University of Houston Cougar Classic

2019 — Houston, TX/US

Aisha Bawany Paradigm

- If you have any questions: message me on Facebook, Instagram, or email me at

I debated in high school in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national circuit, and 2 years in PF. I did policy debate at UT Dallas.

I'm fine with speed just please be clear.


I believe you need some sort of framework/way for me to evaluate the round. Don't assume that because I do policy that I default to a consequentialist/magnitude impacts. If you want me to evaluate that, you need to have a value/criterion that says that I should evaluate arguments on the scale of consequentialism. I ran different philosophical frameworks when I did LD and enjoy listening to unique ones and the way you justify your position through it. You may be able to convince me that disclosure is good in LD.


I'm going to be honest when I say I'm predisposed to preferring topical aff positions in policy because I have mostly debated with topical policy cases. That is not to say that I won't vote on them, just that I am not the best judge to evaluate K v. K debates, and K Affs v. Framework debates. However, I do have experience running/understanding those arguments because my partner and I ran a nontopical aff for half a semester, so don't stop running those arguments, just make it easier for me to understand the method by which I should evaluate the round. For off cases, I think you need to win a link (by link, I mean a link, not a risk of a link, I mean a LINK) in order for me to vote on any K/DA. Disclosure is good.


- Debate is a game, I believe that you shouldn't bring your identity or feelings into it.

- The point of debate is to be persuasive, so I think that as long as you persuade me on something, and have some cards (even if they're untrue) then I'll vote for you. I love people that can answer arguments using a few logical responses. Quality over quantity.

- I will vote on everything in round if it's explained well and you win the argument. Caveat to that is that I don't care about out of round impacts or voting for you because you're discriminated against (sorry not going to give you a W for that guys)

- Debate warrants, not tags. Name the argument not the author. I don't know your case as well as you do to remember your authors name

- I don't read evidence unless it's contested/important. What does that mean? It means that I'm not going to read through your entire case and defend you because that's not my job. It means that YOU need to understand that I can keep up and flow, but you need to extend arguments and not expect me to offer concessions to you. This trend of "oh they have my case in front of them so they don't need me to do anything" doesn't count.Your speech matters. That's why you stand up and talk for a long ass time

- Also LOL @ you if you try to post round me, because idgaf, and my decision isn't fucking changing :)

- To those who like to spread really fast through analytical theory arguments that haven't been written up: good job, I'll probably miss a lot of those arguments, so it's on you for me missing those.

>>>> it basically goes like this:

- Debater spreads analytics so fast that judge can't keep up while flowing

- Judge votes for other debater because they missed something probably important because the debater didn't slow down

Debater: Image result for pikachu meme face

Miguel Bonilla Paradigm

8 rounds

Topicality: It's a prior question, especially for the early season. I normally view topicality through a framework of competing interpretations. Negatives who want to go for topicality should have be able to tell (1) under their interpretation what affirmatives actually are topical and (2) what arguments the negative couldn't read.

Disadvantages: What's not to like? Do the evidence comparison for me. Tell me why a disad outweighs/turns case and vice versa, or else I might impose my own worldview. Relevant sidebar: Saying "our evidence postdates" isn't enough. Make it contextual, and tell me how a sequence of events interact with one another.

Counterplans: There should probably be a solvency advocate and a well articulated net benefit.

Critiques: If you want to win, your critique should be able to articulate why the critique turns case, and an alternative that resolves the links.

Framework/Topicality: I understand why they happen. Affirmatives should probably read a topical plan in front of me just to avoid these questions.


Kyle Brenner Paradigm

Policy Maker

Chris Castillo Paradigm

I am the LD coach at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx. I've been involved in debate since the year 2000. I judge a lot. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo at gmail dot com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments. D

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Isaac Chao Paradigm

Last updated for Kandi King RR 2019

Coach at Heights High School (TX)

I debated LD for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association so I judge regularly. My ideas on debate are heavily influenced by Kris Wright via the Texas Debate Collective Teacher's Institute and I am largely in agreement with his philosophy. Most of the sections below are relevant for both policy and LD; see the very bottom for the policy-specific section.

I would prefer to be added to the email chain:

Pref Shortcuts:

  • LARP: 1
  • T/Theory: 3
  • Phil: 2*
  • Kritiks: 3*
  • Tricks: 4 or Strike

*Ratings vary as function of what you're reading and whether or not I'm familiar with it. Feel free to ask me before round about a specific author.


  • I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining why you win which layers and why those layers come first.
  • I default to a competing worlds paradigm.
  • Tech > Truth
  • I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in blue/gray can be difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Don't read theory on your opponent if they don't though. It's not that serious.
  • I would prefer that weighing be done as often and as early as possible, especially in LD because there're so few speeches - as a rule of thumb you should weigh as soon as you have access to both impacts. For instance, disadvantages should be weighed against advantages in the 1NC and the offense of a counterinterp to T should be weighed in the 1AR (or 2AC in policy).
  • Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or, if you're using an email chain, once you've finished compiling the document. I won't count emailing against you but please don't steal prep.
  • Signpost please, including listing the flows in the 1NC (ex. T, K, Case); I prefer debaters to be explicit about where to flow things and I appreciate pen time. If you're giving a speech and I'm looking around the different sheets of paper instead of writing, I'm likely trying to find the argument and will probably miss something.
  • Not fond of embedded clash; I feel like it's often a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews but in my experience it's often just a wasted sheet of paper and I would much rather you do the substantive line-by-line work. Overviews that are extensions/explanations of a position are fine though, and probably preferable compared to line-by-line extensions (especially in the time-crunched 1AR).
  • I presume aff in LD: neg side bias exists so in the absence of offense from either side the aff did the better debating. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way. While I believe that terminal defense exists, I generally err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.

Framework (as distinct from T-FW):

  • Paradigmatically, I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
  • You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under. Especially if your framework is complex or obscure, a brief summary of how it functions (i.e. how it sifts between legitimate and illegitimate offense) would be helpful.


  • Read them if you'd like; I've read almost none of the literature, however, so explain well. I especially appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative. Good K debates typically include quotes from lines in your opponent's evidence/advocacy with an explanation of why those are additional links.
  • If your alternative is just a string of buzz words, I probably won't think it makes sense and will be receptive to responses from your opponent arguing the same.
  • Perms are tests of competition, not shifts of advocacy.
  • Never understood why perms are illegitimate in a methods debate so if you defend a counter method it should probably be competitive.
  • I would prefer that the affirmative is at least tangentially related to the resolution. In my experience, most topics have space for critical, topical arguments and this is what I'd prefer to hear if you're a critical debater, although I won't hack against non-T AFFs. I am persuaded by the value of topical switch-side debate, however, so if non-T AFFs are your thing I am probably not the best judge for you.
  • I am increasingly convinced that Role of the Ballot arguments (or oppression frameworks) are just self-serving impact-justified frameworks that don't adequately fulfill the central function of differentiating between legitimate and illegitimate offense. Although I am more than willing to assume that all ethical frameworks ought to condemn oppression and dehumanization, the question most of these frameworks don't answer is the strength of the link of those arguments back to the standard. Just defaulting to a utilitarian metric doesn't resolve the impact-justified issue either.


