aff teams job to prove that; clash > fairness

Remember this is about a model for the entire debate space not just how this round should've gone - negative teams have to make it clear that their model of debate makes the space as a whole better.

T

I will evaluate all T arguments mostly from a competing interps standpoint unless you give a compelling reason to evaluate it on reasonability (prefer reasonability isn't compelling)

If you do read a T even as a time suck - it is your burden to provide a case list if you're not able to give one then the aff will win on that flow 95% of the time.

I lean more towards limits than aff ground because I see policy debate as inherently aff biased.

Evidence quality matters otherwise it's a race to the bottom

Neg teams using clash have to explain what ground they are losing because of the affirmative or just why it makes the research burden too high to clash with well.

In order to win a T debate you must explain why your model would be better for debate examples are good for this but including one or two examples with a good explanation for its value is significantly better than spamming examples without reason

Ks

I'm into Ks, I think they're fun and (usually) good at educating debaters. That being said I'm definitely not as well read on as much K lit as I should be so if you go [X author obviously means Y] it will not be obvious to me. Also buzzword spamming is kinda weird but I should be able to get what your saying.

If you are running an identity K and you're demonstrably not within that identity I understand that as a debater you're a vessel for your scholarship but optically you do kinda lose the inherent moral high ground you get by reading a K

I don't really get why perf con doesn't justify severance on a reps K, but if you can give me a good reason then I'm down cause it (probably) is good for education.

Perceptually I don't really like seeing one-off K teams completely ignore the case debate in the neg block imo it just supercharges aff framework offense, in the 2NR though more power to you.

Fiat is fake and policy affs are often just as utopian as K-alts, but you should still have a coherent solvency mechanism for how your alt works.

The only K I think I'm legitimately biased against are psychoanalysis Ks: imo psychoanalysis is probably pseudoscience and kinda patronizing, if you could equally run psychoanalysis or some other K against a team in front of me I'd choose the other K but if you'd be substantially better off running psychoanalysis just send it and if I vote you down feel free to be upset at me.

CPs

I definitely prefer counterplans that actually engage with the specific processes of the plan to generic agent counterplans.

Agent CP's will often get the job done for me just fine, but I think more specific ones especially using 1AC cards as solvency paired with a DA is much more compelling for me as a judge and much more frustrating for an opponent to go against

Adv CPs are cool, and Adv CPs made with a random unhighlighted portion of a 1AC solvency card are super dope

I personally don't love the existence and continued proliferation of process counterplans that don't engage with the topic/aff at all, I'll evaluate them but I think a process counterplan where the net benefit could be read as a DA with a link that is not of omission will always be received better by me than one that has been read on the last 4 topics and is just a way to read a DA with a link of omission without actually doing so.

I'm about 50/50 on whether your cheaty counterplans are chill or not so I wouldn't base any cp decisions for a round based on me being the judge

DAs

Yeah I don't really have much of an opinion on these they're kinda the most fundamental neg arg, just make the story of it make some sense as the round goes on.

For politics DAs I don't really like the idea of just handing a team the uniqueness debate because they cut an article slightly later than the other teams, so as a neg team I just want you to do a little bit of work to contextualize why that actually means your ev should be preferred and for the aff team try to get at warrant comparisons because like 75% of the politics uniqueness cards that I've ever read didn't have a legit warrant.

Misc.

Death good args are not good

Wipeout will be listened to but given a side eye

Good formatting of a doc that you send is good and makes your arguments easier to follow

There's a fine line between banter and disrespectfulness, try your best to not cross it

I'm not 100% sure about how my face looks during a debate but if I look upset I'm probably just thinking and if I look happy then just keep doing what you're doing

Try to give me time to switch flows, so just slow down a bit at the top of your new flow.

I'll probably default to judge kick but it's liable to switch based on arguments

Light blue >>> green > yellow > anything else