Prefs Shortcut:

Larp - 1

Kritiks - 1

FW/T - 2

K-Affs - 2

Phil - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks/Unnecessary Theory - Strike

Introduction

Debated for Princeton High School on NSDA/TFA/UIL. I did Policy, LD, plus multiple speaking events. I ran a lot of Larp and phil, dabbled in k's but did not run them often.

Any Pronouns, Reference me in any way you want, i will default they/them for you unless you say otherwise

Email Chain plz : hdkcangell@gmail.com

Real Paradigm

please run whatever you want, i will listen to anything and will judge off what you tell me to, there are some exceptions and clarity required for this though:

YOU CAN SPREAD, but If you're going to spread be aware that my hearing is bad and i will rely on your document THIS APPLIES TO ANALYTICS. I will default on speed theory if the doc isn't sent.

I appreciate Kritical debate greatly, if you want to run it please do, but my understanding is a few steps below my peers, so crystalize, especially in regards to K v K debate.

No tricks, especially if you cannot explain them in a way that matters, and you don't want to be the one to fail to change my mind on this, this includes truth testing.

Be logical and reasonable with theory, observations, etc. The meta debate is very important but treat it with grace, it's not your path to a free ballot.

On that note, I consider disclosure frivolous no matter what, I WILL DROP YOU IF YOUR OPPONENT SAYS THE WORDS RVI.

Overall

I will start at 29 speaks and go up or down from there

Don't be the reason that i add something to my paradigm

Ask me specific questions if you wish, and email me if you have questions as well.

For email chains, please use: Judgebechler@gmail.com

Overall: For Novice events, keep speed to a minimum. I do not tolerate sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. (I really shouldn't have to say that) and those will cause me to vote you down.

All Debate events: I NEED VOTERS

Novice CX: At the beginning of the year I am more lenient on mistakes. That being said, don't be afraid to try arguments out in round, if you make mistakes, I will make sure to put the fixes in your comments. I also will not punish speaker points as hard in the beginning of the year unless you are clearly trying to go above what you can do. Spreading is discouraged for me right now as it is so early, but if you can clearly spread, that's ok. I am mostly a stock issues judge, but give me the cleanest, clearest, and easiest way to vote for you (usually with a good impact calculus), and I will vote off that. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Varsity CX: Speed is fine, just make sure to slow down on tag lines and authors so that I can guarantee that I catch them. I am tab in varsity, and love impact calculus and other voters. I defer to reasonability as my standard for T. In addition, if you do decide to run T, make sure that I understand why T is a necessity in this specific round! Make my job easier and I will be more in your favor. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

All LD: For Framework, I would greatly appreciate not using Value- Morality, Criterion - Utilitarianism. (This is only for these 2 in the same framework, either value alone is fine)

Novice LD: I am a traditional judge, and I value FW debate highly, but if you make the case for impact calculus debate, I will vote on that. Again, make my job the easiest. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech! I am very much not a fan of spreading at this level. The one exception to this rule is under both these conditions: your opponent agrees to spreading, and you are clear at all points in your speeches.

Varsity LD: I prefer traditional, but am okay with progressive if done properly. Spreading is fine but if I cannot understand, I will not flow

Always feel free to ask clarifying questions about my paradigms or for more explanation!

Debate in the style that works best for you! I'm more interested in engaging with your unique approach rather than imposing any set norms. Please be polite and respectful to others during the round.

Speed: I’m comfortable with any pace, as long as your delivery is clear and understandable. Please check with your opponent before the round to get their preference.

Voters: Please summarize key points and provide clear voters throughout the round. Strong voters should show a deep, conceptual grasp and comparison of arguments made by both sides.

Organization: Please provide clear transitions and signposts in your constructive speech so that it is evident to others where different parts of your case begin and end. I value an overview or roadmap before rebuttals and signpost during to let others know where you want arguments applied on the flow. This not only promotes clarity but also ensures your opponent can flow and respond to your arguments. Organization makes for a more effective speaker.

Traditional vs. Progressive: I’m open to both traditional and progressive styles. I evaluate rounds based on the strength of the arguments, analysis, and evidence presented. As long as the argument is well-conceptualized and defended, I’m on board.

I prioritize your ability to pinpoint and effectively engage with the key arguments in the round, rather than attempting to address every point on the flow. I understand that time is limited, so make sure to use it efficiently.

Email address: chadwick.caraway@icloud.com

I competed in speech and debate during all four years of high school (mainly LD, Congress, and Extemp). I judge tournaments relatively frequently and plan on coaching once I have my degree.

