Tabroom.com

Southwest Championship at Arizona State

2016 — AZ/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tim Alderete The Meadows School 4 rounds

Arellano Arellano Chandler High School 6 rounds

Deirdre Baker College Prep 6 rounds None

Eleanor Beaird Horizon High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 9, 2016 at 2:57 PM MST

I did LD @ Horizon High School (’15) in Arizona.

Now I coach LD over the summer @ Southwest Speech and Debate Institute.

I use she/her/hers gender pronouns.

Overall, I am fine with most types of arguments/whatever you want the round to be. Most importantly, I do not think that the exclusion of your opponent is strategic. That being said, I am fine with speed/theory/kritical arguments/whatever makes you happy, but not if you are executing them in a way that it is contributing to a round where your opponent isn’t able to participate. You should be able to explain your cases/arguments to anyone.

I probably won’t be able to justify dropping you, but it will affect your speaker points and my subconscious perception of you. :(

Some things to be aware of if you want:

As of January 2016, I haven’t seen/judged/participated in a debate round in about 6 months. I am totally fine with speed but I will need you to slow down for tags/authors/important parts of cards/etc. I’ll yell clear if I can’t understand you, but there will come a time when I will have to stop flowing.

UPDATE 1/9/15: I've judged 16 rounds on the Jan/Feb LD topic

I have a very low theory threshold and I wouldn’t recommend running it unless it is legitimately necessary. Of course I will vote on theory if that’s what the round comes down to but I am also 100% comfortable voting off of paragraph theory. The format of how you read/respond to theory doesn’t make a difference to me. If anything, I probably prefer paragraph theory.
I like in depth frameworks that think outside the box. Impacting back to your framework is really important to me.
Just because your opponent drops/doesn’t adequately respond to something doesn’t mean you automatically win the round. I need really clear extensions that impact back to something (preferably your framework).
A brief summary at the end of speeches explaining why you’re winning never hurt anyone and it will probably increase your speaker points/my chance of voting for you, especially if it’s a close round.

& some other stuff:

no, I don’t care if you sit or stand.
flex prep is fine but only for clarification questions and only if it is cool with your opponent.
please pre-flow ahead of time. <3
i’ll be timing the round, but please let me know if you want time signals ahead of time because that’s cool with me.
Like most decent people, I’m not going to vote off of something that’s offensive. If you’re thinking “is this argument offensive?” it probably is.

Feel free to ask more specific questions before the round. Yay debate! :)

Brad Bendy Foothill High 6 rounds None

Jesus Betancourt Brophy College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 8, 2016 at 3:42 AM MDT

I competed in LD and PFD for Brophy College Prep ('13). I've been judging high school debate since '13, and have experience competing in collegiate Parliamentary and IPDA debate.

As someone who believes this activity is all about YOU (the debaters), I try not to set standards that would adversely affect your ability to debate the way you prefer. This means I am open-minded and accepting when it comes to alternative case styles, performance methods, K's, theory, etc.

For the sake of my flow, please signpost at all times. Speed and spreading are fine with me, as long as I can get your tags/sources/authors.

As far as voting, I base my decision on whatever happens in the round aka I'm a flow judge. I look for clash, I look for impact calc, and I look for solid link chains.

This is what I ask for of my debaters:

1. Be kind. You're debating other human persons, and should treat yourself, your partner, and your opponents as such.
2. Be respectful. Being on time is a demonstration of respect. Allowing equal time distribution in cross-ex is a show of respect. Shake the hands of your opponents, but not mine.
3. Be smart. Don't waste time, don't make up evidence, don't make bad allegories.

This is how I assign speaker points:
(a great way to guess what your sp might be is watching my facial expressions when you speak)

30 - You were fluent, a great speaker, arguments had solid reasoning and link stories, provided impact calc, signposted, etc.
29 - Maybe you had one or two verbal hiccups or not-so-strong arguments
28 - Maybe you had more than one or two verbal hiccups or not-so-strong arguments
27 - This is what I call "average"
26 - This is what I call "below average"
25 - This is what I call "a mess"
24 and below - You probably said something offensive or hateful

Miscellaneous things about me as a judge:

- I keep track of all prep time. I will ask "are you taking prep" at the end of each speech to the next speaker. I will NOT time prep during evidence sharing, but you should have your case/evidence ready for your opponents to review, because - guess what! - I may also want to review that evidence.
- If my timer starts beeping I stop flowing!
- Please don't address me in your speeches, it is not good word economy and it also makes me uncomfortable. Also please do not shake my hand unless you are going to lowkey slip me chocolate/ca$h.
- I am open to giving more in-depth advice/critiques after the round, as long as you don't interrupt me when I'm eating
- Don't interrupt my RFD, because that is ME time, I just had to listen to YOU speak for ~20-25 minutes total.
- I am a human being with flaws so I apologize in advance for any and all facial expressions/vocal reactions I may have in a round I judge

Hannah Billmier Palo Verde High School 1 rounds

Lizzy Canarie Hire 3 rounds

Michael Clark Venture High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 10, 2017 at 2:04 PM MDT

Background

I was not involved in debate in High School, so I don't have a lot of that type of background. I got involved in judging tournaments in 2014 when my oldest son starting debating. He was involved in Lincoln Douglas, so I tried judging those rounds when I attended. I am an Electrical Engineer, 20 years of experience. I have been very active in politics over the years, being county and state delegate several years for the local political party, representing my district. I have judged a lot of rounds over the last year and a half; probably 40 or more. I am familiar with the process of a LD Debate and I know more than a bit about the topics presented as my son and I discuss topics and debate philosophies quite a bit at home.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow. Being an engineer, I have made a spreadsheet to help me in my judging. Since I type much faster than I write, I use my laptop to help me keep track of the flow of the debate. I want to know what your Value, Criteria, and all of your Contentions are and very clearly. I enter those in my spreadsheet and then track how you and your opponent make points or attacks on those contentions. I have devised a number scheme to score each contention and then add (or take away) points from that score based on your ability to convince me of the validity of your contention (or to get me to agree to your attacks on your opponent's contentions). At the end of the debate, I use these scores to help me determine who won the debate, because that debater convinced me the most of his contentions (or attacks on opponent's contentions).

If you like to talk fast, I am fine with it, to a point. I have tried to judge policy debates where "spewing" is the norm. I don't like spewing. Fast talking is one thing, but spewing is for the birds (I'll never judge a policy debate again). One thing you better be sure of is that I get your value, criteria, and contentions; to do that SPEAK THOSE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY! I find contentions to be very weak if I can't understand what you are contending. Obviously, if I get a speech or two into the round and I still don't know your contention, you are going to score weaker on those contentions.

I also track dropped contentions and score them very highly for your opponent when they are dropped. If you miss them, I assume you mean you agree with them, which is a big score for your opponent. I score higher when you pick up and make a big deal of your opponent dropping (if they do). I also tend to give Affirm the benefit of the doubt because of the disadvantage in speech times, in the interest of fairness. However, I also tend to hit Neg harder if they miss because of their time advantage on speeches. That by no means implies I agree more often with Affirm or Neg; just a little benefit of the doubt in the interest of fairness.

I consider most topics to be optimal with 3 contentions. Less than that doesn't seem to cover enough to prove a position, while more than that seems to cause time problems with speeches. You certainly are free to use as many contentions as you like, but in my opinion, 3 is about right.

Timing of speeches

I am fine with you timing your own speeches. I keep time, and my timer is law, be it faster or slower than your timer. I also claim the right to allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off. But, again, it's my call. If you keep talking after the timer, I wont stop you. I just start knocking off speaker points.