  • Given that I predominately coach policy, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these debates, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
  • You should have updated uniqueness cards and the more specific the links on the disad and the counterplan the happier I'll be.
  • If you want to kick out of a conditional advocacy you need to tell me.
  • I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies, although if you impact turn racism/sexism I'll be sad.


  • Speed is generally fine. I'd place my threshold for speed at an 8.5 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies depending on the type of argument being read.
  • Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll probably miss some.
  • My flowing limitations are a contributing factor to why I'm probably not a great judge for you if tricks are your A-strat. If you're reading tricks one of three things is likely to happen: I'll miss it, I won't understand it, or I'll think it's stupid, so read at your own risk. Additionally, I won't hold your opponent to a higher standard than I hold myself to, so if I didn't understand the implication of an argument (especially a blippy/shady one) in a prior speech, I'll give them leeway on answering it in a later one.
  • I'll yell "clear" or "slow" once but that means I already missed something.


  • I default to competing interpretations and will assume that the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I'll evaluate shells via reasonability if you ask me to but I'd prefer an explicit brightline for determining what constitutes a reasonable vs. unreasonable practice rather than drawing upon my intuitions for debate. If you just ask me to intuitively evaluate the shell without an explanation of what that constitutes or how that works, my aversion to intervention will likely lead me to gut check to competing interpretations.
  • I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI).
  • I am not willing to assume that a won shell justifying that your opponent is unfair or uneducational is sufficient to warrant voting against them. If you're reading theory you should be articulating an explicit implication to the shell, contextualized to the abuse story. Absent an impact/ballot story on theory I default to rejecting theory as floating offense and voting off of another layer. If your opponent reads a theory shell without an impact and you tell me I shouldn't do that work for them or allow them to fix that mistake in a later speech, I'll be sympathetic.
  • I am not willing to assume that meta-theory comes before theory.
  • Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates and clearly label the shell - the interp especially - and number the arguments to hedge against the possibility that I miss something.
  • I would not recommend reading disclosure theory in front of me because while I will (grudgingly) vote on it, it will not be difficult to convince me to reject it. I believe that universal compulsory disclosure disproportionately disadvantages under-resourced debaters. Although I suppose this objection isn't relevant if you're reading it against a big school debater: in that situation, I guess I don't care anymore.

Speaker Points:

  • I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive. A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear.
  • I won't disclose speaks so don't bother asking.
  • As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way. As a former competitor from a school with very limited competitive infrastructure, most of what I know about debate I had to learn myself absent formal instruction. This makes me very sympathetic to debaters from small schools or under-resourced programs who might not be familiar with the technical jargon of the activity but who, nevertheless, make good arguments. It behooves you, if you've had access to more privileged instruction, to debate in a way that keeps the round accessible for everyone.

If Judging Policy:

  • Please keep in mind that although I coach policy now, the entirety of my competitive experience and the bulk of my training, judging and thinking about debate has been funneled through the lens of LD.
  • Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or, if you're using an email chain, once you've finished compiling the document. I won't count attaching and emailing as prep time, but please don't steal prep.
  • CX is closed. Both debaters should be responsible for pulling their own weight and demonstrating mastery of their position(s).
  • I presume neg in policy because in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change DA to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff.
  • I frequently see teams read half a T-shell in the 1NC (unwarranted standards/voters/implication/paradigm issues, or missing those pieces altogether) and then blow it up in the block. I think that if you read a disad in the 1NC it should probably contain the core parts (uniqueness/link/impact), even if you read additional evidence in the block, and I hold T to the same standard. Otherwise, I'm receptive to efficient 2AC responses along the lines of "that's not a complete argument; lack of warranted standards means there's no offense to the interp and you should reject the shell" and will allow new responses in the 1AR in response to developments in the block.
  • Smart, analytical arguments (particularly as no-links on a kritik or an improbable impact chain) are heavily underutilized in policy. My ideal 1NCs/2ACs incorporate analytics as a component of a layered response strategy. I see too many policy debaters who are just card bots, including reading cards that don't actually contain warrants and reading additional cards in a later speech instead of going for preexisting evidence (which might actually require some evidence-comparison...).
  • Politics disads are stupid, but you do you.

Deirdre Constantine Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent judge. If you're in front of me, please do not spread because I won't hear what you're saying.

Madison Estes Paradigm


I have done all debate events, but I have substantially more experience with LD (both traditional and progressive). Four time state qualifier and two time national qualifier, once in Extemp and once in Worlds. While competing in Worlds, my team placed sixth and I placed fourth speaker.


I will judge the round how it should be judged according to Worlds norms and standards. Don’t try to be too limiting with framing, definitions or models. I will not evaluate the round using any other influences (LD, CX, PF). Ideal speed would be about conversational, and spreading will result in a a reduction of speaker points, speaking quickly to cover everything may not. I love POIs when done tastefully. Don’t stand up constantly with the sole purpose of distracting your opponent, but everybody needs to be asking them (not just the same team members). I also think that using POIs as more than just questions is a phenomenal strategy (20% of your overall rank).



I prefer to have a framework to weigh the round with. Some sort of weighing mechanism makes the round more clear. I tend to evaluate different impacts though that weighing mechanism presented and won.


I need warrants and impacts. I will vote on most anything not obviously offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia ect.). While I have some familiarity with K's, it is not anything close to being extensive. If you decide to run one, you will probably have to give me more analysis and slow down more for claims and warrants (adding me to an email chain or flashing it won't hurt). I also require clash.


A framework is preferred, but not necessary. There needs to be clash and the other team's case must be addressed. My least favorite debates are those that heavily center on only one case because that usually results in a purely defense/offense debate.


I would rank myself as about a 7 as far as speed goes. Answers to questions-

I don't care where you sit

I don't care if you time on your phone

I don't need to see if your laptop/phone is on airplane mode

I don't care if you sit or stand for cross ex

Ethan Eyre Paradigm

8 rounds

Last edited for King RR:

Experience: I do policy debate at the University of Houston, and competed in LD and extemp for all for years of high school. Went to VBI, TFA elims, NSDA nats, and UIL finals a few times.

