I am a policymaker at heart. I will listen to and vote on kritical positions, but I am really looking at policy implications, even of the k. A kritical position ought to be one that you can consistently defend and be a meaningful argument that advances debate, not just a side argument you are running to see what happens. Education and debate on the current topic matter to me.

I think that topicality can be an important issue in the round, but it should only be run when there is ground to debate the violation - not merely as a time suck.

Disads and counterplans can play important roles in the round but should be meaningfully constructed and argued - not just read as a time suck to "see what might stick" (and counterplans need to be competitive).

I listen to arguments and to evidence - I am looking at the debate and argumentation, not just who can read the most/fastest. If you run it, you should be able to explain it, apply it, analyze it, and defend it.

Speed is fine as long as it's clear.

Email Chain: noahcorb101@gmail.com

Former CX debater. I'll listen to (almost) anything (which includes well-run and warranted arguments as to why I shouldn't listen to something). I have a philosophy degree, so I'm quite into theory (which includes T) when it's developed and run well, and I *love* a good K-prior debate. Please make sure you don't shadow extend- I value warrants more than taglines. This is my second year back in the circuit after a multi-year absence, so it would probably behoove you to focus on depth over breadth in your spreading and/or neg strats.

For K and theory debate in particular, please do notsimply read down your 2A/2N blocks without regard for telling me where on the flow you want me to be putting things and what is addressing what part of the debate/the opponents. I prefer competing interpretations evaluations on a typical flow, but I believe that in most cases this is a framework either team can win.

Otherwise, good luck, and if you have additional questions feel free to ask!

Note for LD: As you can probably tell from my CX background/paradigms, I'm going to pay a lot of attention to who is winning the framework debate: i.e. who is better using it to amplify their 1A/N offense relative to the opponents'. This flow serves partially as a (meta-extended) form of impact weighing for me, so the more work you do for me there, the more likely it is that I'll frame the round the way your case wants me to. Just keep that in mind for me given my background is mostly CX.

Email chain/questions: tcrivella@me.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

__________________________________________________

I'm Tyler Crivella, current freshman at UTD and former Seven Lakes High School ('24) competitor. I have competed in every event NSDA offers except POI and DUO. Currently coaching and judging mainly national circuit debate tournaments.

Loud sounds, eating, chewing gum, sniffling, gaveling, and other sounds will down you. I have hearing disabilities and your articulation and reasonable (but not overbearing) projection are crucial to my participation. If I put headphones on, do not adjust to speak louder, it means you are too loud and you should likely adjust.

__________________________________________________

Debate:

TLDR: You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Be kind.

On logistics, you should do the following: respect tab pronouns, show up on time, don't paraphrase, and send speech docs quickly after prep time stopping. Email chain, please. Flip and send a test for the email chain to both emails by posted round time, with or without me in the room. I always prefer docx > paste in email > pdf > Google Doc. If you do Google Doc, you better pray I don't catch you live adding new cards.

On speed, I can handle speed in person, but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Do articulation warm-ups before round because I need to actually hear letters—PFers can suck at enunciation sometimes.

On general thoughts,I will time speeches with an alarm and stop flowing the second it starts ringing. You don't have grace time in debate. Stop talking please. Stealing prep is bad. Knocking when speech time ends is bad. I will keep time and down speaks if your opponents are over/stealing so you don’t need to get mean in round if it’s happening. I evaluate the round based on only arguments in the round. Cards with one word are not cards. The warrant debate is something that I value more than most judges; still impact weigh but don't drop your delinks in the back half. I'm more than happy to vote for a K if the link is clear. You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Warrant your extensions/turns/voters in back half because I will not vote just off a card saying it happens. Also, pet peeve: don't tell me you're "going to get to something" ever. That wastes time and ruins my flow; applies to CX or speeches.

On speaker points, I care about the technical moves in round rather than your "vibes" unless those vibes are trash. This looks like making the right collapse, answering all the offense, not reading red cards or needing to recut the constructive, not speaking over time, etc. About 10% of the rounds I judge end in me giving a sub-26.5 because of truly terrible aggression in CX. That's a bad trend and you should be conscious of that in your round.