Disclosure

Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I don't care if they do or not; I don't disclose or provide verbal feedback. Tournaments go way too long as it is without extra time expended in disclosure or feedback. Additionally, if you lost, you almost certainly consider me a fool and worthy of adamant debate proving you are more than worthy of winning. I don't come to tournaments to debate you. Just judge. So even if you see me wandering around afterwards and ask me how you did, I am going to tell you I don't remember (which is probably true), and either way, I don't want to debate. Even if you are sincere and would take constructive criticism, my memory (and desire) just isn't good enough to give you want you seek. Take my written remarks on the ballot for what they are and that will be what you get. I will make an effort to be as detailed as I can as to why I voted for or against you. Sometimes it is obvious who won; sometimes it is a hard choice and I wish I didn't have to make either of you lose. But there can only be one winner and one of you will hate me for my position. I prefer to be well within the confines of anonymity when you find out what I said bad about you.

Speaker Points

I generally take the 30 points you receive and break them down by speech (Affirm has 4 speeches, 1 cross ex, so 6 points per event. Neg has 3 and 1 cross ex,, so 7.5 per event). Depending on your performance during that event, I rate you based on performance in that event. I may dock points for being disorganized, being rude, being belligerent, not speaking clearly, etc. based on how you perform in each event. I rarely take off more than 1 point per event. So a good solid performance in each event will garner a good speaker point score.

Major annoyances

Most techniques of debate I am fine with. Contention is fine, but rudeness rubs me wrong. Some inadvertant rudness can be expected and it grates me a bit, but I won't nail you too hard. Unless you are really bad. One thing really irritates me in debates: the "straw man" technique. If you don't know what that is, look it up. It really gets my goat. One debate I judged, a debater deployed the straw man technique and I stopped caring what either person's criteria or points even were. Straw man is dishonest, unfair, and wrong! If you use it in a debate I judge, you guarantee a loss. It can happen inadvertently, and I understand that, but pounding it home will waste your time and mine.

Boaz Cohon Catalina Foothills High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2017 at 11:46 AM EDT

I debated Lincoln Douglas debate for 4 years at Catalina Foothills High School and was a policy debater for 2 years at Vanderbilt University. Below I'll list my thoughts on a variety of judging related questions. If you have further queries feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Overview

I try to leave my predispositions at the door when I enter a room to judge a round. However the tabula rasa ideal is simply not realistic. Every judge comes into the round with biases, beliefs, etc., and no one can truly divorce these from their judging entirely. Below I will endeavour to state what my predispositions are, and what competitors should strive to do in front of me.

Rules

There are a three basic rules of debate that I believe must be followed in any given round. 1. There are prescribed times for the affirmative and the negative 2. In every round each competitor has a set side 3. The resolution is the subject of the debate. Beyond those the rules must be set via theory. If you break one of the rules above the only thing your opponent has to do for me to vote you down is point it out and say why it is bad. This not only includes overt things like reading on for a minute after your time is up, but also more subtle violations like card clipping. Do not do things to break these basic rules. The last precept, the resolution as the topic of debate has become unmoored in recent years, a development I do not particularly like. I will still listen to your case if it does not stick within the bounds of the resolution, but I will be sympathetic to arguments about why this practice destroys education/makes debate so unfair that people leave the activity. Lastly, though courtesy and respect are not rules of debate, I expect a sembalance of decorum out of the competitors in front of me. I know cross examinations can get heated, I know emotions run high in debate rounds, but those facts are not excuses for be unduly rude to your opponents. Be respectful, be courteous, be nice. Simple rules to follow, yet competitors often fail to do so.

Speed

I'm fine with spreading as long as it is clear, but I am a bit out of practice discerning it seeing as I have not debated in half a year. I will say clear once if I cannot understand you and after that I will stop flowing. Anything I do not flow I will not weigh in the round. All that being said, just because I am okay with spreading does not mean that I particularly enjoy it or that you have to do it to win. I much prefer a good debate to a fast one.

Progressive Arguments

I will vote on any argument run as long as it is done well and it's clear what you are saying (take into account the addendum on non-resolutional arguments above). I am not particularly well versed in critical literature so if you are running a kritik please explain it to me well. If you are reading something particularly unconventional I will listen, but you still need to win arguments as to why I should. Read what's best for you I will try to do my best in judging it.

Framework

I will decide on who won the value debate and then who won the criterion debate and then weigh the impacts under whatever framework won. Normally this is beneficial to whichever side's framework I choose, but that can be mitigated by impacting back to your opponent's framework, something I highly recommend doing.

Argumentation

Too often people read claims, extend claims, and tell me I should vote based on claims. I expect that when an argument is made it has a warrant, and when you extend that argument you extend the warrant too.

Impact Framing

In general I find high magnitude low probability impacts less compelling than more probable impacts, but I will vote on either as long as you make a case for why I should. Please use the 2NR and 2AR in particuar to frame the round.

Theory

Blippy theory is bad for debate in my opinion. I don't like voting on theory unless it is clearly justified. If you feel as though you need to run theory you should show clear, in-round abuse. Debate is an educational activity at its core, it is what differentiates debate from other types of competitive activities. As such I find education related reasons much more compelling in theory debates than fairness related reasons in and of themselves. However, I also think that having a fair debate can be key to this educational activity. If you are going to read fairness voters don't simply say fairness is the voter, explain why fairness matters for the educational value of debate.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points solely to reflect how well someone has spoken in the round not whether they won or debated better. This gives the requisite weight to speaking well in LD in my opinion. I tend to use a scale of 30-25. Anything less than a 25 means there was something really wrong with what you did in the round (you were probably rude/disrespectful).

If you have questions about a round I judged fell free to email me questions at boaz.m.cohon@vanderbilt.edu.

Tejas Dharmaraj Hire 6 rounds None

Jason Domingo Coronado 6 rounds

Jack Escobar Mesquite High School 6 rounds

Brandon Favre Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Judy Fickess The Meadows School 6 rounds

John Foy St. Francis High School 2 rounds None

Anthony Gerrettie Salpointe Catholic High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 8:03 AM MST

Anthony Gerrettie
Northern Arizona University, '05 B.S. in Public Relations and Speech Communication
University of Arizona, '08 Post Bacc in Secondary Education, English

Former Head Coach, Salpointe Speech and Debate (2009 - 2018)

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Prep time has been a disaster in paperless policy. Flash evidence efficiently or if it gets abusive or if your partner is prepping while you're flashing, I'm running the clock.

While I used to judge policy exclusively, I've only judged policy when needed for the past three years. I'VE SEEN A TOTAL OF 6 POLICY ROUNDS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

Speed: I've judged policy on and off for nine years so I'm decent with speed. I'll let you know if you need to slow it down, but if you're not clear, I'm not going to get it. If I can't hear it because you do not articulate, it didn't happen. Part of being a debater and winning is communication. GIVE ME THE TAG LINE SLOWLY AND THEN RAMP BACK UP.

Topicality: Very rarely do I vote that a plan is untopical. When I do, it's only because an alternative definition for something was provided and proved to be more effective that was not clashed by the affirmative and it was extended by the negative team calling the plan untopical. I SEE TOPICALITY AS A TIME SKEW THAT THE NEG WILL KICK OUT OF IN A LATER SPEECH. GO FOR T IF THEY DROP IT AND THEN MAKE IT YOUR MAIN VOTER ISSUE.

K: Kritik's are good but only with proper analysis. Here's where you need to use your voice, speed and volume to annunciate what in the K card makes that K good. I'll need more than a tag line if it's going to be evaluated seriously. You can't make critical claims without analyzing and I need to hear that analysis, but when you use K's, you really put yourself more in the hands of a judge than simply winning on other arguments would. They will have to philosophically side with your K.

CP's: I see CP's as a strong argument. Telling me you can do their plan better is a great way to win a debate. That being said, your counterplan needs to address all aspects of the preious plan. It's not a true counter plan unless it covers everything. Counter the counter plan by addressing all arguments, or perm it. A line by line argument on the flow will help with this.

DA's : Important for debate and clash. The best debates have clash and every debater has a ton of DA's, be sure you pull out the right ones.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Value/Criterion Debate
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent. With the evolution of L/D debate, the framework is becoming less of an important argument. If you go traditional, win ont he framework, if you go progressive, you can win on an Off Care argument or turns of your opponents case.