General: Not a tab judge - I evaluate based on what issues become important in the round. Familiar with K and theory debate. No real preference as to what kind of argument you run, as long as you understand what you're saying. That said, please don't say things that are just blatantly not true. I try to intervene as little as possible, so I won't be making any assumptions for you, even if an argument isn't very convincing. No problem with non-T affs, just develop the ballot well.

Framework: In terms of the top layer of the debate, you have to tell me whether that's K or theory/T or else I weigh through the impact calc on your voters. I like pretty much any kind of framework debate as long as you give me a mechanism by which to evaluate the round. A good amount of my experience and knowledge is with semiotics and linguistics, but I'll also evaluate pretty much anything as long as you articulate how the ballot and weighing work.

Theory: I default to reasonability, so if you want competing interps, make that argument. Using theory as a strategy is okay, but if the argument is frivolous, I'll probably be a lot less responsive to it. Don't expect me to give a lot of weight to you extending a spike unless you flesh it out further.

CX: Don't make CX an attitude competition (please), you don't really gain anything from it and it just makes the debate less enjoyable. I'd prefer if you don't use cx as additional prep.

Speed: As far as speed goes, it shouldn't be an issue as long as you're clear. I'll say clear once and flow everything I can hear after that. Slow down on tags/authors and advocacy texts.

Speaker Points: I view speaker points as a mechanism for determining who should break, rather than just if you spoke well. Accordingly, if it's a high-level close round, points will be high and close, but if it's not a good round, points will be lower.

At the end of the day, clarity will be your best friend, both in terms of speed but also in terms of developing the ballot. If I don't understand an argument because you haven't explained it well or developed it, it's impossible for me to vote on it.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

For email chains, use:

Collin Goemmer Paradigm

8 rounds

About Me:

Hello, I'm Collin Goemmer and I am a freshman at Texas State University majoring in Political Science. I graduated from Cypress Creek High School in Houston, Texas.



  • I don't care if you sit or stand whatever you are more comfortable doing

  • It’s fine if you flex prep

  • Keep your own time

  • Don't be rude

  • I do not consider flashing to be prep

  • I don't care which side y’all sit on

  • Do not try to fight my decision after I disclose

  • Do the work for the judge, it is your job to communicate to the judge.

  • While I personally do not have any triggers I would recommend giving trigger warnings, because you do not know if your opponent or other judges have any triggers

  • Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and i will vote you down if you use this language

Cases: please email them to

Speed: I am good with speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. I don’t like policy spreading but I am good with speed faster than conversational but slower than spreading.


Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to.


Win the debate on whatever layer you would like, I have no problem voting on theory. I like debates that are contextualized to the way that arguments interact; if you can do the nuances of a theory debate, and/or if your opponent is clearly abusive, I will be happy to vote on that position. I default to competing interpretations.


I debated lots of K’s in my time in parli and I love them. The biggest thing I need is a clear alt text and alt solvency. Tell me the (presumably very good) reasons your K matters in this round/against this case/whatever and give me a clear picture of what your alt is going to look like, and I will be happy. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please don’t assume I know your literature. I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.


Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together.

Speaker Points:


Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary

Layla Hooshmand Paradigm

8 rounds


No line by line in final focus


I prefer traditional and slow debate. I will accept theory and slightly more progressive arguments only if they are fully established in the round.

Rujul Jain Paradigm

8 rounds


Did 1 year of PF, 2 years of LD, half a year of Policy.

I'm more familiar with traditional debate, but I do understand progressive arguments.


Disclosure is a good thing. I believe it allows for better debates with strategies rather than spreading gimmicks/confusing arguments.

I'm okay with spreading. I would prefer a copy of the case if you spread. Email me at

Weighing is the most important thing in a round.

Neg and aff need interaction in the round

General arguments are fine, but specific links and arguments towards the opposing sides is better


Impact Calculus is key

The more specific the scenario is, the more likely I am to listen to it


I believe theory should only be used if there was legitimate abuse in the round


Probably not the best judge for high level theory/K debate

If you do anyway, you have to dumb it down otherwise I will not understand what you are talking about

The K should relate to the aff - more specific the link, the better

Amyn Kassam Paradigm

8 rounds

I did LD debate for four years at Dulles High School on the TFA, UIL, and TOC circuits and graduated in 2012. During college at UT Austin, I coached and judged. I have taught at TDC and NDF.

Establish with your opponent how you are going to share digital files (flashing, email) before the round. I won't count flashing against your prep, but you need to be ready to hand the flash drive to your opponent when prep ends and not still be compiling a doc. I don't care to be in your email thread. I will ask to see anything I need at the end of the round.

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" once before docking speaks. Please slow down on tags and authors, make author names especially clear.

I will answer any specific questions you have before the round.

I consider myself a "tab" judge. I believe that debate is your game, so I will do my best to not express a preference for certain arguments. I want to see arguments that are fleshed out and properly implicated, meaning that a well made stock argument will sit better with me than a floppy critical one. What it means for something to be true or for the resolution to be true or false is for you to tell me. This means that "comparative worlds" or "truth testing" are just examples of ways you can set up this framing, and I would appreciate if you clarify your framework beyond saying "I use truth testing."

If you plan to read a card against an opponents case, please respond to or explain the interaction with the original argument, or if I have to chose between them, I will default to the first argument because it was read first and was uncontested.

I probably have a high threshold for theory compared to some judges, but I have no issue with it. I do not automatically prefer fairness over education, reasonability over competing interps, or vice versa. I will not automatically presume RVIs, but I think they can be justified.

Saif Khan Paradigm

8 rounds

Experience: Debated on the Clements debate team for 4 years and attended TFA twice.

Speaker Points: I tend to give higher speaker points to people who have a good presentation style and speak clear. 27-30 is the norm.

Ks: No

Theory: That's fine.

Framework: Framework is very important for debaters to use and leverage it in a strategic manner during round. Tell me your impacts and why the framework is important.

CP: Yea, read them.

DAs: Love 'em just give me a good link.

Plans: Yea, read them.

Stock LD cases: Yea, they're fine.

Tell me what your argument is, the impacts, and why it's better than your opponents. You can choose to go line-by-line or big picture.

Suchin Kundra Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated LD for Dulles for 4 years, graduating in 2016.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid defaulting on any framing issues. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments.

I tend to give speaks based on a mixture of strategy, passion, and clarity. In terms of clarity, I'll call clear twice before I start docking speaks. Don't incoherently spread. Even if you email me your case, I need to be able to understand you.

Michael Kurian Paradigm

Hello! My name is Michael Kurian and I did Natcircuit LD for 2 years at Dulles High School in Houston, TX.
I had 5 bids and qualled to the TOC as a junior and senior. I also did a bit of policy as a senior and qualled to NSDA in CX.