PF: I am more than happy to vote off of theory arguments or Ks-- you obviously must win them but I can and have voted for them. I can handle speed but good lord do PF'ers absolutely suck at spreading, if you can even call it that. If you spread and your articulation is bad or you blippily read two words off a card, I probably won’t flow it and it’ll have been a loss of your time. Probably not flowing the doc so you should do some drills before round. I understand that you might be tired after all these rounds, but I am really a fan of dedication/enthusiasm. I know this is PF but you need to cite a warrant on your offense if you want it to be a voter in back half of the round. On this, extensions need to happen in the back half if you want to get my ballot. Obviously, please weigh. I will only use the metrics provided in the round and use as minimal judge intervention as possible. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

CX: I try to be Tabula Rasa. Cool with Ks and T, but I don't have a very familiar understanding of a lot of the niche literature. If you cannot explain the K in plain English in cross, I'll likely drop that sheet of paper direct to the bin and bump your speaks down too. I think Ks are super fun but newer teams need to be given a chance at beating them—empathy and respect over aggression in CX goes a long way. Check hearing disabilities above if you’re thinking about a performance shell. I can handle speed but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

For negative teams, I feel most comfortable voting in this order (DA, K, Case > CP > T), but believe that you should run the offs that work best for the round. Strategically, all are important. I feel that negative teams drop case too often and willingly.

LD:I honestly don't have a ton of LD experience. I did a few rounds as a novice, but the event is obviously deeper than that. I'll likely evaluate the round like a policy round but with a framing debate. Consider reading my above paradigms.

Congress:

Generally, I have very mixed opinions on this event. I did this event for about a year and a half and ended it by giving an equity speech complaining about accessibility at TFA Finals--Congress has not improved much since that speech. I generally care more about contributions to "the flow," structure of speeches, and procedure more than the average judge. If you are reading this, you're likely the type of debater that will do better in my rounds.

Also, evidence is not something that you simply can fabricate in my rounds. I might call for a card; I might down you if you make up a statistic; I might take an evidence concern to tabroom. At locals, I probably won't look favorably on a student-led evidence challenge, but at a national circuit or final at a regional tournament, I may feel inclined to hear an evidence protest. Here's the link to the rules on evidence and procedure from the Harvard tournament, which I see as a generally good Congress tournament. Follow the process present and share with my email at the top of paradigm. Again, though, this generally does not go well and should not be seen as a means to climb the ranks but rather a means to check unfair ethics.

Speaking: I prefer two point speeches but I can ride with one argument speeches too. Refutation is a must if you are not giving the first three speeches and even those one should have some. Questioning is not a screaming match. More speeches ≠ better speaker. The "PO" and "two speech" meta is bad. I would rather the round hit four bills with good, short, and dense debate than a prolonged, dead round after twelve speeches on each bill. AGDs, fluency, stance, and general speech skills do actually matter; it's not just the flow. Amendments are a dead medium that should make a resurgence. Bryce Piotrowski is a mentor that has a lot of ideas on this event that I agree with.

PO:If you PO, do not expect a free break. In a round of great speakers, you will be ranked under them even with perfect PO'ing. Do not gavel as PO or I will straight up kick you out of the room. Use the end of the stick, use hand signals, knock, get creative and be consistent. POs should run the room: asking for splits if needed, moving things along rather than a representative.