Contentions
I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Rebuttals
Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extrend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summariing the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

Progressive LD Debate

LD is becoming more and more like policy. I enjoy progressive debate but only if you are aware of the literature. Too many students are running progressive arguments and don't understand them. If you're going to be progressive understand the literature and spend a minute or two in your final speech explaining why you were progressive and why you've won. Overexplain.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

Any questions?
Tony.Gerrettie@gmail.com

Public Forum Judging Philosophy

I've spent the majority of recent rounds judging L/D and PF.

Contention Level

-The first speech should build your case. Observations and Framework should come first.

Rebuttal

-Rebut down the flow. Attack everything in order as it's given.

Summary

-Figure out where you're ahead and make that your speech. The summary should contain voter issues

Final Focus

-Tell me why you've won this ballot. You can only have access to arguments that the summary beings up. If the summary didn't mention it, you can't bring it back up.

Prep Time

-If you call for a card that's fine and great. Once you get that card in your possession, prep time starts. Your prep time will be used to read the card.

Jeff Gunther Venture High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 6, 2016 at 4:05 PM MDT

Background

I am an assistant coach with Venture High School, but my debate experience is entirely from the past 2-3 years. I did not compete in High School, but I have been heavily involved in the past couple of years. I focus on both LD and PF, with a slight emphasis on LD. I am heavily involved in politics, but my content area is in the STEM fields, so I do not have a heavy philosophy background, although I will follow the arguments if they are clear. I am a very linear, logically-minded person who will flow the round as you go.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow, although I am willing to entertain more progressive arguments and will adapt my flow as needed. I will flow on my computer because I type much faster and more clearly than I write. As a result, my flows are rather detailed, focusing on the substance of what was said rather than just the big idea. I have three main things that I look for as I judge:

I will evaluate the winner of the V/C debate and then evaluate remaining contentions against that V/C. You can win a round after losing the V/C debate if your contentions will still win under your opponent's V/C, but you will not win even with excellent contentions if they do not support the winning V/C.
I ask for clear, well articulated rebuttals to your opponent's points. Please refer to the contention number that you are attempting to rebut or bolster in later speeches so that I know where you are looking on the flow. Also, points raised in CX must be addressed in the speaches in order to hold any weight.
Finally, please use the last minute or so of your final speech to provide clear and compelling voters. This is the most important part of the debate, in my opinion. I want you to tell me why you won at the end. It is whoevers voters that I feel are most supported that is likely to win the round.

Timing

I am fine with you timing your own speeches, but I will keep official time. I will allow someone to finish a sentence or question after the timer goes off, but do not try to start a new one or I will cut you off. In CX, I will let the conversation go to a natural break and then stop you. When I make it clear that it is time to stop, stop.

I will keep official prep time, however, I will not stop you after a certain amount of time. So, if you wish to budget your time and only use a set amount at a time, please keep an eye on that yourself. In other words, don't ask me for one minute of prep; just ask for prep and I will stop the timer when you are ready to speak.

Disclosure

Most tournaments don't allow judges to disclose or provide feedback. I make it a policy to not disclose, regardless of the tournament's policy. There are rare exceptions where I have witnessed a truly remarkable debate and feel like I can provide some input on strengthening the cases, but those are few and far between. You are free to ask for feedback, but I will decline nearly all of the time. I will never disclose a winner. I do work to make my feedback and RFD very clear and detailed.

Speaker Points

A 30 is a very clear, well-polished, internally consistent, well-supported speech. I give out way more 29s than 30s. A 27-28 is fairly average. A weak, faltering speech is often a 25-26. Not using up all of your time will definitely knock down your speaker points. I am very comfortable with awarding low-point wins. In my mind, the quality of the speech and the strength of the arguments are totally separate concepts.

Speed

I am okay with some speed, but it needs to be clear enough that I can understand it and not so fast that I cannot flow. I don't appreciate speed for the sake of confusing opponents or trying to introduce more arguments than can possibly be responded to. If I can't get everything down, you risk losing the fact that it was said.

Civility

I appreciate a good, heated debate. I am fine with some interpersonal clash during CX. However, I find debaters who are smug and condescending to others to be hard to watch. You will definitely lose speaker points for this. While debate is supposed to be confrontational, it still needs to be fun for all involved. Be sure to have the sportsmanship component of debate in the back of your mind during round.

Tracy Hancey Layton High 4 rounds

Emma Hobbs Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 27, 2017 at 7:19 AM EDT

UPDATED 12/27/2017

I've been out of debate for about 2 years now, so please go about 75% of your max-speed.

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

I competed both locally and nationally in LD for 4 years in high school and was a policy debater at ASU for 1 year. I try to be as tab as possible, so run whatever you want. Debate can be a game or a forum or really what ever you want, just tell me how you want me to evaluate the round and I'll do so. Do what you want and debate well if you want my ballot.

I default to evaluating the round in order of theory, kritiks, case. That being said, I will evaluate the round in whatever order you tell me (as long as it's warranted!!!!). I'm totally willing to evaluate Ks before theory if you explain why I should.

For the love of all things holy, please impact back to something...anything. I will be very sad if you're making a great arg but not giving me any mechanism with which to weigh it. This means read and win a role of the ballot with a k, read voters on theory, defend your framework, etc.

Kritiks:Yes please! I ran a lot of Ks in high school and was a K debater in policy. I'm pretty well versed in baudrillard, antiblackness/afropess/wilderson, virillio, butler, marxism, psychoanalysis and fem rage so I feel comfortable evaluating most anything. PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THINGS HOLY AND GOOD IN THE WORLD, do not run a K in front of me if you do not know it--I won't intervene against you if you're winning it, but it will probably hurt your speaks and I will feel sad. If it's really dense, slow down a little for tags (go like 70% of your max speed). I'm a fan of performance ks as long as you give me a firm way to decide the round. Be clear on your ROB.

Theory/T: I'm fine with it, I'll vote on it. I have a pretty low threshold for theory--run it if you want. I'm fine with blippy theory arguments and if you frame them as an independent voter, I'll go for it. If you want to really win on theory there are a few things.

Please make the internal links to your voters clear in your standards.
Tell me--very coherently--what to do about RVIs (I don't have a default)
Please please don't make me intervene on theory. This means weigh between competing shells!!! If you weigh theory well, I will vote the way you want me to.

Extensions: Be clear and tell me why it matters. I don't need you to extend everything in your last speech, just show me where your winning and why it's more important than where you're losing. Honestly, if you're winning, and you know you're winning (like they dropped theory or didn't respond to/try to win under your rob) extend that and sit down. I'll vote on the highest level of debate in the easiest place.

Plans/CPs: go for it.

Other stuff: If you want to have a util/deon debate, that's fine with me. I was really into traditional LD when I first started and I know classical/traditional philosophy well. I'll evaluate whatever you give me. Just be clear as to why you're winning what.

Speaks: Probably on the higher end. I'll average 28. Be strategic and run cool stuff and run it well I'll give you higher speaks. If you're really offensive (anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, etc) I'm not opposed to giving you a 0.

Key to my ballot: Spend a simple 20 or 30 seconds at the end of your last speech explaining how I should break down the debate. Tell me where to go first and why you're winning there. Make it really simple for me to fill out my ballot. If you want to win, tell me why.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round or find me/message me on facebook.

Richard Idriss El Cerrito High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu December 31, 2020 at 10:10 AM PDT

If you are time-pressed, reading the bold will give you a general idea of my judging philosophy, and reading the unbolded text around what is bolded should give you the full picture. **For Alta** Please scroll below to the Policy section and find the post-Meadows update.

Conflicts: Juan Diego CHS, El Cerrito, The Davidson Academy of Nevada, Cal Berkeley, Southwestern College

I debated for four years in high school for Juan Diego in Utah (2008-2012) - two years in LD and two in Policy, and for a year and a half in college Policy for Cal Berkeley (2012, 2014). In my time in HS I qualified for the TOC, advanced to late outrounds at various majors, attended the greenhill round robin, and earned top speaker at the Cal tournament. As a college debater I took second at the Cal college tournament and was a quarterfinalist at the UK freshman breakout.