Yes, email chain me friends:

Kritiks: 1
Framework: 1-2
Theory: 2-3
Tricks: 4-Strike (Sorry, I just have no clue how that shit works I debated in Texas lol)

Do whatever you want, some things tho

1. I will say clear and slow if you're incoherent

2. I dislike theory when frivolous (you know what "frivolous" means) but will vote on it. I like it when strategic, but LOVE it when legit especially if you use creative interps or good combo shells. My favorite theory shell is a meme, but it's O-Spec :)

3. Lets say you read a dump of some kind and you don't flash the arguments to the room. If your opponent asks you to flash them during CX or prep, you will do so. Otherwise, I will eviscerate your speaks.

4. You're allowed to be a dick proportionally to the amount of fuckery going on in the debate
ex. If the aff has 3 NIBS, you can be a little mad. If the 1NC is racism good, you can be furious etc.

5. I dislike partial disclosure shells ie. "Must disclose Plan Text of new aff, must open source, etc."; Disclosure is simple - if you've read it, disclose it. All of it. If you haven't broken it yet, you don't owe your opponent jack shit. You can give them the ROB text or the plan text if you're feeling benevolent.


I will NOT vote on

1) Brackets theory
2) Font size theory
3) Arguments without warrants
4) Arguments that are explicitly homophobic, racist, or otherwise bigoted.
5) Open-source disclosure theory / Disclosure theory of any kind against previously unbroken affs
6) Arguments that link to your opponents identity - ex. "White ppl should lose"


This is the form of debate that I did the most in high school. I am not a huge fan of the recent uprising of identity politics Ks but i will obviously vote on them; I will probably understand your insane postmodern nonsense as long as you understand it enough to explain the application back to me.

1) Link work - really important.

2) Alternative explanation - I have a somewhat low threshold; I'll assume it solves case and the K's links unless that is contested by the Affirmative

3) WEIGH with the ROLE of the BALLOT - tell me why your pedagogy is important, why it belongs in debate, and how we can use it to derive the best form of praxis. If you aren't doing these things, you will probably lose to a more intuitive RoB.

Things I don't like but will still vote on:

1) Kritikal presumption arguments

2) Links of Ommission

3) Lazy, overused link arguments

4) edgy jargon that stays edgy jargon (explain ur shit at SOME point at least)


Love it, think its cool and underused.

Explain the syllogism - I will probably understand it if you do (hopefully).

Do lots of weighing and explain why your framework resolves meta-ethical problems -- Infinite regress, Constitutivism, Actor spec. etc. If not, tell me why it should be preferred over another framework. I don't like particularism (or rather I like it as an ethical theory, but think it is weird when used in debate); my favorite frameworks to hear are Pragmatism and Virtue Ethics.


I prob went for a DA 2 times in my entire career lol. Just do weighing and warrant comparison. It's a relatively intuitive debate style and if it doesn't seem so, I'm not one to say, but you might be doing it wrong.


Weigh. Make good arguments or make really creative bad arguments. Failure to do either will make me sad.

On the Theory vs K debate:

1. If the AC references the topic heavily, defends implementation, and/or in some other way grants you your topic ground, don't whine and call me a K-hack when I err aff against whatever shitty shell you read. If they're doing everything within reason to grant you your prep, and I still hear 9+ mins of crying in the 1NC and 2N about how you have LITERALLY ZERO GROUND™️, I'm going to be much more likely to vote the other way. That being said, if you genuinely feel like the aff is out of the range of the topic or is straight up non-T, go for T, or T - Framework, and go as hard as you want.

2. Reading disclosure against K affs is a good strat.

3. This shit is so fucking boring literally everyone hates this debate, so make it interesting. Have good TVAs, and do actual analysis; policy-good dumps are dry af.

4. The "small schools can't access Ks" argument is objectively false and one of the dumbest args to ever become popular - don't make it in front of me unless you have a spectacular warrant.

5. SPECIAL NOTE ON TVAs - I have a very high threshhold for TVAs because I think 99% of the time, the position that the neg argues is a TVA is actually very different from the aff. In other words, I usually have a hard time understanding why a TVA is actually a TVA instead of a topical aff that somewhat resembles the actual 1AC. If you're reading the K aff, just make arguments for why the TVA misses out on a benefit that the aff proper possesses, and if you're negating and going for the TVA make arguments for why the TVA subsumes the aff or has other benefits which outweigh.


Try your fuckin best lmao good luck this is a coin toss. I'll probably just evaluate it the same way I would a fuckshit-heavy theory or framework debate.

Things I'll boost your speaks for:

Naruto Reference in speech: +.1
Dressing like you don't give a shit: +.1
Cool Affirmatives: +.3
Solid Collapsing: +.5
Ethos: +.2
Creative arguments: +.2

Speak Breakdown:

30: straight fire
29.1-29.9: ur still fire but like not "The Life of Pablo" fire
28.6 - 29: You good
28.1-28.5: Decent
27.1-28: oof
26.1-27: big oof
25.1-26: go to church dude lol
25: fuck you

Kevin Luu Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated LD for 3 years for Cy-Fair HS and judge all season locally in Houston.

General: I don't want to see your prep, I should be able to follow your spread speed without having the word doc. Speed is fine, I'll say clear, slow, or loud if I need to. I won't intervene as a judge so if something obviously abusive happens (like someone taking extra time), write up a quick shell and I'll vote off it very easily. Don't read tricks in front of me, I'm terrible at catching them. That doesn't mean don't read spikes at all, just make sure you really go for them so I know they exist.

Speaks: I won't give lower than a 27 unless you did something pretty bad. If your opponent is clearly a novice or someone far less experience, go easy on them and make the round more educational. This will be reflected in your speaks. Don't feel like you have to use all your time, if you're repetitive to burn speech time to the extent that I stop flowing I will lower your speaks. Speaks are a reflection of fluidity, strat, CX, and understanding (meaning don't read a case you can't explain the warrants of in your own words).

Theory/T: Go slow on interps. I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Friv Theory is permissible but I will buy more outlandish responses from your opponent to answer friv like semantic "I meet"s. On the other hand, shells with clear in round abuse stories I'll vote off more easily. Only having potential abuse claims on a shell makes me a lot less responsive to that shell.

K/Phil: I never read alot of Ks as a debater but I've seen a good amount of the lit. Just ask me if I know the lit you want to read before the round.

LARP: Good LARP is an easy way to my ballot. Making the round more concise is great although I will strictly hold you to the wording of the delineated text on your plan or CP. LARP just seems to be easiest for me to resolve unlike resolving two Ks.

Angela Lytle Paradigm

Experience: I debated for four years at Cinco Ranch High School in Houston, TX. I now work with the NYC Urban Debate League and volunteer with Columbia Youth For Debate. I'm currently a sophomore at Barnard College, majoring in philosophy. She/they pronouns. Don't be afraid to mention yours at the beginning of the round :-)

If anything about this paradigm is unclear or if you have questions, email me!