Overall, I'm okay with any argument you want to run as long as it is respectful. No classist, racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise awful arguments because I will drop you (feel like I shouldn't have to say this but apparently I do)

If you decide to run a complex/niche argument (whether it be anything from certain philosophies to a kritik), please please please know what you are talking about. Read the stuff you are going to talk about in round and learn how to present/explain it in a concise accurate way. Also, I default to basic impact calculus if no alternative framing for the round is presented.

Speed is completely fine but I do have hearing issues, so if you decide to spread just make sure to have a way to share your case with me. If I can not understand you, whether it be due to speed or lack of clarity, I will say clear three times before just putting down my pen. If there is a speech drop or email chain, please include me in it. (ecopeland2023@gmail.com)

thanks :)

1. I am a Current DC speech teacher and coach. Background in communications, though I've been within the realm of speech and debate for close to 6 years.

Higher preference in traditional LD rounds, with min spreading. Need to be able to clearly understand and hear contentions and significant points, however won't completely judge against competitors.

2. a. With a preference in traditional LD cases, value and criterions are significant in the round.

b. If using K's, should be clear to follow and refute throughout round.

c. Voting issues should be given, throughout the flow or final rebuttal.

d. Winner decided by key arguments and sense of persuasion.

e. Notes/flow is taken based off off significant arguments throughout round. If I cannot follow, I cannot judge.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. At heart, I am an old-school purist. Because I judge all categories, I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. I believe each form of debate helps the student build particular skills that are part of the design of each category.

I believe there is great benefit in learning to weigh a subject through a value based moral criterion, as in Lincoln Douglas debate. The greatest orators throughout history have changed the world by appealing to the nobility within each of us, and offering us the WHY. A great stock issues orator, as in classic policy debate, spells out the WHAT clearly. Powerful debate presents relevant and useful information to educate and enlighten. I believe vivid story telling are two of the most powerful tools in any speakers tool box and can take any speech to the next level. The greatest leaders were either great storytellers, or great stories were told about them. Vivid descriptive language will elevate any speech. ( This is especially true when addressing any form of human suffering. When you are creating a call to action,(a vote) to must make the subject come alive for your audience. Referring to suffering is as engaging as the evening news, but even the evening news will grab your attention if they are talking about your school, your town, your friend. The more personal it feels to your audience, the more persuasive and more impactful a speech. People forget facts and figures, unless they are vivid, but they don't forget how you made them feel. We remember people like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Amelia Earhart because they said and did things that made us believe that the world could be a better place and that there were things worth laying down one's life for.

Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge both the style and the content they have prepared and give feedback accordingly. I will say, if you run a K, you need a really good reason. Part of the educational process is to be able to do what is asked. There are times when challenging an idea is very valuable, it is where progress is birthed, but I will weigh ideas through probability, legitimacy of source, and a real world analysis. I am not a fan of an idea thrown out merely to trip up an opponent if there is no real weight behind it.

It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy and the latest therapies for cognitive stimulation, pain reduction and life enhancement. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide. The communications programs have helped over 100,000 people create projects and non-profit organizations making a profound difference in the world. I have a background in youth, family, and educational ministries and have served on the board of several non-profit organizations. Communication skills were the foundation of all of these endeavors.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

Hi, I'm Fernando Gupta. I'm a current varsity LD debater at Greenhill School.

Novices should focus on the quality of their speech over their speed; you can go fast, but make sure you are comprehensible.

The same goes for arguments Quality>Quantity.

Be clear with your judge instruction, why you are winning and they are losing, and focus on the debate being as educational as possible.

ABOVE ALL ELSE HAVE FUN AND BE RESPECTFUL!

Please disclose 15 minutes before the round and set up the email chain so we can get going as soon as possible once the round starts.

To add me to the email chain: guptaf25@greenhill.org

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Southlake Carroll (TX) PF teams, Indiana University(IN), Greenhill (TX) LDers, Plano West AR, Plano West RC, Plano West NS, Jasper SG

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

-Brian Delong

-Jacob Bosley

-Adam Tomasi

-Jamie Davenport

-Matthew Bricker

-Alex Yoakum

-Rahul Penumetcha

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

new parent judge, please speak slow.

I will vote off of which arguments are the most logical, so make sure to explain everything clearly.