I'm currently a high school Policy Debate coach for The Davidson Academy of Reno, Nevada, and a college Policy Debate coach for Southwestern College. I also do work online teaching speech and debate to students in China with Global Academic Commons.

I have a background studying a fair amount of different strands of academic literature that debaters would probably label as "K arguments" so interdisciplinary epistemological criticisms make me smile. Don't take this to mean your speeches can be intensely jargon heavy and inaccessible - debate is a communicative activity not an academic conference where participants present research papers. ** Extra speaker points if you are so well versed in whatever theory you are arguing that it comes across in your speeches and cross-x answers, and you seek to inform rather than obfuscate with your responses (this means for you security/threat construction/cap/[insert other structural logic] folks, start coming up with examples of failed foreign policies whose justifications rely on whatever logic you are critiquing - know some history). **

Some thoughts POST-BERKELEY 2019: I am tired of seeing students no-show to tournaments just because they can't clear. If you are already out of the tournament (0-3 or worse) when I am judging you, I will be increasingly generous with speaker points the further down the bracket you all are (barring hateful speech or lack of effort of course). I think you deserve recognition for showing up in spite of not being able to clear, which is an act of respect for both the tournaments you attend, as well as your opponents.

Long story short:

Debate is debate - my position as a judge isn't to tell debaters what arguments they can and can't make, but to decide, given the arguments presented to me by the debaters in-round, who has done the better debating. This means I look to write reasons for decision that have the least amount of intervention on my part to interpret arguments as possible so be sure to warrant and impact your extensions.

If there is some blatantly obvious gut-check, round over concession (i.e. negative block never answers conditionality bad and they actually read an advocacy that is conditional, someone concedes a T shell - like imagine you're debating a novice or someone fresh out of JV and they drop something absolutely crucial) please err toward using less of your speech time. I watched an elim-level varsity team at Stanford crush a pretty new JV team and there was actually no reason for the aff team to use anything beyond a minute of prep throughout the debate - nearly every flow was conceded. Yet the 2AR took the remaining 9:45 of prep the aff team had left..... I will reward your speaker points if you choose not to use all of your prep or speech time in instances like this.

A note on in-round language Ks like ableism, "you guys", etc.: I think apologizing can be a legitimate answer to a lot of these arguments but it needs to not be coupled with an immediate defense of the language used. If you choose to make a meaningful apology it should probably be done conversationally, not at full speed, because it should pose a material consequence on your speech if you don't think it should cost you the ballot. Otherwise, debate it. Sometimes engaging with problematic discourse is good - look at movements to reclaim the word queer by LGBTQ communities, or the history of the N word's modification and use by black Americans. All I'm asking is that you pick a lane and stick with it.

Short story long:

While I may have some proclivities about how arguments should be read, which I will try to be as earnest about as possible below, I as much as possible judge based solely off of what arguments have been made by the debaters themselves. I think it is possible to have a debate in-round about whether that's all I should base my decision on - if you want to make an epistemology argument justify it and be responsive.

I will flow the debate line-by-line unless arguments are made for me to do otherwise, or a request made before a more performative speech. This means if I'm listening to a performance aff and haven't been told not to flow line-by-line, I will write down what I think are the implied arguments of different parts of your speech.

Good debaters make arguments, great debaters explain why those arguments matter. This means a massive spread of arguments isn't always the best way to go. Consolidate your arguments as the debate moves on and try your best to "write my ballot for me" with your overviews of arguments in the debate. The less explanation there is on a given issue in a round, the more it feels like I'm forced to intervene in order to make my decision.

Don't ask me to disclose speaker points.

An aside on post-rounding: Don't. Barring a hard-line tournament policy preventing me from doing so, I will withhold submitting the ballot until after I've announced my decision and given a brief RFD. Beyond the bad optics of unsporting conduct, I am diagnosed with general anxiety disorder as well as PTSD and will, in this instance, use speaker points as a deterrent to debaters or coaches aggravating my mental health condition. Feel free to ask questions, just act like you're speaking to another human being and not berating a computer with a software glitch. The next debater that doesn't heed this warning will get a 25. The next coach who doesn't heed this warning will cause their students in the debate round to receive a maximum of 25 speaker points, possibly less depending on how much of the round the coach actually watched. I won't tell you this is happening either, you can figure it out on your cume sheet. I will simply pack up my things and then leave, offering to provide the other team feedback in a safer area. Take your attitude to Peewee Football where it belongs.

If you've gotten this far into reading my philosophy I want to reward your attempts to understand and adapt to your critics. Tell me that my cat Moe is the most adorable cat this side of the galaxy and I'll give you .4 extra speaker points the first time I judge you.

Policy

Folks, when I debated I read big-stick policy affs with heg and econ impacts, soft-left critical affs, personal narratives, bizarre postmodern kritiks, process cps w/ politics, word PICs, functional PICs, and probably some other nonsense too. I have a tremendous amount of respect for debaters who can be flexible, particularly as the activity has seemed to become more polarized. Read whatever arguments you want to read. Just be clear and impact them back to the debate.

Ok, there is one thing - terrorism impacts. Not only are most of these authors anti-Arab and/or Islamophobic racists, or just xenophobes period, but I just personally have always found these arguments comically bad. You can read these still if you really want and truly have nothing else, or you think you have a persuasive scenario, but if I have to actually vote for it as an impact scenario it's probably going to be a low point win. In seven years of judging I've not once voted on a terrorism impact in any debate event, but I have had to dock speaker points for the hateful garbage that comes out of some people's mouths while defending them.

Yeah, and framework. If you are aff answering a K, I'm probably going to be unpersuaded by the argument that Ks are cheating. I do think it is reasonable for the aff to argue that they get to weigh their 1AC (expect negative push back with sequencing arguments of course). If you are neg vs. a K aff there's definitely a spectrum of what 1ACs framework is a more persuasive argument to me on. Affs should probably still have to relate to the topic - what "relating to the topic" means is something up for debate if the question is raised. 1ACs should have some sort of advocacy statement, whether it needs to be a USfg backed plan or something broader is up for debate... Beyond those two qualifiers, everything is fair game.

**ONE OTHER THING (POST-MEADOWS 2019):**

I'm becoming increasingly irritated by the butchered articulations of Afropessimism positions (mainly) by white debaters. I'm going to start tanking the speaker points of debaters who read arguments like Afropessimism or settler colonialism alongside ideologically inconsistent negative strategies. Defenses of conditionality do not absolve debaters of the inconsistencies between the worldviews that they forward within debate rounds. I voted down a fairly talented team at Meadows who never grappled with how their reading of a contradicting no root cause argument on-case was spun as proof that the negative's endorsement of Wilderson's ideology was only as a fungible means to an end of winning debate rounds, turning alt solvency. If a central component of your argument is that black bodies are rendered fungible for the benefit of others within civil society what the hell does it say that you'd read this argument alongside framework (which I've seen done repeatedly) or alongside case arguments which assert the logic of otherization lacks a root cause? If you are debating a team who makes a sweeping ontological or epistemic critique like one of these alongside milquetoast policy positions or other contradictory arguments please call it out. Not only will you likely have a very easy decision in your favor but I will reward your speaker points heavily. A CAVEAT: I think these arguments are less strong when applied to critiques like the Security K which don't call for an entire rewriting of the foundations of society and can be spun as a test of the affirmative's worldview for political decisionmaking. Basically, if your criticism would call for a fundamental restructuring of human relations or total opposition to engagement through any status quo mechanism, be it institutional or interpersonal, you ought to commit to your worldview because to do otherwise likely reifies your arguments about the way movements aren't addressed within status quo politics and are footnoted, ignored, or perverted for the benefit of the ruling class.