TLDR; Extend your arguments and give me a framework so that I can best evaluate them. You should do the weighing for me or at least give me a mechanism so that you don’t leave the round confused by my decision. In all styles of debate, I reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they're talking about.

Don't be annoying during CX. Don't say "ladies first". You will be downed if you or your arguments are antiblack/racist/misogynistic/homophobic/etc. I WILL drop you for on grounds of the following if your opp calls you out. This is a speaking activity: you are responsible for your words.

Speed/Jargon: I can keep up with speed though I prefer efficiency and believe that jargon should only be used when necessary. I’m reasonably flow and voting issues are very important to me. Also, time yourself, preferably with sound on.


Email chain:

This is your space, use it however you want. I look for the clearest path to the ballot and default tech > truth.

Feel free to run theory. I like kritikal debates. IMO debate is about education: don't treat the round like a game and at least try to be nice lol.

I value speakers who are attentive, signpost, and care about what they're debating. Speaks are a combo of good debating and style: 28 is avg for me.

P.S. my favorite philosopher is with that what you will.


I prefer a slow constructive and see the rebuttal as the most important speech of the round, followed by final focus.

Weighing/impacts will win you the round. ~Clean~ extensions in summary/ff please.

I will probably ask to see your evidence (the full source, not the card) if it's contentious. I will drop a team with severely miscut cards; it may be easy to fabricate your evidence, but don't do it.

Have fun! :-)

Nandan Marwaha Paradigm

8 rounds

Overview: I debated for four years in LD and PF. You are always allowed to read whatever you want and I will be able to handle most of it as long as denser arguments are explained well. Biggest pet peeve is bad extensions and no weighing. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Speaker Points: Usually will be pretty high. Less than 27 is not likely unless you are rude or I have a major issue with your debate style. Average is around a 28-29 and bumped up if you have good strategy or are a great orator.


Speed: I would say 8/10. Go for 10 if you can do it clearly. Make sure I can hear the tag and the author so everyone can keep up with the round. I will yell clear until I am frustrated and put the pen down.

Plans/Counterplans/Disads: Go for it. Please weight arguments in off your FW because I am not going to do any work for you.

Theory/T: If there is abuse in the round please run theory. I don't necessarily have hard "defaults", but I have a preference for counter-interpretations and aff RVI's on 1NC theory. I also have a bit of disdain for people who spread through multiple, short/choppy bullet points of scripted theory arguments. I'd much rather prefer (to believe and to vote on) fleshed-out, substantial, logical arguments on why abuse is/n't happening and the implications of that abuse. Lastly, theory/T is an argument like any other. Weighing is important.

Kritiks: I’ve always liked Ks, but I’ve always hated poorly run Ks (please have an alt). Know what you’re talking about (AKA be strategic and understand how your K functions in the debate, vs the other levels of arguments -- often times, Ks are poorly run because people don't really recognize how their case functions differently against other stock/traditional args). If it’s especially dense, explain it. If you can’t explain it well, I won’t evaluate it. I truly believe that a substantive engagement on the K level can be both entertaining and meaningful. I'm most familiar/comfortable with race/identity Ks, but would love to learn about and vote on any others!

Framework: This is very important. I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me too. I'm most familiar with util or structural violence frameworks, less familiar with denser philosophical or deont frameworks (AKA explain more if you run these).

Reagan Mason Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated for three years at Barbers Hill in both LD and CX. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me:


I'll vote on almost any argument, so feel free to read what you want-- whether it's frivolous or not-- and I'll evaluate it as long as you provide a warrant and a clear pathway to the ballot.

I default to competing interps and no RVI's, and drop the debater for most shells. I like disclosure.

Interact with and weigh the arguments. If there's anything I "prefer" to see, it's analytics during rebuttals instead of a huge card dump.

Do the work for me. Even if you're reading theory that identifies the inherent unfairness of the AC, engage with the aff in a way that demonstrates your theory argument to be valid. This makes giving you the ballot significantly easier if you are able to prove in-round abuse while not simply escaping substantive debate as a whole.


Foremost, I'll evaluate the round through the winning FW, ROB, or ROJ as long as it's extended. If the debate isn't framework-oriented, provide impact calculus. I think that reading framework is a great strat as it can aid in organizing the round.

Read something well-justified. Provide a clear weighing mechanism. If your specialty is a highly intense FW debate, then just explain it well and signpost exceptionally well. Bottom line: spend sufficient time fleshing out your framework to me if you want me to evaluate the round under your standard.


I'm not familiar with much K lit, besides super common arguments.

I am more persuaded by your K if you outline a link to case during the 1NC and a thorough explanation of the world of the alt. (The more specific, the better.) IE if the aff operates under a capitalist structure, but doesn't actively increase capitalism, then there's definitely a no-link argument to be made as the potential link is reasonably vague.

Please don't try to use the "academic" language from the K to confuse your opponent. If you really are a good debater, explain it in simpler terms and be able to explain it well in your own words.

Don't assume I'll make connections for you. Alts should be clear about what they do. Perm texts should also be explicitly clear and kept consistent throughout the round.


Before looking at my defaults, have a decent shell. Make sure the opponent has clearly violated your interpretation.

I default to competing interps and no RVI's, and drop the debater for most shells. I don't care how frivolous the shell is; as long as it's impacted out and you're winning on it, I'll vote on T. If you're going to read frivolous T, just do it well.

However, there must be a clear violation. Just explain the link well and I'll buy it.

Don't just respond to theory with your own shell w/o engaging with the OG shell!! you'll lose. obviously.

If you think the theory debate may collapse and become a wash, I'd suggest extending substance if you want me to look to the substantive debate when voting.

Non-T Affs

Have a clear ballot story! I don't care if your aff is topical. However, I’ll listen to warranted T shells against kritical affs.

do what you want, essentially. this is your space.


Go about a 7/10. I'm adjusting to a new keyboard and have gotten slower.

Don't expect me to flow a one-sentence blippy argument that should have "won you the round." This is where the quality of arguments is crucial, and clarity is key. Slow down for taglines, author names, and particular arguments that you want me to for sure have down. I'll tell you to slow down as many times as needed in order to ensure that my flow is most accurate.


Policy arguments are great. I find that my favorite rounds are policy-oriented. In regards to perms, make your permutation explicit, and identify net benefits during your speech.

Identify the explicit link to the DA(s).

If you're dropping an argument, explicitly tell me that you don't want me to evaluate it. Also, be sure to respond if there's offense on that argument's flow, or else I'll buy those arguments as independent voters if I'm told to.