Updating in progress, January 2025.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put all three emails on the email chain.

codydb8@gmail.com (different email than years past)

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.com

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourselves. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Ending cx early and turning that time into prep time is not a thing in front of me. You have either 8 or 10 minutes of prep time, use it judiciously. Please, do not prep when time is not running. I do not consider e-mailing documents/chains as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy all kinds of debates. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

If the first thing you do on counterplans is read 3 or 4 permutations and a theory argument at top speed then you know I won't be able to flow all of the distinctions. Why not separate every other analytical argument with an evidenced argument or what if you slowed down just a tad.... I am a great flow, it is just analytical arguments aren't supposed to be read at top speed stacked on top of each other. Same on K's F/w then numerous Perm's all at top speed stacked on top of each other is silly and not realistic for judges to get all of the distinctions/standards.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD January 21, 2025

No tricks, A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will say clearer once or twice and then it is up to you if you are going to choose to read clearly. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or I could look annoyed both of which are clues. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments with compelling warrants will surely affect the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant and why. Dropped arguments are true arguments. Please, be nice to each other. GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

Paradigm Updated 3/9/25

I have been judging debate for 30 years, and I find it consistently disturbing that our community rewards debaters who try to manipulate a win rather than earning one. If you are attempting to beat your opponents through flow tricks they are unfamiliar with, speed beyond their threshold, or theory and kritiks that hold no meaningful value to you other than a win, I have serious doubts about your respect for the other participants in the debate space. The debate space must be consensual. Debaters enter into the space with the assumption that they have a 50-50 chance of winning, and that they will have equal space to present their arguments and have them legitimately considered by their judges. Judges enter into the space with the assumption that the debaters will attempt to win their ballots rather than exclude them from the round. Speaking faster than an opposing debater or judge is comfortable with is nonconsensual behavior. That's problematic. Making arguments that do not include a warrant, are presented as absolutes that cannot be opposed, and/or cannot be compared to opposing arguments that have equal ground is a strange approach to an activity where judges attempt to make a meaningful choice between two competing claims. Using your knowledge of current debate fads to intimidate your opponents and police their rhetoric and strategy by telling them how they can and cannot respond to you is a) nonconsensual, b) bullying, and c) pretty lame. I understand that organizing arguments into shells can make it easier to follow along. However, using shells as a tool of silencing the other team and not giving them equal space to present their opinion is... c'mon, do I have to say this again? It's nonconsensual. Judges, coaches, debaters - I implore all of you to stop normalizing teenagers acting in nonconsensual ways. It makes the debate space combative and exclusionary, it promotes patriarchal thinking that is never a good idea, and it just makes for blippy, messy, unpleasant debate rounds. Do better. If you come at me with your arguments about tech>truth being more "objective" and leading to less "intervention" I will happily laugh in your face for thirty minutes. There is no such thing as an objective way to choose a winner. There is no such thing as a debate round where a judge does not, at some level, make personal choices about what rhetoric and strategy they valued. The entire glorification of the flow as some 'objective' sacred text is deeply rooted in patriarchal assumptions and preferences, and I like to think that as critical thinkers we can go beyond that as a community. If you want to play a game because winning makes you feel less insecure, go play online poker. If you want to challenge yourself, compare yourself against other worthy opponents, learn something new every round, become a better human, and change the world - stay in speech and debate. Thank you for attending my lecture, and read on for additional paradigm information.

ALL DEBATE: Welcome to my ten second tutorial, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK IMPOSSIBLY FAST. If you’re talking like you’ve had too many Dr. Peppers, we’re fine, but if you blur words together and start double breathing, I can’t understand you. Not only is that a consent issue, it's a disability issue. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed. I also feel you should check with your opponent and judges before EVERY round to discuss what their threshold for speed is to make sure you are all on the same page and that the debate space is inclusive. That’s key to keeping people in this activity. Please don’t chase out people who can only compete sometimes. Be better.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS: I will consider anything that isn't offensive, but you have to give me a reasonable explanation for why it applies in this debate. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

THEORY: I am open to any theory arguments critiquing your opponent’s rhetoric, behavior, or advocacy. I am NOT open to resolutional critiques, because in that instance you’re basically critiquing the wording committee. We have to have an agreed upon resolution to have a fair debate. It may not be your favorite resolution. It may not be my favorite resolution, either. However, it’s the resolution we’ve all walked into the round to engage with, so do me a solid and actually engage with it. I previously bought disclosure theory at national tournaments, but in updating my paradigm today I feel it's incompatible with an inclusive, consensual debate space. If you believe strongly that debaters should disclose, you should come to the room (physical or online) immediately after posting to make a good faith attempt to discuss arguments with your opponent. Breezing on in at the start time and reading theory tells me you care more about an easy win than fair debate prep.