"T isn't genocide" is both a strawman and incomplete argument. When I hear those words in a debate round my mental image is of the speaker plugging their ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA." Further, a critique of T is not an RVI, and your generic "T is not an RVI" block is more than likely to be insufficient to answer an actual criticism of topicality. If debate is a game does that change the scope or context of any silencing/exclusion that may occur? Do games function without limits? Maybe think about these questions when formulating your response.

I want to be a part of the email chain for the round, ask me for my email before the debate.

Do not remove card taglines or plan/counterplan texts from your speech documents.

I do not open speech documents during the debate. My flow will be based entirely off of what I can understand being said/argued by both teams during their speech time (no 30 second grace period, my pen/typing stops when the timer goes off).

I may look at a few cards after the round is over, especially if the evidence in question is heavily contested or cited by one or both teams. In general, the more cards I need to personally read to decide the debate, the more I feel like I'm being forced to intervene.

Don't steal prep time holy hell people. Time used to delete analytics from your speech document is prep time. If an attempt to send the file out within 10 seconds of the words "stop prep" being said is not clearly made, the speaking team's prep time restarts. Take your hands off of your keyboards during dead time before speeches, unless you are pulling up the current speech document. Anything else is prep. Obviously I can't track the milliseconds of your prep time, so I'll dock your speaker points instead if it becomes a consistent issue.

If you speed through your theory blocks, T argument, or an important overview like a card I'm gonna absorb less of it. I'll still be able to write down your arguments, but (particularly for theory, T, and FW debates) I might miss a quick analytic, organize it differently from what you intended, or just think about it less. I'm gonna emphasize this further - your judges do not hear every word you say, stop taking for granted that you have your blocks prewritten in front of you and SLOW DOWN (especially if you're the type of debater to take your analytic blocks out of your speech doc - be willing to accept the negative externalities that result).

"Judge kick" with advocacies: The negative is obligated to tell me if I should view the status quo as a secondary option going into the 2NR/2AR. Any interpretation of this issue, absent debaters explicitly clarifying it themselves in-round, requires an amount of judge intervention to resolve. In those instances, I conclude that the path of least intervention is to assume that the negative is solely defending the world they've explicitly presented to me in the final speech.

Don't waste time over-explaining your value if the debate isn't going to come down to it. Often times the value-criterion is where the real debate for how I should evaluate arguments in the round occurs.

The "number of contentions won" (actual phrase uttered by a debater I judged) is irrelevant in my decision calculus. I need to know why the arguments won matter underneath one, or both, frameworks presented in the round.

Don't run shoddy theory arguments, run ones you have a legitimate chance of winning. I think the time skew for the 1AR in LD has always been particularly egregious, and too many debaters rely on extraneous theory violations tripping up the 1AR to win their rounds. I don't want to vote for these arguments. I will if you convincingly win them, but your speaker points will likely not be that high.

"Plans aren't allowed in LD debate" is not a complete argument. It is an interpretation for a theoretical violation which I expect debaters to justify with arguments for why that's a better world of LD debate.

Also, criterion shouldn't essentially be a plan or idea on how to attain your value. I'm not sure when this idea became common among more local debaters, but your criterion is supposed to be an evaluative lens for me to judge the arguments presented to me in the round and their impact.

Rory Jacobson College Prep 6 rounds None

Niharika Jain Corona del Sol 6 rounds None

Jeff Joseph Kent Denver 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 16, 2019 at 9:17 AM MDT

Contact info: jeff@immigrationissues.com

I coach debate so I am comfortable with most debate styles. I coach LD and am more familiar with LD, but also did policy in college and assist in coaching it now. I am qualified to judge both events.

Debate is fun. I value wit and humor. Debate is educational. I value scissor-sharp logic. Debate is a chance for high school students to make radical arguments for change. Don't be afraid to be yourself and express your opinion in any method you choose.

I like well-developed, persuasive and interesting cases with strong internal links and warrants and interesting and novel approaches to the resolution.

I believe that debate is, at its core, a thought experience. As a debater, you get to approach each debate round as your debate round. You get to set the rules. You get to debate what you find educational and valuable. To me that is the greatest thing about debate. To that extent, I like creative arguments and the arguments do not have to be conventional. However, you have to persuade me that there is a reason to vote for you, and you have to be prepared to justify that what you are debating is fair and educational to your opponent. To that extent, your opponent also gets to set the rules and play the game the way he or she wants to as well. That means that I am open to theory/topicality arguments on either side in order to set the ground rules for the debate.

I value cross-examination. It shows how a debater thinks on his or her feet, how well he or she understands the resolution and case and how well he or she uses rhetoric and logic. Use it effectively. I want you to answer your opponent's questions and not blow off cross ex. I flow cross-ex and consider statements made in CX as binding.

I will vote on textual arguments, Ks, policy arguments, theory, narratives and performative debate as long as you present an overall persuasive case.

In terms of layering, Theory/Topicality is evaluated as the first layer in debate. I have to first determine that the game is being played fairly before I consider the substance of the arguments. To that extent, I am open to theory arguments. If you are going to make theory arguments, please set forth an interpretation, standards and voters. Don't just claim your opponent is being unfair. If you are are arguing against the theory argument, please provide a counterinterpretation or show me that no counterinterpretation is necessary because you meet the interpretation and do not violate. I am open to RVI arguments and will evaluate those arguments, but only if you prove the theory is frivolous, time suck or strat suck. So RVIs will be considered but you have to show me that the theory argument, itself, was abusive. I will not consider an RVI just because you blip it out. Neg does not get reciprocity on RVIs.

After theory, I next evaluate ROTB, ROTJ and framework arguments. ROTB and ROTJ tells me that there is a role that I play that transcends the debate round. As such, I evaluate ROTB and ROTJ equally with other more traditional framework arguments. If you tell me what my role is, I will accept that as my role. That means the opponent has to come up with a counter ROTB, or show how he or she accesses your ROTB or how your ROTB is somehow bad or that your framework is superior. Same with arguments that you tell me are a priori, prior questions or decision rules. If you tell me there are, justify it, provide rationale. It is then up to your opponent to counter that. Your counter ROTB can be as simple as you should vote for the better debater, but don't just drop it because you assume that traditional framework (weighing case) comes first.

After framework, I will evaluate the contention level. Ks, narratives and performative arguments will be evaluated equally with other arguments but you have to provide the layering for me and tell me how to evaluate those arguments in the round.

Great weighing of arguments is your best route to high speaks. Don't just extend args. Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round and how those arguments interact with the other side. I will evaluate all arguments that are not blatantly offensive. But it is up to you to tell my why those arguments are voters. The worst rounds are rounds where there is no weighing, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped. Tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round. I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend an argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient. Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way. Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round. And, don't go for everything. The best debaters are the ones who are able to succinctly crystalize the key issues in the round and collapse down to those key issues and tell me why they win the debate.

Kritiks: I love them and I love how they are progressing in debate. This includes narratives/performance arguments. Some of the best debates I have seen are good perfomative Kritiks. I will evaluate Ks equally with other positions. However, I have a few ground rules for Ks. First, if you are going to do a K, clearly explain your alt, ROTB and methodology and do not stray from it. It is a pet peeve when someone runs a K and then cannot justify it in CX or is snarky about answering questions about it in CX. If you are criticizing something, you have to be able to explain it under pressure. Second pet peeve: Your method/performance must go in the same direction as the K. If you are running Bifo (semiocapitalism) and then spread without giving your entire speech document to your opponent, I find that to be a performative contradiction. This will not end well for you. On a K explain whether you claim pre-fiat or post-fiat solvency and clearly how your discourse preempts other arguments in the round and weigh your discourse against your opponents framework. If you are doing a narrative or performative argument, you should be able to clearly articulate your methodology for your performance in the round. I know that I bring my own biases in the round, but I try my best to leave them at the door of the debate room and approach narratives and performative arguments with a blank slate. I appreciate hearing your voice in the round. If you are running fem rage or queer rage I want to hear it in the round. I want to hear your voice. That, to me, is the point of using the debate space for performance and narrative. So, I expect you to be able to clearly articulate your methodology and narrative and answer questions about how your opponent interacts with the methodology in the round. If you run a narrative but fumble over how that narrative and methodology works in the debate space, I find it less credible.