Worlds:

This event is a little goofy and we both know it. As a judge, I am presented a rubric that gives equal points style as content. This allows some teams to hypothetically win despite losing on the flow. Though I feel that this system is a bit weird, I recognize its usage and why it exists (stop spreading) and want to respect the event; thus, if presented a rubric on my ballot, I will be using it exclusively to evaluate the round. If not, look to my debate paradigm; otherwise, read on to see how that rubric will be graded. I usually evaluate style and content relative to their closest immediate counterpart from the other side (1st PROP Speaker against 1st OPP Speaker) with strategy being pretty solely based on POIs. Here's a more detailed breakdown of what I am looking for with each point:

Style:I handle this like a competitive one-on-one platform speech against each relative counterpart. I generally note things from this laundry list only when they are particularly well executed or harmful to the speech: projection/volume (see top of paradigm), structure, speed of delivery, respectful attitude, fluency, hand gestures, control of POI taking, eye contact. The order of that list reflects my order of importance.

Content:This usually simply equates to who best moves the round forward on the flow. 1st Speakers should introduce around two substantives that have distinct, non-repeating ideas and logical warrants for those points. This role often leads to a detatched late-round presence, which I will discourage with low strategy points. You are still in this round after your speech. 2nd Speakers should do a ton of new refutation with minimal reference to prior ideas and expand the round. This role requires a very clear structure while not directly becoming repetitive. 3rd Speakers should add a newlayer of refutation and start to collapse the round down. I feel particularly that 3rd Speakers tend to not contribute to the round as much as they should. In general, new ideas/warrants that shape the round (meaning that they make sense on a quality level) will be rewarded.

Strategy:Most tournaments let me give a 13, 14, or 15. You start at a 13. If you give a good POI and attempt about three times, you will move to a 14. If you give two excellent POIs or three good POIs and attempt about six times in the round, you will move to a 15. Excessive POIs (once every 30 seconds is the absolute limit--err on the side of caution if I start giving you looks), attempting during protected, and long-winded POIs (anything over 15 seconds will start to drag on) will result in a slide back down.

Extra:If you knock a lot and I give you glances, that's not a good sign...

Speech:

Don't adapt your speech for me unless it's a concern of volume/sounds, in which case that is existential to your placement. I will do time signals and if I mess them up, you will not receive any retribution or penalty. I suggest you ask me about how time signals will be given and about how the structure of the round will go if you aren't sure. Be a good spectator; no phones and no leaving during speeches.

Extemp:This event is my baby and I love it. Please don't break that opinion. I have a modern view on how extemp should be run but still a pretty basic rubric in most rounds. For 90% of all speeches, I don’t think the question gets answered enough. I care more for answering it than giving me a good, narrative impact or something. Focus on that and you will do good. For higher level extemp, I prefer speeches to be both comedic and dramatic: doing both in a speech is a lot more skillful than just one. No layered analysis unless you really, really think it'll work. Priorities are as follows:

1. Answering the Question
2. Quality of the Points
3. Quality of Analysis (Including background)
4. Stucture and Fluency
5. Presentation
6. Number and Quality of Sources

Put me on the email chain (ross.fitz4@gmail.com AND greenhilldocscx@gmail.com)

I debated for four years at Barstow in Kansas City and four years at the University of Kansas

Currently teaching debate full-time at Greenhill + doing some judging for USC when I have time

Top Level:

Do what you do best, I'll try to keep up. That being said, what I really want to see (especially for high schoolers) is teams debating straight up. What I mean by that - I'm getting tired of this meta that seems to forefront winning on tricks over out debating your opponent. I don't like seeing things like hidden A-spec or a 1nc constructed out of 2017 backfiles with one substantive position. Pick what you are best at, be willing to start the debate over that position early in the round, and have at it. I'll vote on whatever that choice is, but I like teams that are truly willing to clash and engage with the best version of their opponent's arguments.

I try my best to get everything down on my flow, and it's what I'll decide the debate on. If you think an argument is especially important to deciding the debate, make sure you slow down and emphasize its importance so it ends up factoring into my decision

Your speaks will reflect how easy you make my job, that means focusing on argument comparison, judge instruction, and framing my ballot for me in the final rebuttals. Impact out conceded arguments and choose a few issues you're winning to frame out your opponent's offense.