If tab has coerced me into judging PF

Weigh arguments!!!!! Most debaters throw a ton of arguments at judges and do no work. I don't want to intervene, but if you don't do the in-round weighing, I will have to intervene. Don't make me do work for you in the round.

Maybe this is progressive PF??? but a framework would be exceptional. I'll probably inflate your speaks because I'll be impressed.

Generic impact calculus (we outweigh on magnitude, timeframe, probability) should be executed in front of me.


*** Speaks will be determined by efficiency, quality of arguments, strategy, and weighing ability. ***

29.5-30: Really good/may win the tournament

29-29.5: Probably will get far/bid

28.5-29: Probably will break

28-28.5: Postive but won't break

27.5-28: Go even

26.5-27.5: Not great

Anything below 26.5 means you did something egregious in round

Tell me if you're in a bubble round, and I'll inflate.


Efficiency is key with me as a judge. If you're quick, I'll be more likely to boost speaks. Don't take 20 minutes to prepare a file for the email chain. I'll doc your speaks if this becomes an issue.

I don't want something not said in earlier speeches to suddenly be blown up in the 2AR/NR.

If an argument goes conceded, concise extensions are fine (signpost, what the argument is, its implication to the round.)

However, if the argument was contested, I need to see a clear explanation of the warrant and a longer extension.

For LD, flex prep is cool.

For policy, open-CX is fine.

Gregory McGee Paradigm

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard,with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments.Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).


I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely.

Nima Nayeri Paradigm

8 rounds

Conflicts: Dulles High School
Currently: University of Houston

Background: LD (3 Years) and Policy (1 Year) HighSchool Circuit, TFA

- I can flow spreading
- Slow down on tag lines and author names
- Please try your best to make the round accessible to your opponent (i.e. don't try to outspread your opponent; it won't become a voting issue but it might dock speaker points)

- I will vote on any argument if you explain it clearly to me, warrant and impact it.
- I am fine with dense philosophy framework debates but as long as you slow down and explain it to me I’ll vote on it
- Not a fan of skep/presumption/tricky spikes
- I like policy arguments!
- I like Ks!
- Just explain, don’t presume I know anything (I have been out of the debate scene for a year so please do this).
- Give me voting issue(s) in your last speech

Extensions: Extend the warrants not just the card names.

Speaks: have an efficient strat, present yourself well, be nice to each other.

Theory: I am okay with good theory (but you know what bad theory is...) Default reasonability. Same as everything else, I’ll vote on anything if you persuade me.

- Feel free to ask me if you have further questions
- Flashing isn’t prep, just don’t dawdle
- Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language

- Accounting and Finance Major (if that helps give you an idea of what type of person I am lmao)

Parker Pogue Paradigm

Intro: I debated for 3 years at Royse City (it’s okay if you don’t know where that is) I was the only debater at my school my senior year but actively competed on the National circuit. I primarily did LD but I also have experience in Policy I ran just about everything during my years of debate from non-T affs, K affs, and any option on the neg that saying I’m open to any argument you will read.

Short version- I try to be as TAB as possible knowing there are some preferences just read whatever you want I don’t have preferences in that sense (plans, DAs, Ks, theory) just tell me why you ran them and why they matter. Go as fast as you want I’d like to say I’m pretty good at flowing. I’m not the best at really dense phil so please explain exactly what the argument means (even if you win the tech debate it’s hard for me to vote on an argument that wasn’t explained well during round.


1. Policy args (CP, DA, ADV)

2. T & Theory

3. K

4. Phil

If you start an email chain put me on it.

Long version-

Framework- V/C debate, ROB, ROJ, are all acceptable. I didn’t really run dense framework in my years of debate but for certain positions its required so go for it. I’m sad I have to say this but just because you win framework doesn’t mean you win the round. Please weigh well tell me how your arguments fit in the framework and why that framework matters. I feel like most debaters don’t do a great job at arguing frameworks after the first two speeches so even if you read a 5-card dump on your opponent’s framework you still need to extend and say why yours is good.

Policy args- I tend to lean to policy style debates even in LD but only if the topic allows it. If the wording of the resolution doesn’t ask for some sort of policy action don’t try to fit on in.

Topicality/ theory- When you read these arguments in front of me give 1. A proper structure Interp, violation, standards, voters 2. A clear abuse story (if one isn’t pointed out it’s hard for me to vote on it even if you when the tech debate) don’t just say it’s bad for education or fairness show me why that matters and how it’s bad for debate 3. I feel like competing interps is a better way to debate theory but sometimes reasonability is a good strategy (I don’t like reasonability as much because it calls for me to create some type of Brightline and requires a bit of intervention) 4. I feel like the 1AR is one of the hardest speeches in debate and will vote on RVIs for theory or topicality if the RVI is properly warranted.

K- I don’t have a lot of experience in super dense K debate so if you’re going hard please explain it because it’ll go right over my head. I’m good with general Ks Biopower, Cap, ECT. If you can explain the position in an overview in a way that I can understand I will vote on it.

Ali Rizvi Paradigm


Rizvi, Ali 

Debater for UTD

TLDR: just ask tbh

T and FW: Will vote on them. For fw debates deck out the impact debate. 

CP/DA/Case: Yes, please. These are really good strategies. You would be surprised.

K: There is a difference between buzzwords and explaining arguments. If you can’t tell the difference between that, you probably shouldn’t run them. If you say the alt is "buzzword buzzword noun buzzword adjective buzzword" and the aff says that is not even a sentence, that will probably be the rfd.

Other stuff: Tech over Truth - if they had a really bad argument and they just beat you on it, then yeah you deserved the L. I am pretty fast, as long as you are clear. Clarity over Speed always. The last two rebuttals should tell me why I am voting for you. If you sit down after the 2nr and realize there was minimal DA ow Case argumentation, you should not be surprised how the debate will turn out to be. Have interps when you read theory please. I don’t understand teams who don’t. Also, if they just drop t - you can make life very easy for all of us by just extending t doing the bare bones, I will sign the ballot. 

Speaker Points: The more you make me laugh the higher speaks you get. Also, good arguments and strategy = higher points.      

Madison Romo Paradigm


I debated Public Forum all four years of high school at Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart in Houston, TX. Currently, I am a Freshman at Boston University. I am most familiar with PF.

-I don't like flex prep. However, if both opponents want to do flex prep, they must agree before the round. If there is no pre-round agreement, then the round will proceed with traditional prep time rules.

-Grace Period: If you run out of time when giving a speech, you may finish your sentence.

-I dislike intervening, so please weigh and compare evidence yourself. It is to your advantage to write my ballot for me why you win which layers and why those layers should be preferred. This is important!

-Tech > Truth

Public Forum

I would like to see carded evidence read throughout the round. Evidence should be extended throughout the round. Rebuttals should be line by line. I am open to unusual arguments, but I will almost certainly vote against blatantly ridiculous and offensive arguments (racist, sexist, etc.) Weigh your arguments especially in summary and final focus.

I think framework is very important. If your opponent reads a framework you don’t agree with, you should dispute it early in the round. Don’t wait for the summary or final focus to bring it up. New evidence should not be brought up in Final Focus unless it is in direct response to a completely new argument that your opponents read in their last speech.

Ideally, your summary and final focus should be in voter form. If you decide to do a more line by line summary, that is fine. FF should definitely be voters,

I would appreciate it if you signposted during your speeches. You shouldn’t prep while exchanging evidence. Prep should only be done during prep time. If you have any specific questions, ask me before the round.


  • Signpost please; I prefer debaters to be explicit about where to flow things and I appreciate pen time. If you're giving a speech and I'm looking around the different sheets of paper instead of writing, I'm probably trying to find the argument and may miss something.
  • I default to no RVIs (you need to actually win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
  • I would not recommend reading either disclosure theory or brackets bad theory in front of me. I won't vote off of it. I believe that universal compulsory disclosure disproportionately disadvantages under-resourced debaters and that brackets are acceptable in educational spaces (assuming the card is not miscut).
  • Speed: Although I can handle some speed and have judged some LD before, my training and direct experience is in PF. So, slow down for short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. Overall, watch your speed. If you don't see me flowing, it probably means that I am not catching your arguments.
  • I would not recommend reading meta-theory to me. If you do, I won't assume that meta-theory comes before theory.
  • You can add me to the email chain

Brandon Sam Paradigm

8 rounds

Judge Name: Brandon Sam

School Affiliation: University of Houston


I consider myself a cross between a policymaker and a stock issues judge but I will vote on anything I deem pertinent to the round. If you decide to run theory or a kritik then please be specific and do not make it seem like a waste of time. I am going to value education within the round, and I believe the best way to that is with real world consequences and analogies.

Summary: I have competed in policy debate, congressional debate, extemporaneous speaking, and numerous IE events during my last two years at a AAAAA high school. I also went to UIL State for news and editorial writing, and I consider myself to be up-to-date on political issues. This is my first year in college as a political science major, and also my first year judging varsity debate.

Round Preferences:

Preferred Quantity of Arguments-

Communication is important in the round but not more important than argument. Quality and quantity of evidence are of equal importance.

If you want me to vote something up or down then spend the time to explain it. If I have to rank the arguments myself then you might win, but it could reflect in speaker points.


As the Neg, try to run topicality only if it is truly necessary to do so. I am of the mindset that if you have on-case evidence then you should not run topicality because you have prepared for said case. Aff should treat topicality with upmost importance because if the neg has a strong T argument then the round flows neg.

Counter Plan-

Topical CPs are accepted. Single agent of action is better than multi-agent, so be careful. Plan inclusive counter plans are accepted. The more vague the more likely I am going to accept the “perm”.


DAs will be weighed at the end of the round. I will vote for the team with the better impact calculus. Realistic impacts will be weighed more heavily!!!!

Conditional Arguments-

Preferences said arguments as disposition as long as they are competitive.


Don’t be general or generic. Provide alternative not a rejection. Strong links and analysis will work in your favor.


Be clear about what you are kicking and remind me in 2AR and 2NR or I will count it as a drop. Don’t kick something unless it is necessary. I expect you to run arguments that you plan on keeping, not time wasters.


I can flow as fast as Eminem can sing Rap God, but you probably can't articulate that well. Accuracy is needed by both sides in a debate and I do not believe that going fast enough to make yourself gasp is conducive to education. I will dock your speaker points. Your job is to make my job easy. Road maps and sign posting is essential. Don’t do the weird breathing thing, and do not rock back and forth. Don’t yell at me. Have eye contact with me when possible, but don't continuously stare at me. Confidence makes a debate enjoyable.

Additional Comments:

LD Debate-

Value and Criterion-Must be able to measure your value; while not my primary means of deciding the round, it is a factor depending on how it is used.

· I prefer traditional LD but I will accept progressive.

· I don't care where you sit, as long as its next to your partner. You may sit or stand during speeches, but this must be a consensus reached by both teams before the start of the round.

· I will not disclose.

· I don’t care if both team members contribute to cross examination; however, one person should not dominate both of their teams cross examination period. This is a teamed event not a solo, so don’t carry your partner or prevent them from speaking.

· Compete with professionalism-Don’t be rude, and don’t be disruptive during someone else's speech. Do offer resources and materials that are being utilized in the round. I don't count flashing as prep time unless it gets ridiculous, and we will not use an email chain. Teams should keep each other accountable when it comes to length of speeches and prep time.

Don't be afraid to ask questions before the start of the round.

Miranda Sanford Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated policy and PF at Magnolia high school and now i debate policy at the University of Houston and i work for Kinkaid. I would like to be on the email chain

Do what you do best. I am most familiar with k debates but I think it's the burden of the judge to adapt to whatever the debaters want to do so i will vote on anything. ld rounds - please be very clear on the FW debate - have an explicit framing mechanism, explain what offense links etc. on theory, i don't like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate because I barely understand it. you may not like how i vote here unless you explain your argument to me like i don't know anything about debate

I use speaker points to reward smart strategies and arguments, high quality evidence, and generally making the debate an enjoyable experience. please be respectful to each other and please don't spread if you want me to understand everything you say. that being said, i rarely give points below 28.

Kevin Si Paradigm

I debated LD for Dulles for 4 years, graduating in 2016.

I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid defaulting on any framing issues. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments.

I tend to give speaks based on a mixture of strategy, passion, and clarity. In terms of clarity, I'll call clear twice before I start docking speaks.

Johnny Simpson Paradigm

No major philosophical paradigms, I approach each round with an open mind waiting for each side to convince me they are right.


Go the same speed as your opponent . If you go first, then find their speed doesn't match yours, slow to their level to keep it fair. If you go second, slow down if the person who went first wasnt as fast as you normally debate

Karman Singh Paradigm

8 rounds

Updated 12/27/2018

I am currently a junior at UT and have judged occasionally since graduating. I debated at Cypress-Falls High School in Houston, Texas for four years.I received a bid my junior year and broke at TFA state for three years in a row. I mainly read Util and T/Theory my senior year.

I think debate is a good space to be creative and strategic. I will listen to all arguments because I think debaters should have a space to be creative with their thoughts. I think debate is important because it teaches us skills we can use the rest of our lives.

- Weigh arguments. People don’t weigh. Good weighing in front me will net you higher speaks and increase your chances of winning.

- Don’t presume I know anything. You should be explaining terms to me. I’m not doing that work for you. Err on the side of over-explaining.

- Extend the claim and impact if an arg is dropped. Signpost effectively or I won’t flow effectively. I'm pretty lenient on extensions.

-I like it when debaters make analytic arguments. Please look up from your laptops, look at me, and actually make arguments that have not been pre-written for you.

-Overviews are amazing. They give you the ability to collapses layers, pre-empt arguments, and write the ballot for me. I like it when debaters write the ballot for me. If you can effectively do this, you'll most likely win and get very high speaks

- Don't steal prep. I won't count flashing against your prep, but you need to be ready to hand the flash drive to your opponent when prep ends and not still be compiling a doc.

-I prefer that you don't use the rest of CX as prep. A good CX can net you higher speaks.

-I default to CI, no RVI, and drop the argument

-If you sit down early, I'll give you higher speaks.

Include me on the email chain. sironthree AT

Neville Tom Paradigm

Contact Info:


Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.


I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.


I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:


Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.


*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:



Tess Welch Paradigm Yes, I want to be on the email chain.

My paradigm used to be long and extra, I've lost a lot of these opinions.

Background: I did LD at Cy-Fair High School in Houston, TX for 4 years (2014-2018). I did TFA 4x, TOC x2, UIL x2, and broke at every bid tournament attended except 1. I got 5 career bids and 3 bid rounds. I now debate for Western Kentucky and do NFA-LD. I read K's, FW, T/Theory, DA/CP's, impact turns...

I don't think any judge is truly tabula rasa, but I do my best to not push a certain form of debate. Don't be a jerk or offensive. Make sure you pause in between arguments or signal transitions. Sign post and extend your arguments. Frame theory for me.

//Trigger Warnings\\

If you are reading something of a sensitive nature, please give a trigger warning to the room. I have triggers and you don't know if your opponent/ any audience member does to. A trigger warning should be delivered as “I’m reading arguments about X, is everyone okay/comfortable with that?” If someone is not comfortable with arguments of that nature, you must read something else.

//Don't Be Offensive\\

Please don't not to say things offensive – racism good won’t persuade me, and if you get called out for saying something morally reprehensible, you’re likely to lose. I reserve the right to give the lowest speaks tab will let me and drop debaters for this.


I like it. If you don't like it, explain why your arguments come first. If you are collapsing to it, I want an overview of what you think is necessary for me to vote for you. EX "Competing interps is conceded which means all I need is to win a risk of offense on the shell and you negate."


K's are fun, but using buzzwords with no explanation means you aren't saying anything. Please read arguments you understand and can explain or I'll be sad.


I love framework, but I don't assume I know what you're talking about. Explain each step and what the syllogism means.

*If you are reading an analytic framework, PLEASE number the steps and subpoints, rather than blocks of text. I have a form of dsylexia and it's incredibly hard to flow a block of text.*


Please say "and" or "next" when ending a card and starting a new tag.

I will say clear or slow - if I say clear or slow and there is no change in your pace or clarity I will dock speaks but if I hear / see a change after saying clear or slow I will say it as many times as needed.

I base speaks off of arguments and strategy and view the round as a way for you to prove to me how you should do. The below list is how I approach speaks and they're adjusted for the type of tournament and compeition.

30 - should be able to beat all of the competitors

29.5 - should be able to beat most of the competitors and be in late elims

29 - should be able to get a positive record and break

28.5 - likely to get a positive record and high speaks

28 - should have a close or even record

27.5 - showed improvement is necessary, struggled to make strategic decisions likely to win a couple of rounds

27 - showed a lack of understanding of concepts or made very poor strategic decisions.

anything below that means something egregious happened - ie 6 shells in the 1ar and trying to go for all of them in the 2ar or being racist, sexist, ableist....

Angelina Zhang Paradigm

Hello! I’m Angelina and I did CX for Dulles (in Texas) from 2014-2018

Yes, please add me to the email chain:

UH Tournament (LD)

I debated maybe a total of 10 rounds of LD my entire career (mostly my senior year) so most of my LD experience is second hand based on conversations with members of my team. That being said, I did do CX debate for four years and did both K and policy styles so take what you will from that.

Overall, do whatever you’re good at. As long as you explain and warrant out your args and have a reason for why it matters in relation to your opponents (IE clash) then there shouldn’t be a problem. Please, please do weighing. It makes it much easier to evaluate and keeps judge intervention to a minimum. Of course, I won’t vote for anything homophobic, racist, sexist, etc, and I will dock speaks and/or drop the debater.

General Logistics

1. Speed is fine, but keep in mind I don’t do debate anymore in college, so maybe aim for 70-80% of your full speed. Please differentiate your tags from the card text. I will say clear as many times as I need if you actually slow down. Else, after that, anything I don’t catch won’t make it onto the flow.

2. Prep ends when your flash drive leaves the computer or when the email is sent out. Please don’t steal prep.

3. Flex prep is fine as long as both debaters agree to it

4. I don’t care where you sit, and I don’t care if you stand or sit. Whatever makes you comfortable/perform the best is fine.

Argument Things

1. Tech over Truth

2. LARP is fine. I like a good DA/CP/Case debate

3. Ks are fine

- K affs (I did this most of my junior and senior year). I’ve been on both sides of the T-FW vs K aff debate. It would be nice if the aff related to the topic whatever that means to you, but it doesn’t have to be (but you have to have justify why it isn’t otherwise theory becomes pretty convincing). For T-FW, do impact weighing and contextualize it.

- Ks are fine but please explain and apply. Don’t assume I know your K (because honestly, I probably won't to the extent you think/want me to). Buzzwords and jargon don’t make me happy. I need to understand your K in order to vote on it. Please have an explanation for how your alt functions and why your ROB matters in comparison to your opponent's. Perms should have a perm text or at minimum, an explanation on the mechanism.

3. Topicality/Theory is okay

- Please slow down on these debates. They usually become blippy and hard to catch. If you’re collapsing to it please have an explanation of what is needed to vote for you.

- Topicality should have carded definitions. You should also have internal links to your voters and reasons why your standards matter in this round

- Theory is fine, but I also didn’t really go for theory much so if you’re collapsing to theory please flush it out for me. Weigh your argument

- I did policy, RVIs weren’t a thing

4. NC FW – I don’t have much experience with this debate, so I might not be the best judge for you. In my head, I see it sort of like a ROJ/ROB in K debate and I’ll view the FW that outwieghts to filter your impacts unless told otherwise

5. Other LD Stuff – I don’t know how a Spike or NIB functions. If this is your strat, please explain the mechanisms or I’m probably not the best judge for you.

Don’t be a jerk. I think debate should strive to be as inclusive as possible. If it means slowing down or explaining your args in CX for a novice or inexperienced debater, please do so.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

Have Fun!