WEIGHING: I don’t need you to use the words probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc. So long as you compare your argument with your opponent’s and tell me why your argument makes your world comparatively better than theirs, I’m good.

BEHAVIOR: Be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

EVENT SPECIFIC PARADIGMS**

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Firstly, although I have judged this event for five years or so, I am not necessarily aware of every norm in the activity. If you feel your opponent is using debate norms from other events and they aren’t in line with world norms, tell me why their position should be disregarded. Secondly, I like to see a lot of worlds comparison in either the 3^rd or Final speech. What happens if we pass the motion? What happens if we fail it? What are the implications of that action across broader populations and through time? Especially with impromptu topics, I think it’s important to figure out what the effects are of voting either way. I’m not going to want to make a decision about a subset of the motion taken in one snapshot in time. I want to look at precedents the motion might start, or how the motion may change perceptions across the globe. Think BIG. Thirdly, don’t ask incredibly long POI’s just to waste opponent time. Your POI’s should be strategic in terms of their content.

PUBLIC FORUM: Firstly, do not make arguments in cross. Ask questions of your opponent. Weaken their link chains, make them explain warrants and evidence. Please let your opponent have a reasonable amount of time to answer, and only interrupt if they are being purposefully obtuse. Take turns asking. If you have a follow-up, it should be able to be answered with one sentence, or it is a second question. Secondly, I do not believe that policy and LD norms automatically apply in PF rounds. If you would like to access another debate event’s norms, you need to give me a reasonable explanation as to why your interpretation is best. Thirdly, I like to see incentive analysis done that helps me to see why certain policies might be preferred over others. This can be from a government perspective, a societal perspective, or even individual perspectives, depending on the argument. Fourthly, you have to give me more than the argument name to count as an extension, and arguments should be extended in every speech if they end up in Final Focus. Give me the evidence, the warrant, the way that argument outweighs the opponent’s argument – I’m flexible, but give me something to extend other than a word. Fifthly, be realistic about what you can do in a four minute constructive. You will not be able to go into massive depth with any of your arguments. Low probability, high impact arguments require a pretty strong link chain, and that’s probably not something you have time for in PF. Stick with what you can defend. Then defend it. Sixthly, be smart about evidence sharing. Have your evidence immediately accessible and shareable. Better yet, send the cards either right before or right after the speech so everyone can see them. I do not want to have to police both teams while searching and copying and pasting and refreshing emails. I also really, really do not want to see teams using evidence challenge as a way to get more time to mentally prep. PF debate should not take a lifetime. It should take less than an hour.

LD: I’m not judging much LD anymore because the activity is becoming less enjoyable for me. I’m not a tech happy judge, and I won’t vote on flow tricks. I will vote on comparative benefit in the overall aff and neg position. I would prefer you take prep time before the NC so that you are responsive to your opponent’s rhetoric and arguments. If your entire NC is cards that you don’t bother applying directly to opponent arguments, I’m probably not going to vote for you. Clash is key, and clash requires being in the moment of this particular debate with these particular people. Every debate should be different. If you’re making them all the same, you’re probably going to get the L from me every time, too.

POLICY: I judge policy only when tabrooms really, really need me to, or for UIL Texas debate where speed is not the norm. I recognize that on most circuits, speed is the norm, and I simply can’t keep up. If tab needs me to take one for the team, though, please respect my speed issues above. Also, I don’t understand all of the intricacies of policy debate norms, so if you want me to judge off something more obscure, explain it to me. My favorite thing in Policy to hear about is the solvency debate, so points there if you dig in deep.

To finish it off, this activity should be something all of us enjoy. If you’re miserable during the round, we probably will be, too. Find a way to make each debate interesting, unique, challenging. Stretch your world, and make your opponents and judges think in new ways. Being in debate should inspire you. If it doesn’t, there’s probably a better activity for you, and I hope you can find that joy elsewhere. We’re all spending a day or weekend together, so let’s all try to make it pleasant.

Any pronouns

Grapevine '24 ; UTA '28

I did LD and PF off and on for 5 years (also Big Questions a couple of times)

Add me to the email chain: aadipatil05@gmail.com

25 speaks to both if I ever have to judge a Plano Clark 24' Quarters Plano West AR vs. Jasper ZM round again.