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all evaluated. If you're running a DA, make sure the link debate and impacts are clear. Make sure you are doing good impact calculus on timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversability, etc. I will consider all impact scenarios. It is up to your opponent to tell me why those impact scenarios are outweighed.

Spikes, tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments: I am not a fan of "tricks," spikes and blippy arguments and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for underview blips and extensions of spikes and blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses. That means if your opponent has a halfway coherent response to them I am likely to drop the argument. I know that tricks are a new and sexy thing in debate. I just hate them.

Speed: I can flow speed. However, I like to be included in the email chain or pocketbox. Also if your analytics are not on the document, I will try my best to keep up, but don't blame me if you spread through them and I miss something. It is up to you to make the argument explicitly enough that I flow it and extend it. I like to review the evidence, so if you speed, I will follow along as I flow. Make sure the tags and card tags are are slightly slower and are clear. My issue is most often with enunciation, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. No speed at the cost of understanding.

Points--(Note that these points have changed as of the ASU 2018 tournament)

30--You have a chance of winning this tournament and are one of the best debaters I have seen in a while.

29.0-29.5 - You are in the top 10% of the tournament and will definitely break.

28.5.-29.0 - You should break at this tournament.

28.0-28.5 - My default speaks. This is for a good and above average debater.

27.5-28.0 - You are average compared to other debaters in the tournament.

27.0-27.5 You are learning and have significant areas of improvement.

<27 This is the lowest I will go. You have done something unfair, offensive or unethical in the round.

David Kading Kent Denver 6 rounds None

Mark Kapron Chandler High School 2 rounds

Wesley Kendall Hire 6 rounds

Ryan Kiracofe Corona del Sol 6 rounds None

Alex Kratz Catalina Foothills High School 6 rounds

Cecilia LaPlace Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Jess Leaver Catalina Foothills High School 3 rounds

Austin Lenhart Catalina Foothills High School 3 rounds

Amy Liu Hire 3 rounds

William Longo Hire 2 rounds None

Robert Magnus Hire 2 rounds None

Matana Maron Chaparral 6 rounds None

Holden Martinson Juan Diego Catholic High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 29, 2018 at 2:00 PM MDT

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

Megan McHugh Brophy College Prep 3 rounds

Bob Morken Catalina Foothills High School 3 rounds

Shawn Mosier Gilbert Classical Academy 4 rounds None

Michael Murray Oxford Academy 2 rounds

Raza Mushtaq Chandler High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 7, 2016 at 9:59 AM EDT

Updated: October 2015

Experience: Debated in high school. Debated for Arizona State University from 2007-2011.

I have been away from debate for last 4 years. I just finished medical school and I am doing my residency now (if you are interested in pursuing a career in medicine, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me). I love policy debate. I think educational value of policy debate is severely underestimated. Policy was a huge part of my life in high school and college which is why I am very keen to coach and judge. However, my participation in debate is now limited by work hours, but I try my best to be as active as possible.

Before you go on to read this, I would like to add that all of these are just my predispositions for debate and most likely will not influence how I adjudicate debates. I think my coaching and judging preferences have changed quite significantly since I last participated in the activity. Debate has certainly changed in the last few years and I have spent the last couple months trying to catch up. I have spent a fair amount of time reading on surveillance topic so I feel fairly confident judging.

Affirmatives– I don’t have a strong preference on this issue. I do think that you should be germane to the resolution. If you stand up and start talking about something that has nothing to do with resolution – I think that you have excluded negative out of the debate round which probably isnt okay. I do think that topic specific education is good. I do think that you should have some sort of advocacy statement to give negative stable round. Do you have to defend USFG action? That is up for debate. I think I lean more negative on this issue – I think that you probably should. Again, those are my preferences and I try my very best to set those aside when I judge. Debaters should judge debate, so tell me how to vote.

Kritiks – As a debater, I went for Ks maybe 10-15% of the times in 2NR. I have spent a lot more time reading critical literature since I graduated college. I think I have a basic understanding of most criticisms, but I will admit that my knowledge of kritiks is fairly limited compared to most other judges. I think the biggest thing for me is comparative work on kritiks. You need to tell me how your methodology compares to their methodology. Your link, impact and alternative analyses should be in context of affirmative as opposed to reading generic shells. You should know your K lit very well in order for you to relate it to affirmative. If you cannot explain your criticism to a family member then I don’t think you probably understand your argument. You should be able to explain your criticism to a non-debater and have them explain it back to you. That is a good way to test your knowledge of the topic.

Framework – I think framework is definitely a good 2NR option in front of me. When I was debating, I honestly never gave framework too much thought. I kinda made arguments quite randomly. Now that I have had time to think about framework, I think the theoretical objections to not defending a plan or not being topical are far more persuasive than arguments that question different methods for activism. In order to become good framework debaters, I think you really have to do some self-reflection. Why do you want to spend your weekends arguing over random topics with strangers when you could be doing something else? What is your motivation to be at debate tournaments? I think whatever you come up with should serve as the terminal impact for framework. For me, the answer was education – ranging from topic specific education to deliberative skill education. Once you know what you hope to get out of the activity, then rest of the arguments should be easy to make. You need to ask questions like how do you get the best education out of this debate round/tournament/topic? i.e. whats the best internal link to education? I think some of the most persuasive answers here are more theoretical than substantive. What do I mean by that? Arguments such as having predictable limits on the topic allows for in-round clash is probably a better internal link to education than saying gotta engage the state.

Topicality – I enjoy listening to T debates. I think its important to have some sorts of limit on the topic to have good in-round education. If you haven’t gotten the hint – I think debate is about education with pre-round/tournament prep and in-round clash being some of the most important internal links for it. I will operate under this framework unless you tell me otherwise.

Disads – I love disads and case arguments. COMPARATIVE impact calculus is important.
CP – I think clever PICs might be my favorite part of debate. CPs are a valuable part of neg arsenal and often underutilized.

Other random things:
1) I love debate and I appreciate that you chose to do policy debate. That said, I think it is very important to have fun and enjoy your time in debate. Be respectful of your opponents. Unnecessary aggression and rudeness would reflect in my decision.
2) I will vote for technique. Meaning, even if I think that you are on the wrong side of the truth, and you win the flow, I will vote for you.
3) “Even if” and “because” arguments are very important and persuasive. Even if you think you are winning every argument on the flow, you should still make some “even if” arguments because I might be thinking otherwise. <- kinda like that
4) Prep time is over once USB leaves your computer.
5) Speaker points – I start at 27.5 for every debater in the round.
29.5+=top speaker at tournament;
29=top 10 speaker at tournament;
28.5 = should be in elimination rounds;
28 = above average;
27.5 = average;
27 = gotta do some work;
<27 = you messed up somewhere.

Any other questions, please don’t hesitate to ask me.

Stuart Newfeld Tempe Preparatory Academy 6 rounds

Paula Perkins Palo Verde High School 5 rounds None

Taylor Pfeifer Hire 6 rounds

Elana Quint Hire 3 rounds None

Ashley Raines-Parshall Juan Diego Catholic High School 2 rounds

Shelby Reid BASIS Flagstaff 3 rounds

Kayla Rowe The Meadows School 6 rounds

Mikkaela Salamatin Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 8, 2016 at 4:04 AM MST

I competed in Congress, PF, and LD on both local and national circuits over the course of 4 years with Mohave High School, and have continued to judge since I graduated.