Argument Specifics:

FW: I've debated both sides of this argument, although I've spent more time thinking about it on the neg than the aff. I think affs should have some sort of relationship to the topic, but I don't have strong feelings about what that should be. I think fairness and clash are both impacts and impact turnable. Aff teams, I think the best strategy is an impact turn to the negative standards, and an emphasis on how the 1ac interacts with framework. I find that in these debates I often vote for the team that is best at re-characterizing the debates that occur in the other team's model. i.e. does the TVA ever actually get debated like the neg team says it would? what types of affs would the counter-interp include outside of the generic list of popular K authors? I also like to reward innovation in explanation in these rounds, because it's easy for them to feel stale.

T: I am pretty neutral on the question of competing interpretations vs reasonability. Reasonability should be a question of the aff's counter interp and not the aff itself. Impact comparison is just as important in a T debate as any other.

Ks: Links don't have to be to the plan, but you should explain how they implicate the plan and use aff language, evidence, performance to prove them. Alternatives that solve the links are better than ones that don't. I can be convinced the debate should be about something other than the consequences to the aff. I'm also down to vote on extinction outweighs and the aff is a good idea.

CPs: Well developed, specific CPs w solvency advocates are awesome. I've gotten more comfortable evaluating competition debates in the last year or so, but probably not as proficient on all the moving parts as you might want if process is consistently your A strat.

DAs: Thumbs up. Spin can get you out of a lot, even if you're worried about specific evidence. Impact overviews and turns case arguments are an absolute must, especially in later rebuttals. Again, make my job easy. Tell me why your impacts are more important than theirs.

Theory: Proving in round abuse is the best way to get a ballot. Most of the time I lean toward rejecting the argument over the team.

Policy Maker/Tab

I view the round more or less as a Tabula Rasa judge, but you can run just about anything. I'm pretty flexible I just need to know what your talking about, why its important, and what impact is has in and out of the round. Pen down means your judge isn't following your argument. Spreading at a speaking event makes no sense, but I'll listen to it as I grew up with it in round. Spreading Theory blocks I listen to a lot because this is a speaking event and I have to give you speaker points.

Theory

I'll vote on it, but it has got to be obvious and perfectly executed. The logical ground work must be there as well as standards and voters. If you go for everything AND theory in the end with no strat, expected to be voted down.

The K

I'm more of a realist, so abstract Alts are just that to me... abstract. real world Alts are good. I'll definitely listen to and vote on the K because I'm a bit of a games player judge but it must be ran correctly. Be sure you give me framework and do the logic leg work.

Stock Issues

I like a clean clashing rounds. If you can give me that, more quality evidence over quantity, and have a good strat and build in the 2NR (no shotguns), you can have the ballot. I WANT SUBSTANCE!

T

Topicality is a necessary portion of debate, but one thing I really hate is time suck T's. Although, if the other team is obviously off topic, you better throw a T.

CP
Love them. You should definitely do it, ill bite on condo, or no condo, ill literally take anything here, just make sure its run well. No Net benefits means no vote from me.

DA

Love disads because many of the time they actually make sense. Humanity is consequentialist by nature so this is the most accepted argument for a reason. I am ok voting for a generic disad if you can make it stick. The more specific the better though. Practical impacts are better than the oh so common, nuclear war scene, but I will vote on nuclear war if it sticks in the round and you actually pull its weight across the debate. Just saying "drag across the impact of nuclear war" isn't going to cut it. GIVE ME SUBSTANCE, GIVE ME THE STORY.

Performance

I can work with performance debate. I will vote on a K AFF if its executed well. Make sure it makes coherent sense to me and your audience and its content is clearly expressed.

Paperless/Prep

Flash Drive out of the computer and then we stop time. Hands off mouse/computer while opponents get the files up. TIME YOURSELVES! I'm ok with Speech Drop but you shouldn't be prepping while partner is dropping speech.

Have a good time... Speaker points go down if you're brash, nasty, and being uncalled for. Explain yourself well, play the game when you must, and also use this time to prepare you to become a well educated and fluent speaker. You control how the debate works, not my paradigm. Lets talk Policy and debate well!

Rock Hill CG (2022-2024)

Email: danushftw@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

I have gone for all types of arguments. I care about how you communicate more than the particular content of speeches. I appreciate debaters who approach each individual round from the perspective of winning the judge's ballot. This means answering arguments in an orderly fashion, emphasizing places where you are ahead, and condensing down to a few central issues.

Affs should probably be topical but I don't care. I read planless affs in many of the most competitive debates of my career, usually about Settler Colonialism and Capitalism. Negative teams should go for procedural fairness in front of me combined with some form of "debate doesn't shape subjectivity". Affirmative teams should just go for an impact turn by the end of the 2AR - winning a legitimate counterinterp is something I've never seen done that well.

Really really terrible for strategies about "call outs" or testifications of your opponents' character, if I see things like screenshots or other accusations in a non-disclosure context it will be almost impossible to win. Debate is not court and I am not qualified to adjudicate your character in one hour and thirty minutes. Please leave these discussions outside of the debate and if you geniunely feel unsafe in the room with an opponent we can work to get that resolved with the tabroom.

Condo is good but I will vote otherwise if the 2NR spends 10-15 seconds answering it. Both teams should understand how powerful theory is when it often uplayers every other word that has been said in the debate. I will judge kick if you tell me to but probably not otherwise and it is easy for aff teams to convince me not to.

You must READ rehighlights of the opponents evidence - this a communication activity please remember that in all aspects of the debate but especially this one

PF:

Please read cut cards instead of referencing them in paraphrased chunks, if this is something you are unfamiiar with we can look at some examples before the debate. Feel free to go as fast as you would like and read whatever arguments you think are strategic. I care less about rhetoric than most PF judges (more than most policy judges!) so just try to win on the flow because it will encompass almost 100% of my decision.

CX- I will listen to almost everything you give to me. Prefer to vote as a policy maker. I would prefer every other argument except Ks but if that is all you have to run, I will vote on it. Please don't spread. If I can't understand you, I will not vote on the argument. If you need to speed through the information emphasize the taglines and analytical arguments. SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST.

LD- I will vote on just about anything. I prefer traditional debate but will go for anything, ultimately it is your debate, I'm just judging it. It would help me out tremendously if you are running something that is super progressive then please try to spoonfeed me. I am not as well versed on these arguments. I don't mind some speed but slow down on taglines and analytical arguments. If I don't understand you, I will not flow you.

PF- I want good line-by-line argumentation and heavy signposting. The more you keep in order on the flow, the better your chances of winning the debate. Good impact calculus will go a long way.

Congress- I like good refutation. I do not like repeated arguments and will vote you down if you are not adding to the debate. If the PO keeps an orderly chamber and commits few errors (I get the error every now and then especially with questioning) they will rank high on my ballot. I am also not opposed to ranking the PO first if they are #1 in the round. Questioning should not be a shouting match. If you are rude to other debaters during questioning I will not rank you. I understand some competitiveness but not allowing someone to answer the question and constantly interrupting will not be tolerated on my ballot.

Extemp- Humor goes a long way with me. Keep it old-fashioned and stick to the book. Be sure to emphasize your sources because I do keep count. My count won't affect my ballot much but if I'm stuck between two speakers, this will help me decide a little easier.

HI- Comedic timing is everything. If you're going to land a joke, it must be timed perfectly.

DI- I hate screaming. I deduct the most points from people who scream. I like a good build-up and tear-down during most DI pieces. It shouldn't just be sad, sad, sad, sad, sad. I should go through a whirlwind of emotions. I don't mind the heavier pieces.

Duet/Duo- Relationships, relationships, relationships. You and your partner need to be in lockstep and be timed together.

All other interp events- It is an acting exercise, not a reading exercise.

My email for the email chain is justin.holland2019@gmail.com

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Southern Methodist University

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.

I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.

LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case

CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.

I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I am a policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (Anna.rhea@kempisd.org), but I prefer Speechdrop. I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I am probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Use rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must. I DO NOT vote on CX time. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry. Follow through with your argument so that the flow can clearly define what arguments are valued most (cover what is winning; don't try to take on everything if you cannot response thoroughly).

I HAVE COACHED , TAUGHT And judged debate for the last 28 years on both the UIL And TFA circuits.

CX Debate: Do NOT Spread or talk faster than I can flow. I will do my best to flow the entire debate especially the Tag LInes. I am pretty much a traditional Stock Issue Judge. Not a fan of Conditional Counter Plans. Do Not participate in Open CX or Prompting your partner while it is there turn to speak or ask/answer questions during CX period. Doing so could cost you the round. Give me a reason to vote for you during your last rebuttal by crystalizing the round and providing impact calculus. Point out dropped arguments and why they are important to the round. Analytical arguments are only weighed if they are supported with evidence. I love evidence supporting claims. Burden of Proof in CX is on the Affirmative.

LD Debate: should be clearly presented and I discouragement spreading. Quality of evidence amd citations are more important than quantity of arguments. In the rebuttals it helps to Crystalize the round and give impact calculus. Give voters and point out dropped arguments and why they are important. Why your value and VC should be WEIGHED more than your opponent or how you achieve your's better. Point out flaws in logic.

IN EXTEMP: SHOULD HAVE A GREAT ATTENTION getter . 3 main points and thesis statement. Looking for transitions to be natural and supported by stage movements and hand gestures. Eye contact with the judge and conversational tone is appreciated. Speeches not depended on note cards earns extra points as well as citation of sources. Conclusions that tie back to attention getter always impress me.

Prose Poetry: should be read and intro should include the title and authors of the published piece. Always impressed when a presentation fits the competitors personality amd they become one with piece. Voice inflection and captivating the audience throughout the performance impresses this judged.

Howard Ritz

sharikkaashanker1@gmail.com for email chain and questions

Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

add me to email chain - greenhillsmdebate@gmail.com and greenhilldocscx@gmail.com

tech > truth

speaks start at 27

go for whatever you want

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible (I think this is especially true for theory arguments). If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. The lit bases that I am the most familiar with include the following: Neolib, Baudrillard, and Set Col. Please do not assume that I am an expert on the literature of your choosing. It is not my job to become an expert on it in-round either. Instead, I believe it is your job to clearly articulate what your literature means in the context of the round. This does not mean I can't follow other kritikal arguments; just that arguments that are outside of my wheelhouse might require more explanation. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

Snapshot: If TOC speed is a large element of your approach to debate, I am not your preference. But I do possess a high level of understanding of how all forms of debate function in the competitive space. I love judging at NSDA nationals. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

I am living with COPD. I may have Oxygen hooked up in the back of the room while judging. You may see me laboring to breath at times, particularly if I am walking too and from rounds. Do not be overly concerned.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools, but I also coached some fine teams at Denton Guyer and most recently in Athens, Texas. Currently I no longer coach directly. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments. Along the way I enjoyed coaching PF, Congress and World's and was adept at giving kids an edge regardless of the debate event they chose.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.

Justin Yoon

justin.yoons@gmail.com

College experience: I debated for UT Dallas my freshman and sophomore years.

High School experience: Debated for LASA (Liberal Arts and Science Academy)

General stuff

Tech over truth. To evaluate an argument it can't just be an unwarranted blip, it must be developed and have an impact.

Clarity over speed: If I have to shout clear more than twice I'll stop flowing your speech

Stealing prep: Don't do it. It annoys me and I will dock your speaker points if you do.

I haven't judged on the topic yet, so don't expect me to know what all the terminology means.

Specific stuff

Disads: Yes there's such a thing as zero risk of a disad.

Counterplans: Don't expect me to kick the counterplan unless you tell me to.

Kritiks/K Affs: Explain your kritik instead of assuming I know the literature. Also please don't read a giant generic overview.

Theory: Slow down. Most arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team, unless you can prove abuse. Reading two conditional worlds is reasonable.