Speaks/Notes:

I start at 28 and go up from there.

25s for homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.

Spreading is ok (as long as the docs are sent), if I can't understand you I will say "clear". If I have to say clear more than twice your arguments aren't going on the flow.

Cross is not flowed unless it is mentioned in a speech.

PF:

I like progressive debate in most contexts, however, I find that the format of PF doesn't always allow for in-depth discussion of progressive issues. You can run whatever you want(yes including K's), but please don't do your case an injustice by shoving it into a place it doesn't belong. I tend to lean more traditional in this event, as I feel as though it was made with the premise of being accessible. For those reasons, I prefer that competitors don't spread, however, spreading will not be a factor in deciding who won as long as it isn't part of an argument.

FW--

I think FW can and should be more explored in PF. Weighing is one of the most important aspects of a PF debate and the ability to decide how that happens with FW I oftentimes overlooked and undervalued. I don't mind a typical nuclear war extinction util debate, however, creativity is always appreciated.

EV--

Don't paraphrase. If you do, you better have that card ready, because if the other team doesn't ask for it, I will. If you can't find a card, you will lose speaks and whatever that ev was part of will be struck from the record. I've been in too many rounds where teams make up information to tolerate that as a judge.

If you manage to do and keep up with an email chain or speech drop I will boost speaks.

LD:

You can run anything, but be chill with the theory (theory is fine and good, but use your best judgment)

Condo is good.

Weighing and Framing is really important to me as I think it's often lost in the technicality of LD debate. Tell me what arguments, what impacts, and what flows are important and why.

Ks--

K's are cool, I read some in my high school career, but I'm not familiar with all the literature on every topic. I mostly ran Cap K, Set Col, Orientalism, and Disability.

Alts are pretty important, especially if your opponent tries to link in. I would like a thorough explanation of what the alt does, however, if your framework says you win and you're winning framework, its all good ig.

Specific links are preferred, but if a generic link isn't answered and is extended through the 2nr, I'll vote on it

Aff gets to weigh the plan, but I also really like good reps links and framework debates

K affs--

I love K affs, especially when they're creative and awesome, however, please do the bare minimum of linking to the topic or at least the debate.

You need to have a solid explanation of your solvency. I am skeptical of solvencies that are exclusively based on your delivery of your speech. I prefer other solvencies, however, it's not as though I won't vote for an aforementioned solvency.

I find historical examples very persuasive and effective in communicating the advantages and disadvantages of FW and or solvency (i.e. Util bad b/c tyranny of the majority).

T--

I think T has become more of a force in recent years than it ever has been and I don't necessarily hate that. I do enjoy the back-and-forth that comes with T and the genuine discussion of the value that Debate provides, however, I don't want to watch a debate where the resolution is seldom mentioned past the 1NC. I prefer args about education, skill-building, etc. over procedural args, however, I do like to see procedure as a prerequisite to those greater ideals.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. I am now the head coach at Grapevine High School. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Note: Once my timer goes off, I am no longer flowing what you say.

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

I want to be on the email chain: kamorav10@gmail.com

I debated College Policy for 4 years at NYU. Earlier in college I read more soft left Affs with performative elements, but I got more performative and more kritical as my college career progressed. That means I'm open to hearing whatever arguments you want to read as long as you're able to defend them. In terms of policy, I've never read a strictly "policy" AFF, but I've coached teams reading them and am familiar with that style. With this in mind, you should read whatever makes you most comfortable and confident and I'll vibe with you.

Flow - I will flow what I hear. If you're fast, I can keep up as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you I will say "clear." I flow performative elements (music, poetry, dance), but if you think I might not flow something, flag it for me. It's your job to tell me what is most important, I won't do that work for you.

Flashing/email chain - Be organized. I don't want to wait 5 minutes for you to reply to the email chain or flash files. If I feel like you're taking too long prep time will start again. Don't waste my, your opponents’, or your partner's time. Stealing prep is disrespectful and if I see it, your speaker points will be docked. That applies to Novices too (although my threshold is a bit higher) because it's important to get into good habits from the beginning.

Speaking/CX - Be respectful. I love sass and attitude in CX and in speeches, but be aware of where the line is between sass and disrespect. This includes being disrespectful to your own partner (don't talk over them during CX). Debate should be a community and space where we all feel safe, if you jeopardize that and the other team problematizes and impacts this out, I am willing to vote on that outweighing all of your hypothetical policy impacts. If you make me laugh your speaks are going up.