Tell me if, for some reason, I need more than one piece of paper to flow your case.
Time is limited in debate - your speeches are pre-written so you shouldn't be exceeding your time. If you exceed time, I will tell you to stop and I won't flow anything after the time limit.
Do not waste time in between speeches. Do not try to steal prep.
Cross-time yourselves. I will keep an eye on my own watch to make sure you're not going over on each other.
Framework alone will not win you a round. Don't make the whole debate about framework if you're essentially arguing for the same idea. Collapsing to a unified standard is perfectly OKAY TO DO. I prefer debates more relevant to the topic but will take what you give me.
Speed is okay as long as you're coherent - the second you are spitting, slurring, or incomprehensible, I will say "Clear" once and then put my pen down on the table and stop flowing.
Avoid making Theory your entire constructive. I accept when you use it if it's necessary, but don't pull it out "just because".

I'm okay with K's, but I would prefer if you avoided them.

SIGNPOST - SIGNPOST - SIGNPOST - SIGNPOST - SIGNPOST - SIGNPOST. PLEASE. I don't mind if you jump around but PLEASE SIGNPOST.
I don't flow CX. I will listen to get an idea of where the round is headed but nothing will be written down on the flow as an argument. It is your responsibility to bring up anything of worth in your rebuttal.
Don't be afraid to say a link or argument doesn't make sense, BUT FIRST make sure you know what their argument actually is and be ready to back up what you're saying.
I will not call for evidence in a preliminary round unless the whole round predicates on it.

To Win The Round:

Make actual extensions. I flow shadow extensions with a dashed line on my flow but their impact on my decision is very shaky. I don't use them unless the round forces me to do so. Don't force me to do this.
The best way I've seen people take care of similar frameworks is to collapse to a simple, agreed-upon standard and argue who meets it better. Or if your frameworks are different, effectively linking to both frameworks can be helpful/a plus.
YOU NEED TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS, IMPACT, AND DO IMPACT CALCULUS (MAGNITUDE AND SCALE).
In your last minute, sum up the round as to how voting for you is ultimately the better choice. If you do not give me voting issues and tell me why your side matters, you give me no reason to vote for you. I shouldn't have to figure out the round by myself.
I highly value civility and courtesy in-round. If you are rude, yelling, condescending, or cross boundaries, I will dock speaker points.
If you are really, really offensive, I have no qualms about dropping you.

Overall, I want this to be a fun, safe, and educational experience for you. If you have any questions, don't be afraid to ask!

Sidenotes: I'm a huge fan of puns, Marvel, the Oxford comma, and soccer.

May the odds be ever in your favor. Good luck! - Mikkaela

Susan Seep Horizon High School 6 rounds

Maria Skala South Anchorage High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 11:38 PM AKDT

This paradigm was written for POLICY and the thing to understand is that I see clear differences between the items needed in each format. To see how I view PF or LD find them towards the end of the flow. Following are the things that matter in terms of how I judge policy. At the end, I will provide some guidance when you see me as a Public Forum judge and add some Lincoln Douglas comments as well.

Speed- I will tolerate reasonable speed but if it is so fast that I cannot flow it, the argument did not happen and you lose speaker points and perhaps the debate. Be clear, enunciate all syllables, and do not attempt to use extreme speed to intimidate an opponent because if your opponent cannot flow it then it is likely I cannot either. If you do not see me flowing, you lost me and this is not a good thing. In the vernacular of my generation, Speed kills.

Performatives- I have yet to see one that convinced me that it should win a debate round. If that is your only offense then it indicates to me that you may not have adequately considered the myriad of arguments that could win on this very multi faceted debate topic. I have taught Debate, English Language Arts, US History, Asian History and European History, Government, Economics, and World Mythology. All of these areas provide adequate forays into the current topic.

K Affs- I love a good one. You MUST convince me that your K is not only a valid premise in terms of the topic area but well considered and researched . This being said, I am unlikely to entertain current feminist or racially based K affs that I have seen as they appear to be lacking in a wide range of scholarship and stick to a very few popular sources. If you want to run a feminist arguments, foundations in Sanger, Friedan, Brown, Paul, Anthony, Catt, Wollenstonecraft, Pankhurst, Adams, Addams, Steinem, et al would be a start and beneficial and help to sell me your case. Racial arguments, like the ones I have heard on feminism, should be based in documented materials with a wide range of authors including people like Malcolm X, King, Evers, Mandela, Gandhi, Chavez, Truth, Marshall,Davis, Innis, Hamer, Randolph, Parks, Douglas, Wilkins, and Williams. I am old enough and was active enough in the 1960's and 1970's that many of the arguments appear lacking in historical perspective and scholarship. So you have to give me a really good well researched case for me to buy it . However, all of this being said, human rights issues still generate a myriad of offense and become far more applicable for me to buy IF they are well done.

Language K's and claims- Like the K's above they have to be substantive and real world impacted. The PC culture tends to be poorly received in the real world that the middle class and lower middles class inhabit. Having my background steeped in this, unless I can see that you have real world examples and solvency, it is a tough sell. Real world environments tend to mirror Hobbs more than anyone else....cold, brutish and dark. Just beware that I am unlikely to entertain a case that has little real relationship to the real world. Academia is fun but business and government where policy lives in the real world exhibits far less esoteric concerns. I have inhabited both worlds thus will err on the side of reality more than anything else.

T arguments can be fun but beware of overly specific definitions such that you leave your opposition with no area in which to maneuver as it might be considered abuse. Mr. Webster and Mr. Thorndyke as well as Mr. Black ought to be sufficient and there is no need to nitpick. It is topical because or non-topical because without grinding the argument into vanilla and soporific areas requiring caffeine to solve.

Civility is a KEY element for me. No rudeness or your speaker points could drop to the very low 20's. I will not tolerate rude, abusive or mean behavior. This is debate and it should be civil and respectful. We are not being broadcast nationally so there is no need to be reflective of what passes for debate in the media.

I do consider recency as this topic lends itself well to a wealth of more current data.

Slow for tag lines...please!

One last word on policy....and this is related to speed. I see no way without speeding beyond anything I will accept to even try to present over 9 off case or on case positions. I have seen people present 12 at which point my pen fell to the floor as there was no way I could reasonably flow it. So, please, be reasonable. Overwhelming a judge is not a good idea. Your opponents will get additional credit if they claim abuse over this. I will give them credit for recognizing reasonability. It is here where your analytical skill can win you the debate. I do not care who you quote to try to justify throwing out this many arguments, they are not me .

Most of all, learn something from your opponents, expand the base of your knowledge and skills and when the serious part of the debate is over, have fun. This is a great activity for everyone and shows our common ground despite the multitude of backgrounds in our population. We can all share ideas, experiences and advance the activity to its highest levels.

I will disclose wins, losses and winning arguments but not speaker points if permitted by the tournament.

PUBLIC FORUM GUIDANCE

As this IS Public Forum I will tell you that I do not want to see K's (aff or neg), Plans, CP's or Performatives. Racism arguments will only work when you do not limit the commentary to racism for ONLY one group when in reality the racism is applicable to multiple ethnicities or minorities. You need to really be making sure that your commentary is civil for everyone. Dirty looks and negative commentary during Cross will certainly not earn you my vote. I happen to favor the Father of our Country in this regard and consider civility to be not just important in this activity but one of the lessons you are supposed to model. Foaming at the mouth and spewing specious rhetoric is not going to be tolerated. No quarter on these things. I also EXPECT to see clash and if there is none then we are not really debating as the definition of debate includes clash always. Have fun and make new friends of your opponents as this is one of the only activities where you can clash and argue in round and be besties out of round. Enjoy!

Lincoln Douglas-ERR on the side of traditional Lincoln Douglas formats. Always tie to your value and value criteria. I do not favor bringing policy argumentation into LD debate. When you run a K you ignore the scope of LD debating which is meant to be more universal and not applicable to any single system of governance or economics. If you run a CP, you must show me where the affirmative is running a plan text. LD does not ask for plans and this should be left to policy debate. No plan, no counter plan..it is basically that simple.