FW/T - I will vote on T and FW, so feel free to read it in front of me. For both AFFs and NEGs, you need to have a clear abuse story and explain to me why your interpretation creates a better model of debate. Don't just say "our model of debate is better for fairness and education," you must also prove to me why those things are necessary and good and why the counter-interp is insufficient.

K - I mostly read them in college and they are my favorite arguments in debate. THERE SHOULD BE CLASH WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE. You need to link specifically to something in the AFF, not the squo. Even though I am familiar with K lit, I'm not going to do work for you. Explain clearly and have a compelling story. You need to show me the world of the Kritik. If at the end of the debate I don't understand what your alt is (how it functions, what it looks like, how it resolves the links, how/if it solves the AFF), I probably won't vote for it. You should be giving explanations that compare the world of the AFF and the world of the K.

NOTE: Be careful if you read anthro against anti-blackness teams. I find it is often argued in very problematic ways and I typically hate hearing anthro in those rounds. I have, however, voted for anthro many times in these rounds (unfortunately), so it can be done successfully, just TREAD CAREFULLY.

DA - Here, it's all about the link and impact debate. Have specific links to the plan and have a cohesive impact story. If you're going for the DA, I want to hear in depth impact comparisons. If everyone is claiming the same impacts or everything leads to extinction, you will need a more robust story to get me to prioritize the DA. My preference is that you read a CP that solves for the DA. If you're not reading a CP that can overcome the DA, make it clear to me why this is worse than the squo.

CP - It's all about solvency and competition. That means you need to have a net benefit.

My History With Debate: I did LD 2 years in high school and finished 6th at state my first year and was a finalist my second year (those being junior and senior year respectively). I also have judged LD for the past year.

Rate Of Delivery: Absolutely no spreading. I can keep up with some speed but if I clear you once you need to slow down and if I have to clear you again you will not be flowed for the remainder of that round. It is my job to hear you debate not read your debate.

Criterion & Value: This is what your case lives and dies by. It is not the only thing I consider; however, if someone can prove their VC completely supersedes yours, then your case will have a major uphill battle.

Voting Issues: These are necessary, even if you think we both know where you are winning. Explain why and how your winning line by line as the cherry on top of a great round and you can sinch a close one.

Evidence: Any purely empirical claim should have purely empirical evidence. I can follow your logic if you want to lead me down it, but evidence for your logic or a strong philosophical precedent will make me much more likely to believe the argumentation.

Flow: I always keep a flow during rounds (you should do the same, by the way), and walking me down the flow at the end of the round for your voters is essential. Don’t look like you're winning; tell me why you're winning.

Final Notes: I do not tolerate any form of mocking or bashing of the opposition. You are here to compete their case not them, and any Ad Hominems will lose you the round almost on the spot. Be kind to each other and have fun because this is a lot of fun! I will request a copy of each case at the beginning of the round and you must be able to provide a copy to your opponent if asked if your case is virtual (see UIL LD DEBATE RULES: Guidelines For Use of A Computer)

Email: Finchruggles@gmail.com

Not a fan of spreading.

i’ll weigh argument over style, but not by much.

I’m really looking for a clash of ideas, cross ex is important.

I will lightly flow.

My background experience is I did LD and public forum debate in high school and also foreign extempt.

I am primarily an LD, Congressional, and Individual Events judge (though I do have some experience in CX and PF, as well).

As a former competitor, I am pretty traditional in my approach to all forms of debate.

I view LD Debate as value/philosophy debate. Make sure that you address the value and criterion debate, as I will consider those central to the round and voting issues. If an opponent drops arguments, I will expect that you mention the drop and explain the relevance of the dropped argument to the round. It is necessary that you stay centered on the resolution and don't spend time getting bogged down in argument tangents (and, frankly, lengthy definition & author credibility debates).

I am more focused on the quality of argumentation and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you spread in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. If you insist on spreading, you must make sure that you are very clear. I will also expect you to slow down on the taglines when spreading. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email or flash to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me on a document).

Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lack professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points. I also am not a fan of open CX and do not believe that opponents should be speaking to each other during prep time in an LD round. Also, even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). It should go without saying, but please make sure that you are clearly signposting as you go down the flow.

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I coach debate at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations; however, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI in LD, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan. Again, Neg's are free to argue that they are entitled to that ground regardless of whether the AFF defends a plan or other hyperspecific advocacy. And AFFs are free to argue that Neg should never get topical ground.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFFs making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.