Again civility is a key ingredient to a good debate. I just finished another book on Abraham Lincoln and the development of his speaking style via the experience as a courtroom attorney. As a result, I am not a big fan of progressive debate although I have coached students who did use this successfully and crafted their arguments to be exceptionally cogent. Beware of speed and see above comments on policy to understand how I feel about speed.

One last comment regarding venues where background noise is an issue. Please, please, please be considerate of your judges and your opponents and speak loud enough and clear enough that your arguments can be followed, flowed and examined. This might require that you slow down a bit and project to be heard. If we cannot hear your argument, it cannot get you the credit you obviously deserve.

Good luck, have fun, learn something, and always, make new friends!

Jaclyn Stack Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Chase Stevens Brophy College Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 7, 2016 at 12:03 PM EDT

Hello, I’m Chase Stevens. I competed in LD for Brophy College Prep for three years. It is important to note that I have largely been inactive in the debate community for the past five years so I am not familiar with the most up to date jargon and terminology.

When judging debate, I look to the standard established in the round and see who better meets said standard. I’m an open minded judge, and will vote on anything. Ultimately, It is your job to persuade me and tell me what I’m voting on and why it matters in the context of the round.

Looking back on my time and experience in debate, I think that debate is ultimately an educational activity where students can engage in intellectual discourses in a community of their peers. While a big trophy or TOC bid is satisfying, the long lasting benefits of debating come from the skills you learn and the network you establish with your fellow debaters. Please treat one another with the respect each of you deserve. I will deduct speaker points if your ego walks into the room before you do.

Here’s the nitty gritty:

Speed: Speed is okay as long as you’re clear. Again, I have not been keeping up to date with my flowing drills, so make sure you’re pronouncing everything you’re spreading.

Kritiks: I’m a big fan of kritiks and enjoy watching them in rounds. Of course, if you run a K poorly, don’t think I’ll vote for you on the grounds that I like Ks. At the end of the day, a kritik is an argument either affirming or negating the resolution and is held to the same standards as any other argument.

Presentation: During my time as a debater, I was of the opinion that presentation largely didn’t matter; what mattered was how fast you could spread and how many arguments you could get out in a set amount of time. This is dumb. A good debater should be concise and elegant and able to articulate complex ideas in simple words so a child or grandma could understand. I’m not saying you should talk like you’re giving a eulogy but a good debater will say more with clarity in one minute than a bad debater will rush and stumble through in two.

Theory: I’m much more open to reject the argument than reject the debater. Please clearly explain your argument and tell me why it matters, even moreso than you would with other standard arguments.

If you have any questions, I’d be more than happy to answer in person before the round.

Sam Stoffer Mountain View High School 3 rounds

Maribeth Thornton La Cueva High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 5, 2016 at 2:46 PM MDT

I was involved in debate in High School during my freshman year, so I do not have a lot of debate experience. In my job, I do a lot of presentations and public speaking. I have experience speaking at national conferences about subjects where I have expertise. I got involved in judging tournaments three years ago when my daughter starting debating. She is involved in Lincoln Douglas, so I tried judging those rounds when I attended. I also judge a variety of speech events. I am a Nurse who works in an executive position at an academic medical center. I am responsible for nursing operations for a 148 bed children’s division. I have 30 years of experience as a nurse, with the last 25 years being in leadership roles. I have judged approximately 30 rounds over the last 3 years. I am familiar with the process of LD Debate and I know more than a bit about the topics presented as my daughter and I discuss topics and debate philosophies at home.

Judging style and process

My judging philosophy follows the Value/Criteria/Contention flow. I do flow the debate and write the information by hand as the debate continues. I want to know what your Value, Criteria, and all of your Contentions are and very clearly. I enter those on my flow sheets and then track how you and your opponent make points or attacks on those contentions. I do want you to speak in normal conversational speed and tone. If I can not understand what you are trying to convey, I can not give you points for your arguments. Also, I do judge the quality of evidence you use in your debate. It is important to me that you use credible sources for your statistics, definitions, and other information you present in your cases. At the end of the debate, I use my notes to help me determine who won the debate. The winner is the debater who convinced me of his or her contentions (or attacks on opponent's contentions).

If you like to talk fast, I am fine with it, as long as I can understand what you are saying. If you speak too fast or mispronounce words, I do take that into consideration when I judge. If you can not pronounce the words you have in your case, I wonder if you have actually written your own case and/or practiced your case. One thing you need to ensure is that I get your value, criteria, and contentions; to do that SPEAK THOSE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY! I find contentions to be very weak if I can't understand what you are contending. Obviously, if I get a speech or two into the round and I still don't know your contention, you are going to score weaker on those contentions.

I also track dropped contentions and take this into consideration when I am determining the winner of the debate, particularly if you drop your contentions. If you miss them, I assume you mean you agree with them, which helps your opponent. I score higher when you pick up and make a big deal of your opponent dropping (if they do). I do notice if you say your opponent dropped a contention and they did not.

I am fine with you either sitting or standing during your debate, whatever is most comfortable for you. I would like occasional eye contact. Simply reading your case as fast as you can is not very compelling to me and does little to convince me that you know your case. I am fine with your timing yourself during your speeches. I do get very concerned when debaters leave a significant amount of time on the table that they could have used to strengthen their case. I do not cut you off if you have to finish a sentence, but if this is excessive, you will lose points in your debate. I do not tolerate raised voices, fist banging, or other behaviors that are considered rude. The purpose of debate is to get your point across in a civilized manner.

I will not disclose at the end of the debate. I will give you constructive comments and praise, as well as areas where you can improve on your judging sheets. Please read these and take them into consideration as you continue on. We always have room for growth and improvement in our communication with others and these comments will assist you with your growth.

Patti Wisnom Catalina Foothills High School 6 rounds

Brett Woods Mountain View High School 3 rounds

Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:35 AM MST

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

Victor Wu Albuquerque Academy 6 rounds

Soma Yarraprueddy Chaparral 6 rounds

Yasith Yasanayake Hire 2 rounds None

Daniela Zarnescu Catalina Foothills High School 2 rounds

Angela Zhang Mountain View High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 6, 2016 at 5:49 PM EDT

I graduated from Mountain View High School in Mesa, Arizona in 2013. I debated three years of LD, mostly in-state but I was exposed to a lot more progressive arguments through VBI and generally debated so. I did fairly well in state and if you think my record is really that important, look it up on NFL.

I like to think of the role of debaters as to write the final story for the judge. I like weighing, I like metaweighing, I like explanations of how arguments interact. Don't make blanket statements, every argument needs a warrant! Remember, all your arguments/responses should be logical!

Don't forget extensions! To me, extensions make or break rounds!

Policy Arguments:

I think DAs CPs Plans are interesting arguments. However, I still believe in the educational nature in debate so I get really annoyed when it's obvious that they are pulled from a policy backfile. Granted, I'll vote for you if you win the flow, but you'll get a speech from me afterwards. Also, your argument is less valid to me if it isn't structured. If you can't understand the structure of a DA/CP/Plan/Theory Shell/T/K/etc., you probably don't understand how it's supposed to work anyways.

Theory: Don't use it as a time suck. I default reasonability unless told otherwise

Extinction Scenarios: I'll buy them but I have a low threshold for arguments against them, they just flat out aren't very logical and everyone in the round knows it.

Kritiks:

I just don't like them. I think running Ks for strategy defeats the purpose of Ks. Prove to me there is actually something morally repugnant inround and I will buy your argument hands down. Otherwise, you can definitely still run Ks. I will still vote for them, but they better have really strong links and logically sound. I did not run Ks in high school so I am not familiar with a lot of K authors so definitely slow down for me if you want to run your K.

Speed:
As a generality, only speak as fast as you need. I can take speed, but I wouldn't say that I could sufficiently flow outrounds of the policy TOC. As long as your clear and slow down for authors, tags, other important things, I will likely be ok with your speed. I will yell clear if you're too fast/muddly.

Login to Tabroom

Southwest Championship at Arizona State

2016 — AZ/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges