I debated LD in high school and debated CX in college.

mauricioAguilar717@outlook.com

General notes: I keep time, but you can keep your own time as well. If for some reason we record different times, don't worry, we will differ to mine. Expect to be prompt in-round. Assuming there is no necessary flashing going or post-speech discrepancies to rectify, CX starts right after the AC and NC. Prep time starts right after CX and rebuttals. I don't really care if you hit a novice. You don't have to be reserved. I was always annoyed when a judge told me to go easy on a novice. IF you don't tell me where to flow things, don't expect me to try and find a place for it. It becomes a random and probably long overview at the top of the aff or neg flow. So do yourself a favor and TELL ME WHERE TO FLOW YOUR ARGUMENTS.

Spreading: I am completely fine with spreading, in fact, I prefer it. Just make sure you can actually spread. I will say clear as many times as necessary but after the third time, your speaks will suffer.

Flashing: I expect to be on the email chain. If there is a problem with the chain, I carry flash drives. For speech docs, make sure offs are distinguishable. Tags boldened. If you card clip I stop flowing the card and omit it. When it comes to flashing opponents, make it quick and it won't count as prep time. If it becomes obviously excessive I start prep. Don't flash your opponent a different version of the speech doc.

Framework: You have a better chance of winning with me as your judge if you go in on the framework debate. I absolutely love framework debates. If you want to make me happy, run a procedural framework. That being said, MAKE SURE that you read an effective impact calc. I think it is core to the functioning of your framework. To flow a constructive with a trash impact calc (or often none at all) is one of my largest pet peeves. So don't do that.

Don't run a framework that you don't understand. Makes you look incompetent. Doesn't matter if someone else wrote it for you (you should be writing your own cases). I love dense phil debate, as long as you know what you're doing. Go crazy with the spikes. Run whatever framework you want, just write it well. Also, I am not opposed to a good TJF.

Ks: I am a fan of them. So run them as you please. DON'T be lazy, include topic-specific links. If you want to appease my preferences, run an Anthro k. Assuming you have topic-specific links. Now, I will vote on generic link cards but I don't want to. Technically speaking, you can win when you run them, so you should have that right. However, any decent debater should be able to de-link easily, but it's your prerogative. You still need an impact calc. Make sure you have a perm text.

Also, please read a ROTB. It's always fun if you can write it with some theory justifications. It's not really a K without a ROTB, so if you want offense from the uplayer, read a ROTB. If you have me as a judge, doesn't take long to write a theory justified ROTB before the round starts. Reading a card with your ROTB is advantageous.

CPs: I am okay with any policy argument. So that goes for aff as well. It would be interesting to see a unique framework with a cp, an example would be queer theory. But, util is definitely new and refreshing to hear. Read a solvency advocate and net benefits.

Theory: I default to competing interps, I am fine with friv theory as long as the interp isn't stupid. There is a fine line between strategically reasonable friv theory and stupid and pointless theory. I probably won't flow it. I don't have a default on RVIs. I don't have a default to truth-testing, worlds, phil, etc. So if you want, just read the truth-testing shell. While I don't have a default, I will say that you will have an easier time reading a truth testing shell. Make sure the shell is written well, with clear and differentiated standards.

T: You can read whatever shell you want, but the applicable theory paradigms do transfer.

Underviews: I love good underviews. You can read two or three. They help guide the debate which is fun. Tailor the underview to your opponent. Make me happy by reading a million spikes (seriously). If you drop your opponent's underview preempts and/or spikes, that's all your fault. Also, if the underview has a plethora of args preempting and even precluding the NC or the offs you were planning on reading, change your plan. If not, really give that underview a flawless line-by-line.

Overviews: I like them, use them. You should have some pre-written with the 1ar and 2nr frontlines, but it is always good to be able to extemp them as rounds can be unpredictable.

That leads to me stress the importance of collapsing. Don't try to go for everything. You'll probably lose. You will be much more convincing from a technical standpoint if you collapse to what you think you can win on opposed to what you want to win on.

Weigh arguments. WEIGHING is key and debaters don't do nearly enough of it. So, weighing correctly is a neglected essential. Step one is reading a strong impact calc. ALSO, in the general sense, read your arguments in points. It makes voting on drops much easier.

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

Hi! I'm Chase Bailey and while I never participated in Speech & Debate in high school, I became a part of it as a teacher back in 2015. Since then, I've judged every type of event and grown to love this community. For reference, I graduated from Texas State University with a BA in English and have since taught AP Lang, UT OnRamps, and other advanced level courses. I love a good story, and I spent enough time in the theatre to recognize fake enthusiasm for a genuine empathetic connection to a topic.

I'm not easily offended, and if there is good evidence to back up an argument, I consider it fair game even if it's against something I personally believe in. Mature material and curse words are not offensive to me, but there is a difference between using it for effect and using it because you don't have the necessary vocabulary to insert a more meaningful word. Just as in writing, a good performance will be aware of our current global events and how a joke may strike.

I prefer a more conversational style of speaking that avoids using the same word or phrase over and over as a crutch. Real genuine connections to your piece are important, and faking your way through it by pitching your voice up inauthentically is a real disappointment.

I encourage the DX and FX events to follow a standard speech outline (Intro: hook, intro w/ topic stated, clear answer, and a preview of points to be made; Body: introduction of your point w/ analysis & meta-analysis followed by a clean transition to your next point; and a conclusion with the topic and answer restated along with an overview of the points discussed to tie everything together. Bonus points for making a witty, but meaningful, connection back to your hook!).

For the interpretation events, I vote for the contestant(s) who whisked me away into the story. Therefore, the jarring screams, cursing, and other shocking noises should be used with caution. All movements should have a purpose. Blocking, facial expressions, and again, having a genuine connection to the characters in your piece is SO important. Basically, I want to be entertained!

POI, you are my favorite. It combines my favorite aspects of an interpretation and informative and allows me to be in multiple stories at once. A well put together POI should transition between the pieces in such a way that I am never confused about what piece is being read. Facial expressions, voices, body movements, etc. are all encouraged to pop in and out of each section. Just as with the raw interpretation events, don't let me out of the story that you're telling. Drag me in. The other aspect of a POI that really makes me appreciate a piece is a meaningful thread that allows you to transition between each piece in a clever and witty way.

I wish all of you the best of luck!

My paradigm is simple. I am an old school debate judge (having done LD back in the mid-90s). I value solid evidence. I do not appreciate old evidence as we are usually debating very present-day topics. In addition, I like seeing good analysis on topic. I will also base decisions on over-reaching arguments that are dropped/addressed in a round. Finally, I loathe spreading. I remind all students at the beginning of each round.

burdettnolan@gmail.com

Experience

I debated on the TFA and TOC circuits for 4 years in high school (2012-2016) and have been coaching and judging on/off for the last few years. I'm comfortable with speed and familiar with most arguments around the circuit. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask!

Paradigm

I will generally vote on any argument that is warranted, extended, explained with reference to the ballot, and does not create an unsafe space for students or participants involved. I encourage creativity with arguments and don't have strong feelings toward any specific style or type of position. I will not evaluate arguments that don't have warrants, even if they are conceded. Bad warrants are OK - they just have to be impacted to a ballot story.

I do not assume any particular role of the ballot or theory of debate - I will look at debate, education, and arguments in whatever way you tell me to. I do generally assume that my ballot must be connected to some decision-making paradigm and that my decision about the winner must stem from this paradigm, regardless of what that may be. I am open to diverse arguments that apply to debate in creative ways and will evaluate offense accordingly.

Evidence/Flowing

I tend to flow constructives off of speech docs and rebuttals by ear, even when there is a doc sent out. That means if you add an analytic in your constructive while in the middle of a speech doc, it is highly likely that I will miss it and not vote for it. Clarity, sign-posting, and spacing are really important to me because they help me flow. Flowing speeches well is hard. If your speeches are easier to flow, you will have an advantage.

I will only look at evidence if 1) It is explicitly called for in round 2) A warrant/explanation is mentioned that I do not have in speech 3) If I feel it is possible that evidence is being misrepresented. I generally think that debaters should be explaining the warrants in their evidence during speeches - but at the very least, tell me how good and warranted your evidence is in the speech so I can verify the claims you are making.

Speaker Points

I do not have an objective scale for awarding speaker points. I try to award them based on how well I feel a debater has performed relative to their own average performance (average being 28). But, if I think you deserve to break at the tournament you're at, I'll usually start with a 29. I acknowledge that this is not a perfect system but it is how I award speaks. If you are a stronger, more experienced debater hitting someone significantly less experienced: the way to get high speaks from me is to win the round effectively and efficiently with a clear ballot story, then continue to use the rest of your speech time to have an engaging debate with your opponent's position. The more educational, the better. I'm begrudgingly receptive to strategically sidestepping clash in most situations, but not this one - respond to their position, please!

Otherwise, I generally award speaker points based on strategy, execution, efficiency, creativity, performance, clarity, and personality.

Feedback

I give oral disclosures and feedback unless explicitly instructed not to. I try to spend a few minutes going through each speech offering feedback and constructive criticism. If you want to test out a new position, I'm a good person to innovate in front of - I'll try my best to give a few tips and thoughtfully engage with what you've written or put together.

Conclusion

Once again, if you have any questions or are confused by what's written above, just ask. I'm very open to questions. Otherwise, try to learn something, get along, and have some fun!

Tl;dr: Idk high theory, slow a little on T, tech>truth (generally), everything else is kk.

This is my third year judging after 4 years of high school debate. I mostly jumped around from Ks to plans to theory and whatever random stuff I thought was cool/interesting at the time.

I haven't read a single word of Heidegger or baudrillard or any high theory, debate-wise or just casually, so if you go there know it's all on you. Though understand, there isn't any disliking of it from me, its just not something I ever cared about. I don't enjoy spreading through T or theory in speeches after the shells cuz there's a lot of nuance in those debates, so just talk fast, don't spread.

Things I like - doing impact calculus for you and your opponent(s), sign posting, line-by-line, justification why a dropped X means you win (don't just tell me its dropped and move on)

Things I don't like - "Time Skew" args cuz the Neg read 3 off (and definitely never by the Neg), RVI's cuz of the Neg's "frivolous" 1 off of T (this being said, there is certainly a point where the theory definitely becomes frivolous and excessive - I'd put my money at somewhere around 3~) , Drop the Debater calls w/o justification (its gotta be something big and real for me to make a person auto lose cuz they did something. If its really important, then u can spend more than 2 breathes and 10 seconds on it).

I've ended up judging PF a couple times already so I guess I should include a paradigm on that as well. I'm going to judge it like its policy/ld. That means I'm gonna need you to actually extend impacts. I'm really surprised that I need to say that but the previous 4 rounds of pf i judged... didn't... That also means if you want to do any progressive stuff that normally doesn't fly in PF, then I'm game.

Those inevitable little questions that occur right before/during the round: Flex Prep? Lit. Open CX? Lit. Spreading? Lit. Disclosure theory? Lit. Email chain? Add me (corsermichael@gmail.com), but don't feel pressured to do one, just if it exists, then i want in. Where do i sit? W/e u want. Can I use the restroom? Idk, u probably can, but u may as well.

Oh and while everything is online, the debaters don't need to have their camera on. I'll be having mine on so y'all can see I'm like... there, but if you want to randomly leave then ull just lose lmao so idc.

Gonna steal this from Reichle cuz i dig it: "it becomes harder every year for me to think of a way to encapsulate how i view debate in a way that somehow gives a useful suggestion to debaters. it seems that each philosophy follows a formula--assure everyone that you were a good debater up to and including past experience, make sure they know that you are either open or receptive to all types of argumentation while still harboring resentment to anything progressive and different from what is deemed acceptable by personal debate standards, which is then followed by a list of ways the judge hopes everyone debates. while the formula will apply to some extent i would like to say that i am in every way honest when i say this: do what you do best and read the arguments that you prefer in the style that you prefer in front of me. do this and i say unto you that it will do less harm than running around in circles in round for the sake of a paradigm. be the debater that you are, not who you think i want you to be. that being said; this is who i assume you should be: kind. be kind to your opponent and avoid shadiness and we’ll have no problems."

I like to see a variety of sources in extemp. Don't just throw it in there to have it, make sure it helps paint the picture.

I like to see some type of extemp walk to help me visualize the speech more.

Threads not the most important to have in extemp, but there should be some solid transitions going into each point.

Significance in all speech events are super important to me. I need to know why I should listen to you.

If using language it really needs to have it's purpose.

Debate:

Talk Pretty

I enjoy role of the ballot and role of the judge you tell me how to vote on the round.

Run whatever as long as you can explain. Key word is EXPLAIN.

Don't be rude to one another or you will lose speaker points.

PF Paradigm at the top, LD at the bottom. I approach the events in a completely different manner. I wouldn't apply what is in the PF paradigm to LD.

PF Paradigm

I am a coach that has been involved with debate for a while. At the most basic level, I will evaluate the impacts students have access to at the end of the round using the weighing/framing mechanisms provided. You should be weighing in the back half of the round. Here are some notes about the details.

-I am listening but not flowing crossfire. While I'm not voting on anything that is said here, I am judging your knowledge of the important args and the topic in general.

-I am not tab. The best description of my judging style is a critic of argument. I want to vote for the best debaters, and to that end, I feel this activity is at its best when students explain warrants. I will vote on consequential drops, but I almost never vote on unwarranted blippy claims, even if they are carded. So for instance, if Smith 20 says "the economy will crash in two months," and that is the end of the story; for the purposes of the round I am not assuming the economy will crash in two months. You need to explain why Smith thinks that and contextualize its importance within the round. If Smith doesn't give a reason you are comfortable explaining, or you don't understand why Smith thinks that, this argument should not effect the RFD. My bar for a warrant that I will accept is very low(often I disagree with the warrant but still accept it), but the bar does exist. Just give me something that makes sense. The top competitors warrant and do all this naturally, so I don't think a lot of adapting should be going on.

-I prefer a brisk but understandable pace in the rebuttal/summary speeches, offense in the FF needs to be clearly extended (preferably weighed) throughout.

-I view debate as a game that teaches essential skills, and will vote for the students that in my opinion win the game. Using offensive arguments or not respecting the dignity of your opponents will lead to you losing the game.

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on theory. I am ok with paraphrasing but prefer direct quotations. I do not expect disclosure (full text or otherwise).

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on a non-topical K. There is a zero percent chance I will vote for a K that links into the topic in general. If the K has a strong link into the opponents advocacy, I will consider it, but probably still vote against it.

-Defense is not sticky.

-You should frontline in 2nd Rebuttal.

-Sell terminal defense, I have a higher bar for granting access to the impact then a lot of judges.

-There is no reason for a plan or CP.

-I don't like politics DAs, in policy rounds they work as a net benefit to a CP decently, but as independent offense in PF I think it is poor in general. The only way I'm voting on it is if it the other team severely mishandles it or has no offense I can comfortably vote on.

-If you want to see cards have the names ready and say them immediately after the speech. The 1st speaker for each team should be ready and adept at sending cards. I am not ok with a stream of asking for cards one after the other stretching out the time. The PF round should end in roughly an hour.

LD Paradigm

The PF paradigm above doesn't apply very much here. I debated LD in high school, but that was a long time ago. In LD, I'm resigned to being tab and voting on execution. I will try my best to reward the better debater, so if you can go fast and clear that is good.

I prefer debate on the topic and I view this activity as a game, so my natural inclination is to expect the resolution to grant both sides with ground, although the specifics can be debated. In general, I don't like to vote on blippy drops. I rarely vote for non-topical affs. Framework debate is ok and I will vote for the debater that executes their style the best. I enjoy judging debates with clash, and reward developed arguments which clearly link to the core issues of the resolution. I will vote for Plans, CPs, DAs, Ks, Theory, and framework. You are not winning the round in cross.

I don't have a problem with speed, but if I can't understand what your saying I will not connect the dots for you. A brisk speech that is clean is preferable to a faster pace in which words are mumbled and there are many noticeable stumbles. I keep a detailed flow and if an argument is dropped it matters. I like to hear voters during the final speeches.

I am a pretty tab LD judge. The more work you do on the flow, the less I will do when making my decision. I will hear any argument as long as you make it comprehensible. I want to intervene as little as possible in the decision as to be the most fair. The more explicit in meaning you are, the more helpful my feedback will be. I enjoy framework debates, especially when debaters know what they're talking about and can communicate it efficiently.

General things to keep in mind:

Speed is fine if you're clear and sufficiently summarize your extensions. If I cannot understand you, I will yell "clear".

If an argument is conceded, I will consider it to be true, even if it's absolutely ridiculous.

If an argument has NOT been conceded, I will consider true or false based upon which side's argument is more logical.

I have a lower standard for AR extensions, but don't abuse this. Clearly state the author.

Avoid strategies that require you to debase your opponent. For example, don't just call people racist even if you think their arguments lean that way. Explain why you think that specific argument is racist and then why racism is not a justifiable idea. People are NOT their ideas or what they argue for in a debate round. Taking this extra step is the difference between committing an ad hominem logical fallacy and making a compelling argument I can vote for. Besides that, calling people names is just rude and makes them feel bad :(. Remember that your opponent is a person too.

Be assertive, but respectful. Assholes may end up winning, but they will get speaker points low enough that it will likely prevent them from breaking.

Hello :)

I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: faizaan.dossani@gmail.com

Westlake (TX) 2017-2021, I also coached here for the 2021-2022 season.

General/Introductions

I don't really have any disposition to any particular style of debate and will simply vote for whichever argument is winning the highest layer of the flow. I also have a low tolerance of being disrespectful to your opponents; just be nice please.

I competed in LD on the local and nat circuit in which I cleared at TFA and a sizable chunk of nat circuit tourneys. I also taught at ODI for its past two sessions. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I try to do everything possible to not intervene in my decisions, so navigate my ballot for me.

Kritiks + K Affs

I primarily read these arguments, as my go-to strat junior and senior year was 1-off K. I mainly read Settler Colonialism, Baudrillard, Wynter, Anthro, Berardi, Derrida, cap stuff, and Islamophobia lit but am extremely familiar with a lot of k lit (disability lit, most black scholars, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze, Nietzsche, etc.), but as long as you do the proper explanation, I can probably evaluate any literature you throw at me.

• Overviews are appreciated but good line by line is usually more compelling for my ballot
• I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
• Give trigger warnings. If you forget and remember midway through the speech, pause your timer and just ask everyone; safety is the most important.

LARP

I read/cut many larp positions and it was also the style of debate I hit the most, so I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. I haven't done much research into the topic literature so please explain your positions to me very clearly!

• DO WEIGHING or I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
• Evidence comparison is a must have in competing claims over the same argument
• I think reading like 6+ off and then just going for the one the aff had like 10 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it

Tricks

I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes scattered in, but I don’t understand most of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, Zenos, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.

• Don't be sketchy!
• Make sure that all of your tricks are on the doc. Even if you say "im extempting x" in the speech you still should send a doc of whatever analytics you read. In tricks debates, I heavily rely on the doc compared to other debates.

T + Theory

Usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate can be fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story on a framing level.

• I won't default any paradigm issues; please just make the implications yourself
• The more frivolous the violation, the more likely I will lower the threshold for response
• I think some form of disclosure is probably a good idea, but I also think that can be up for debate

Phil/FW

I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. However, I have judged a lot of phil debates so I feel that I can probably handle whatever you read as long as it is properly explained.

- Explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples will boost speaks

- I think framing hijacks/proving why your framework precludes their moral theory can be extremely compelling in these debates

Traditional Debate

I never really partook in any traditional style of debate (VC or definitional stuff) but I did debate traditional debaters a lot and feel that I can confidently evaluate these debates.

• I think the extra attention to ethos is nice in these debates, but at the end of the day I will still evaluate your arguments on a technical level first
• I'd rather you spend more of your time focusing on the substance of the debate instead of value/VC. I often find that most values are kinda the same thing but just worded differently, which makes evaluating weighing between different values kinda futile.

PF Paradigm

I never actually competed in PF but going to Westlake allowed me to drill/prep with a lot of our PFrs so I have been heavily exposed to the argumentation style and evolving nature of PF. The people that I have worked with that I have pretty similar takes on debate are Cale McCrary, Zain Syed, Jawad Bataneih, Jason Luo, and Cherie Wang.

• You can debate as tech or lay as you want in front of me. Doing LD broadened the styles of debate I partook in, so I can handle whatever progressive arguments you throw at me. Speed is fine as well, but be clear.
• I will give both teams plus 0.2 in speaks if yall just flash cases before constructive, we all know your calling for evidence just to steal prep which wastes everyones' time

Speaks + Misc.

I give speaks based off efficiency, argument quality, and just your general attitude in round. I try to be as consistent as possible with speaks, so you will most likely get between a 28-29.6 unless you do something exceedingly bad/good.

• Please record your speeches, especially if you have a history of laggy wifi
• Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
• For evidence ethics, I'd rather you form the argument into some type of theory shell instead of staking the round and allowing me to decide, but I will try to default on whatever rules the tournament is following

I know debate can be stressful and toxic; just do your best and have fun cause at the end of the day we are just some losers yelling at each other on NSDA campus :)

Experience: Former LD and Congress Debater, current community judge, and consultant.

Judged for 2 years

Personal Preferences:

-comfortable with speed if intelligible (speed will not impact by decision)

-winning the framework debate is essential to win the round

-roadmap or signpost while speaking

-use of technical terms such as "turn", "cross-apply", "extend", etc. is preferred (will not impact decision)

-final rebuttals should including voting issues and line by line analysis (voting issues are imperative)

- evidence should be analytic and empirical

Remember, this is LD debate. You can be progressive and apply CX concepts AS LONG AS IT FOLLOWS TYPICAL LD FORMAT. I will still flow regardless of format but respect the rules and try to keep it traditional.

Clash please. Okay with speed. Fine with anything, just make me buy it. Please, please, do impact weighing.

Debate Paradigm (Most Applies to PF, LD, and CX)

Tabula Rasa Judge that is old enough to know that he has inherent biases but typically does not allow them to influence his decision. Despite being a Tabula Rasa Judge 30+ years ago when most were stock issue, I am now slowing moving back to the realization that stock issues are important and there is a reason that they were/are "stock" issues.

CX State Finalist during the stone tablet era, LD debater during HS. Debated briefly in college before I realized that it was more profitable not to. Masters of Science in Engineering from UT, Bachelors of Science in Computer Science from SWT. Have judged for several years including at UIL/TFA state.

As a CX debater I have more preference for "Logic and Analysis" than "Bleeding Heart", but will vote for either.

I don't disclose before eliminations, if you ask I will know that you have not read my paradigm.

Want to see clash and refutation. Speaker points will be decreased if you only read your pre-written arguments in rebuttals, I want to hear why the opponent's arguments are wrong or do not apply. I want to see good sign posting and going down the flow from top to bottom (unless there is a good reason not to). Like to see arguments numbered so they can be easily extended or responded to - but that apparently is lost from debate.

Presentation: Debate should be fun and done in a professional manner. I prefer speakers that stand while speaking, have at least minimal eye contact with their opponent(s) and judge(s), show good sportsmanship to teammate and opponents, avoid objectionable language, avoid repugnant ideas, don’t be disruptive during opponent’s speech or prep., offer resources and materials that are being utilized in the round, affirmative should be on judges left, and most of all have fun. FOLLOWING those guidelines will lead to high speaker points.

Organization: Organization is critical to me. DO signpost clearly during your speech if you want my ballot, DO NOT provide an exhaustive roadmap before speaking. A off-time roadmap should be less than 10 seconds, otherwise it can become a timed road map.

Plans/Counter Plans: Much more likely to vote on if you actually say what you are going to do. The devil is in the details and no debater anymore seems to give any details and frequently seems to make it fungible as the debate progresses.

DA’s should have good impact comparisons. At the end of the round I may be weighing the advantages of the affirmative plan versus the disadvantage impacts. I do not often vote for DA’s that have a minuscule chance of occurring.

Speed: Debate is a speaking event and as such you need to present it verbally in a coherent fashion and not rely on "flashing" the evidence. That said, I debated and can flow fast. Just make sure you enunciate clearly, if I can not understand your speech, it will not be flowed and will not count. The faster you speak the more important it is to be organized, signpost effectively, and change tone/speed to emphasize the major points. I do not say "clear", but if I put down my pen you have a good indication. It is important to pay attention to your audience.

K's: Did not exist when I debated, however I have judged many rounds with K's and will vote for them if the debater makes a good case for them. Make sure it applies to the topic or specific case presented. Not tolerant of K's without good specific links. Not fond of K's that can be run on Aff & Neg or on any year's topic. Debate should be educational and if I feel they are being run due to laziness it will affect your speaker points.

Theory: Familiar with and have voted on, but not an expert on. Just make sure you explain it clearly.

Voters: Like them, want to hear them in the "last speech only".

Presentation: Stand during your speech. Make occasional eye contact.

Framework: If I am given a solid framework and you win the framing debate, I will use that for my voting decision. Framework is not by itself a voting issue.

Topicality: Topicality will be viewed based on competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise. The quality of the definitions are critical.

Evidence: Sources matter! More recent evidence is more relevant than dated. Quality of evidence is more important than quantity. Absence a clear superiority in quality the more quantity and more varied the sources will win.

Performance: Never seen, take your chances.

CX: I have seen some major admissions in CX that could easily win the round, but frequently they are not brought up later in the debate. If you get an admission or find a logical hole in the opponent's argument, bring it up in rebuttals so I can vote on it otherwise I won't.

Open-CX: I do not like open-CX because it often shows a major weakness in one (or both) of the team members resulting in lower speaker points. Teammate should be prepping for their speech, not asking questions. That said, I do not care at all if all debaters agree BEFORE the round begins. DO NOT start mid-round.

Progressive concepts like Flex-Prep are okay as long as it is asked and agreed on by both opponents before the round begins. It can not begin mid-round.

Verbage: Debate is a speaking event, do not assume the judge knows as much as you do. The first time you use an acronym (like RVI or PIC), you should explain what it is or I might "forget" (due to Alzheimer's) and not be able to vote on it.

Flashing: I am not a fan of flashing due to the excessive delays it causes in 50% of the rounds. That said, it is now part of debate and I have no objection to if both parties agree.

Timing: Cross-Ex time begins when the opponent says "open to CX," not 60 seconds later when you have had time to think about it and say "Okay time starts now." Likewise, prep. time begins as soon as CX is over, not 45 seconds later when you say "start prep time now." If you are not at the podium ready to speak you are prepping. I will not penalize you prep. time for flashing data as long as “I” do not think it is excessive, otherwise you will be billed the entire flashing time as prep.

Feel free to talk to me BEFORE the round if you have any questions.

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

I judge policy and LD debate. My policy debate paradigm is listed below:

I prefer to let the debaters tell me how to adjudicate the round. I love kritiks, but I am generally open to hearing any argument as long as good evidence and analysis is given. When it comes to T, I believe it is a voting issue, but more than lip service has to be given. I firmly believe in spending all of a 2NR on T because that amount of time is needed to give a comprehensive story on why the Affirmative team is non-topical and why I should vote Negative in the round. Most disads are non-unique, so be prepared to go for other arguments in the round. I am open to giving leeway for Affirmatives when it comes to rebuttals, but be smart about choices that are made. Do not be afraid to skip the line-by-line if you are able to get to the core of each argument in your speech. If there are any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts. If I get asked a question and my answer is disregarded by choices within the round speaker points will be deducted.

My LD judging paradigm is listed below:

I am open to most arguments and do my best not to allow personal bias dissuade me from considering arguments. I have a policy background and when it comes to policy style arguments I evaluate them the way I would in a policy round. I firmly believe an Affirmative never should go line-by-line because there is too much out to there to cover in either rebuttal. Stick to general voting issues and crystallize the round. Framework is key and if you lose framework it will be an uphill battle to win my ballot.

Simple paradigms:

I am okay with Theory, but you better know what you're doing. If I ask you if you know what theory is, and if you cannot describe it concisely or clear you better not run it. Just fyi. I am okay with plans, just know what you are doing.

I am a conservative debater meaning I value framework, however I do understand the point of spreading your opponent out to the point where they cannot cover everything. I urge you to think about your values and focus on what you're good at then doing what the 'norm' is. If you speed read you better be good at it. Do not spread if you cannot get an argument on the block

Not a stickler on speaker points.

Finally, be courteous and civil with one another. We are here trying to better ourselves, lets do it together.

Goodluck to all

I evaluate every argument as long as it make sense, it's logical and I can understand it. I don't like spreading, be as clear as possible to me please. Also, most importantly, always always be nice to your opponent. Good luck! Any specific question are welcome!

This paradigm is current as of 9/28/2018. I didn't realize the old judge paradigm wikispaces site was closed down.

I debated LD for 4 years at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, reaching the TOC my senior year. I coached LD for three years after graduating, but am no longer involved in the activity except for judging local tournaments here and there in Austin, TX.

Speed is fine, but it's been a while, so start a little slowly and build up to top speed. Clarity is important, and I will say "clear" if it's a problem.

I was known as a K debater, as were my students, but I am far removed from that now. K debates are still cool, but the lingo is probably more foreign to me than it once was, so explain your link story and underlying philosophical terminology thoroughly.

I have always disliked theory, and this view has intensified the longer I've been away. However, it is appropriate in some circumstances. I will accept whatever theory framework a debater justifies best.

Any performance/pre-fiat positions require a role of the ballot framework and/or an ethical framework utilizing a value criterion. Obviously this is flexible, but you have to have some decision calculus regardless of how you choose to debate.

I've sort of forgotten some of my more specific preferences, but please feel free to clarify anything you want to know with me before the round.

This is my fourth year judging PF and LD. I am a parent judge who prefers clarity and logical argumentation over speed and technicality. I value arguments that clearly link back to the topic and are well thought out.

Being familiar with your case and being able to communicate your ideas in an organized manner is what will earn you high speaks.

If you are talking too fast, I will give you two chances by simply saying "speed" before I start docking speaker points.

What impresses me is a calm, focused, intelligent, and respectful style of debate.

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.

I'm pretty tab, and you should feel comfortable reading whatever you like in front of me.

Here's a short version of my paradigm:

- Flashing/emailing isn't prep so long as you don't take forever

- Don't steal prep

- Fine with K's

- Fine with speed

- I only vote on args with warrants that are extended (yes, this includes analytics)

- Don't say stuff that is obviously bad is good (racism/sexism/etc.)

- I default tech over truth b/c I want to minimize intervention as much as possible

- I default competing interps (but can easily be persuaded to pref reasonability)

- I will not extend or kick arguments for you

- Don't steal prep (really)

Long version:

DA's:

Who doesn't like DA's? Link analysis goes a long way with me. I prefer hearing specific links to the Aff either in what they say in CX or in the AC. If you don't do this, I'm more persuaded by Aff defense that says your links are generic and your DA isn't that probable. There's a recent trend of doing extensive overviews on DAs in the block and 2NR. I honestly don't hate it at all, but I think you should only be doing it to accomplish either or both of these things: 1) To extend everything quickly and efficiently, 2) Explaining to me clearly what your strategy is on this flow and how it impacts the round/other arguments (like turns case args). The latter, if done well, can be really helpful to me and can get you higher speaks if you're able to do it concisely and clearly. I think this applies to overviews on all off-case positions for me.

If you're Aff, I think at some point the amount of offense and defense you read against a DA should take a backseat to comparative analysis. I am a lot more engaged in DA rounds where you are doing evidence comparison and analyzing what your evidence means for the possibility of the DA. I'm not all that interested in hearing VH1's Top 100 Link Turns of the Past DecadeTM.

CP's:

I genuinely don't have any dispositions against particular kinds of counterplans. Any question of the validity or fairness of reading X kind of counterplan should be resolved in a theory debate. In general, CP's need to explain what part of the Aff they solve, have a specific solvency advocate, and have some substantive debate about the solvency deficits to the perm.

One thing to note about me is that presumption flips Aff if you go for a CP. The same sentiment applies to K Alts.

K's:

Probably what I know best. My personal beliefs about a particular author/camp do not affect how I evaluate the round. Additionally, I'm not going to cut you any slack or fill in holes for you in your explanations just because I might happen to have read what you're talking about.

K's need specific links to the Aff. Poor analysis on the link debate on the part of the Neg almost always results on me voting Aff on the perm on the chance that it resolves the link and/or the K itself. The ideal block strategy on the link debate is to reference specific parts of the Aff (I encourage you to even quote their evidence) and directly citing their responses in CX. You do not need to read a lot of evidence with K's. You will get better speaks if you are a) very well organized and b) can explain to me specifically where the Aff goes wrong.

Alts are usually terrible. I need to know what I'm voting on. Like I said above, presumption flips for me if you go for the K in the 2NR. If I don't even know what your alt does, you are risking me voting on presumption. While I don't flow CX, they are still ethos moments. If you sound like you don't know what you're talking about, I'm less likely to buy your alt.

Aff's should obviously try to read no link arguments, but it's in your interest to sit on the alt debate. Explain to me clearly how the permutation works, is justified, and resolves the link. Explain to me why the alt fails.

I don't have any predispositions about kinds of K's, so, like CPs, resolve any validity/fairness claims via theory. Make it apparent to me that the K is a floating PIK in the block, not the 2NR.

K Affs:

Cool with me. Although, I prefer K affs to intersect with the topic in some way. Two biggest problems I see with K affs: 1) I don't really understand what you are advocating and 2) I don't understand how your advocacy resolves the impacts outlined in the AC.

Framework:

Reading a TVA is in your interests if you're Neg. You need to explain how your version of the Aff's advocacy would resolve the violation and why it's good for fairness/education (whatever you're going for). You have a much better chance winning on Neg if you are able to turn the Aff's offense in the AC with your standards.

For Aff's, it's really important that you read counter interps and are doing impact calc. You will want to try to win some disads on their TVA if possible. It never hurts to read some of your solvency/framework evidence in the AC in response to any Neg framework interp to prove that your discussion is crucial to the topic in some way.

T/Theory:

Will vote on it.

I don't have any predispositions about any theory interpretations. One caveat: while I don't have predispositions about specific interps, it's not enough for you to just propose a good norm for debate. You need to prove there is some abuse going on in round AND how your norm resolves said abuse in this round and future rounds. If it's not apparent to me what the other team/debater did wrong, I'm less inclined to vote them down for it.

Please slow down a bit on theory. I can only type so fast. Your voters need warrants. Just saying "voters for fairness and education" is a great for you to decrease my chances of voting on theory/t or to buy your abuse claims. Reasonability debates should be about the Aff's counter interpretation.

For LD folks, I'm not the greatest judge for you if your primary strategies are uplayering.

For T specifically, it helps if your definition is from a source whose credentials are relevant to the topic. For example, the definition is suited for or written by someone with a lot of experience in immigration policy.

Westlake '20, Georgetown '24

Hi, I'm Andrew. I did 4 years of LD debate, with 3 of those years on the national circuit. (I also did some PF for the memes.) Now I sometimes do parli for fun because policy is too much work.

email: andrewzlee@gmail.com

Full judging record: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-MP4oRFv9ua058MsqQZqLR0Tr2Yqh4lV7-cv8r2Uxdg/edit?usp=sharing

^ hasn't been updated since last year unfortunately

Speaks scale: http://www.policydebate.net/points-scale.html

LD

I used to have a really long paradigm here but the more I judge, the more I realize that my personal opinions on things really have very little influence on how I judge. As such, I'll just say that I'm open to anything with a warrant except for arguments that violate the rules I've put below, since I don't think that I as a judge should impose my subjective notions of what I believe to be "good" debate upon debaters. I genuinely do not care what arguments you read as long as they're not objectionable, and will attempt to evaluate all arguments as fairly as possible.

Rules:

1] CX is binding

2] speech times, one winner one loser of the round

3] if you stake the round on evidence ethics I will award W30 if you win and L20 if you lose the challenge

4] no racism/homophobia/etc.

I will listen to both traditional and progressive arguments. I am okay with some speed, but make sure it's clear. If you're not clear, I will stop flowing the round. Please speak clearly. I'm a fan of philosophical theory, but the empirical evidence also needs to be there. Framework is key. I can't vote for you if your framework falls. I'm open to K's, plans, and counter-plans. Finally, tell me why you should win the round. Voters are very important. Debate your style, and I will objectively weigh arguments.

I debated for three years at Barbers Hill mainly in policy, but I also competed in LD for a bit! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me: reaganmason@utexas.edu.

TLDR

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.

Framework

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 as another 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.

Kritiks

In policy, I was into fem on the china topic and ableism on the education topic, but mainly as separate advantages to other big stick impacts. So, if Ks are your thing, be sure to explain the lit thoroughly-- I don't keep up with it. As long as you tell me the warrant clearly, I'll buy your argument :)

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.

Theory

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!!

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.

Speed

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

Policy arguments are great. love them! 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.

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

*** 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.

Miscellaneous

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.

Hi! My name is Willa. I’m a senior in high school, and I did LD for a couple of years, and CX a couple times last year. I have also judged and watched a fair amount of both PF and CX.

** My email is willamei156@gmail.com, and if you’re flashing to your opponent I would also like to be on the email chain. If you aren’t, then don’t worry about sending cases or cards to me.

Note: I flow my rounds on my laptop, but I usually have pens and paper with me if you need either.

Speaks: I generally start at a 28 and move up and down by half points. A 25 means something offensive happened in the round; a 30 means you are the best debater I’ve judged so far.

Spreading: you do you. I will say that in general for novice events, I prefer good content over speed for the sake of speed. I will say clear an unlimited amount of times and it will not affect your speaks.

CX (as in, when you ask your opponent(s) questions, not the event): No preferences for the most part. Try to ask deliberate and clear questions so you don’t have to repeat yourself. If you’re answering, while I do expect you to answer, taking a moment or two to think about your response is perfectly fine. I will say I’m not not a fan of grandstanding instead of asking questions, and I would prefer to see civil CX with minimal rudeness.

Content: I’m doing this by what I’m least to most familiar with. In general, do whatever you want as long as it isn’t offensive or makes your opponent(s) uncomfortable. I really like weighing and being responsive to your opponent’s arguments rather than only going down the constructive cases and ignoring rebuttal responses.

PF - Big overviews with weighing and line by lining of important impacts are awesome. Good interaction between positions makes me happy. I’m very familiar with tech, so if you want to spread and it’s cool with your team policy, etc, go ahead. Theory in PF kind of makes me sad but you can definitely go for it if you’re feeling it.

CX (the event) - Clear framework analysis and weighing is great. I will default util in the event that neither team does explicit framing analysis. Please, please do framing analysis though. PLEASE. I will not default to extinction outweighs if a team makes a well-warranted argument as to why a different impact comes first. Besides that, I’m decently familiar with this topic. Feel free to run your weirder strats in front of me, and I enjoy politics disads.

LD - Good weighing and clear link analysis makes me happy. Extemped arguments impress me, even if they lose coherency later on. Strong extensions are also good, and I like to see (but will not dock you anything if I do not see) deliberate collapse in the 2NR/2AR.

If you have any other questions, ask me before the round. Please try not to ask me what my paradigm is. I will give oral critiques if time allows, and you can definitely email me with questions about the round if I don't have the change to give feedback after the round.

i did ld for two years at westlake high school

she/her pronouns; abide by your opponent's pronouns

add me to the email chain: shampurnam@gmail.com

i'm more of a flow judge and i don't like doing work so i prob won't evaluate an argument unless it's clearly extended

probably most familiar with larp and theory debate but any args are fine as long as you flush them out properly (i hate phil debates tho and am really bad at evaluating them)

layer ur args and warrant why you're winning in the top layer. give me a big picture analysis at the end and explain to me why you're winning; essentially write my ballot for me

fine w/ speed but if i say clear twice and u don't slow down or speak clearly then i will stop flowing; im usually pretty generous with speaks but i have a really low threshold for debaters being rude and/or aggressive to me or their opponent and i WILL give u low speaks if you say anything problematic

please give trigger warnings; also i don't do well with any extremely graphic depictions of rape and sexual violence

larp:

- DAs: pretty much fine with anything as long as you have a proper link story and clear impact calculus

- plans/cps/pics: pls do comparative worlds weighing; i think these are strategic and mainly what i ran in hs so i'm fine with really anything

Ks:

- fine with anything as long as they are well warranted; explain why voting for the k actually matters

- PIKs: open to PIKs good/bad debate, i don't have a default on this

- pls do work with the alt and explain the methodology; i have a low threshold when alt isn't warranted

- k affs are cool just explain to me why it's relevant to vote aff and why your topic or method is better

performance:

- i think performances are really cool and meaningful in the debate space; just explain why i should endorse the performance and also pls have good warrants

theory:

- really low threshold for friv theory

- don't spread your interps and have a strong warrant on your abuse story

t/framework:

- i think t debate is valid but i definitely will buy an abuse story off the neg if it is warranted

- pls pls pls explain why your fw matters more and what my role is as the judge; i think framework debates get really messy and i don't like doing work so please weigh

phil:

- sorry i don't like phil debate and i'm pretty bad at evaluating these types of rounds

- if you're reading dense phil please slow down and explain to me the argument like im 5 lol

tricks:

- i don't like them and idk how to evaluate them

good luck everyone! i know debate can be a toxic and negative space sometimes so if you ever need to leave the round please just let me know; mental health comes first

Put me on the email chain: debateemailchain@gmail.com

Speed: You spit fire except in 2 cases, long ass overviews and tag lines (esp.long ones like the ones you see in some K's), please enunciate for me to get everything in those cases. Tend to give high speaks averaging mid- 29's, unless you suck at spreading and layering your args.

Tech v Truth: I hardcore default to tech, I can follow the follow really well and will see for dropped claims. If you drop an arg, it is counted as truth. If you forget a part of a off (like the link/impact card to a disad in the 1NC) I probably won't extend it across the flow. This especially applies when your opponent does a line x line, and you just respond with reading defense cards. You MUST articulate on how that stuff gives you access to whatever you're arguing. Also, good line by lines especially in the rebuttals are sexy too.

Theory: It's an excellent tool and I respect its utility, but I find that nowadays theory debates in the abstract are overly boring. Usually default to competing interps. I weigh theory synonymous to disads: link, internal link, and impact. Impacts should be weighed (does education outweigh advocacy skills or vice versa?) and internal links should be challenged. A pet peeve of mine is when debaters claim that minor theory arguments are a reason to reject the team - if you want to win this is true, you need to articulate a reason why the impact to your theory argument rises to that level in our one world habit.

Topicality: I’m not really a big fan of T's that are used as a time-suck. I end up wasting my flow paper. Hug a tree, but I won't down you if you do it anyways. That aside, legitimate topicality debates are cool -- if you expect me to vote on T, make sure you take the time to impact out your standards. I expect both sides to be taking the time to do real comparative work on the level of interpretations and standards and not just read some generic T-shell.

Disads: also cool but are not evaluated purely on impacts but on the strength of the internal links that gives you access to your impacts. Try or Die framing / 1% risk is not compelling to me if a team has won defense/turn to your impact. The more specific the link, the better. Just because your uniqueness evidence is 2 weeks newer than the affirmatives doesn’t make it better - you need to explain what has changed in the political system in the past 2 weeks that make it so only your evidence has correctly characterized the status quo. Meaning, I’m highly value the internal link debate not just for DA's, but for all args.

Counterplans: all are good to me; consult, states, PIC's, etc. Their theoretical legitimacy is always up for debate. Don't be afraid to go for theory to answer them, don't be afraid to run a cheating CP if you know you can win theory.

Kritiks: debated mainly K in my 2nrs, so I enjoy these. Don't assume I know your literature base so I don't give a comparative advantage. Engage with the aff as much as possible. Show off your topic knowledge. Respond to line by line arguments rather than using an enormous overview. Doesn't mean you can't do both, and have a CLEAR link. Otherwise, go for the link of omission.

Perms in K vs. K debate can get really vague in terms of making sure what the perm actually looks like in action, it has a decent threshold for my ballot, unless warranted a clear methodology/mechanism. Clear and active alts are high for me. So explicitly contextualize how the perm can solve for both advocacies, if there are any advocacies. I can and have voted on presumption, but I think that should be on the bottom of the offensive flow. I see that a lot of debaters say just the risk will always be there, but that makes it hard for me to not use judge intervention.

K/Plan-less affs: I usually prefer when they're about the topic and they defend a method, but who cares what I think. Just properly explain to me why they aren't needed though as again, so I don't give a comparative advantage. If the aff is unique, don't be afraid to read it.

Framework v K's: Usually default to competing interps. Since K/plan-less affs are more common, I do think FW is a viable strat, whether it's due to a limits DA, lack to education, etc. Having a Switch-side is more persuasive than the generic decision-making/portable skills (unless you can argue it). Also, I think fairness is not an impact, rather an IL to education unless there is an intrinsic abuse. You get more leeway on the substance of education loss. Also, I rather not vote on potential abuse, so find a form of abuse, but if you win it, go for it. Whether the rez is a yes/no depends on the flow. I much rather see a cross-application and line by line rather than both teams spit a bunch of disads under the FW flow.

TVA kind of has a high threshold for me since I find it difficult to incorporate all of the aff's language into the rez. However, as long it solves some of the aff's offense rather than the entire advocacy, I'll buy it. BUT you still have to win this.

Role of the Ballot: Love these arguments, and I do think these args are heavily underutilized in terms of how the ROB/ROB serves as a praxis for discursive shift/change within the debate. However, these arguments need to have an actual reason for being the role of the ballot, asserting the phrase alone isn't enough. Whether it's me being a critical educator or liberator, you have to explain why your side of the argument needs the ballot.

Miscellaneous: Evidence is NOT a substitute for arguments. Citing evidence in the final rebuttals doesn't replace the need for you to extend a warrant. "Extend (author and date)" and proceeds to reread tag is not a proper extension. If you can't explain the argument, I won't call for the card after the round in order to decipher it. Again, I much rather see an internal link analysis and a fire line by line and how that gives you access to the ballot and then go onto impact calculus. Another thing is that I do think CX is binding, and I will flow it. Besides that, go ham, run whatever, Jesus CP, Irony, nerf Irelia.

My paradigm is simple and goes back to Illinois when Senator Douglas and soon to be President Lincoln were conducting the famous series of debates that bear their names. My paradigm goes far beyond just that particular style of debate though - it really goes to everything that we hold dear as debaters and practitioners of forensics in general.

I expect the practitioners of forensics in any of our events that I judge to display critical thinking, make the better argument, rebut the opposition with a clearer, fuller more intellectually astute presentation that not just makes the opposition lose but also wins by creating new and original thinking and reflection about whatever topic is the focus of the moment.

Anytime forensic practitioners argue before me I expect them to employ the WWLADD? test. The What Would Lincoln And Douglas Do? test has never failed. I am not wild about spreading, jumping up and down with one sock on, standing on your partner's head or whatever other latest fad has taken the debating world by storm. Whatever techniques you employ, I am far more interested the content of your arguments, the depth and quality of the critical thinking involved, and what you say.

If you use spreading, don't become incomprehensible. If I can not understand you I will give you an indication the first time, and after that your score will reflect my ability - or inability - to understand what you said. Again, the quality of you content is what counts.

And that really sums up my entire philosophy; quality and integrity are what all intellectual endeavor should be based in and on, not volume and the latest fads.

Hi! In high school, I debated mostly with policy-influenced arguments, but I can also judge a traditional value-criterion debate (I'm mainly a progressive LD judge). I would also appreciate being on the email chain (just ask me before round for my email).

I love to see clash, it just makes the overall round more interesting!

I'm down with speed, but slow down on the taglines and overviews, please.

I'm a huge fan of disads, CPs, and Ks!!

I like RoTB args, but justify it with reasons as to why it actually matters (not just the actual wording).

As for theory, I'm not a fan, BUT I also understand that in some situations it's needed, so I won't down you for it (but please don't run theory just for fun). If you run theory, please clearly articulate each link, internal link, and impacts (essentially a disad). Also, I don't really like topicality debates, but again, I will eval it if it's clearly justified.

I am a technical judge and will vote off of the flow. Also, I won't extend any dropped args across the flow for you :/ (and I do believe that any dropped args are assumed truth)

Good luck y'all!

(I hate that I actually have to say this, but please don't be/say anything offensive)

I am open to any argument as long as it follows reason and logic. I prefer traditional debate but, I have no problem with theory/Kirtik as long as it makes sense. I will always try to evaluate every argument without any personal bias.

Hey I'm Abhinav Rachakonda (he/they) and I competed in LD for three years (2017 - 2020) at Westlake High School in both TFA and TOC tournaments. The most important thing is to read what you're comfortable with and not to drastically change your case based on this paradigm. Feel free to ask me anything before the round starts that isn't covered here. I don't care much for debate formalities like whether you sit or stand, just do whatever makes you comfortable.

Add me to the doc: abhinav.rachakonda@gmail.com

General Stuff

Please tell me why I should vote for you. Do all the weighing yourself so I won't have to. I will default tech > truth, T/Theory > K, competing interps > reasonability unless you tell me otherwise in round.

I'm fine with speed. Slow down while reading tags, and while extending. I will shout "clear" once, but after that, I flow what I can hear.

Just don't be problematic and extend your arguments. If you're being disrespectful in any way to your opponent I will call you out on it. Trigger warnings are important. I will let you pause your timer mid-round if you forget at the start.

Tabroom said it best: "Be mature and good people".

Theory (1)

I was a big theory debater so I don't think there's such a thing as frivolous theory. Most theory shells are silly and stupid (I used to run stupid things like Date Accessed and Must Spec Actor), but it's a fun debate to have, which is why I liked reading it. No theory is bad theory, but make sure your opponent actually violates.

- As I said before, I'll default to competing interps if you don't give me a reason not to.

- Please clearly explain the abuse in the round rather than just repeating your shell when extending

- When debating your opponent's counter standards, please do some weighing between standards.

- I won't default any way for the RVI / No RVI or the Drop the Debater / Drop the Arg debate, so that's your burden. Simply read paradigm issues.

- I like the Theory v K debate so don't shy away from it.

Topicality (1)

Weighing is even more important for T. Give me a reason to prefer your T over their non-T aff. This is especially important if you spend your entire 1N on T.

- Most non-T affs will usually have impact turns and other things designed to combat T. Make sure to respond to those.

LARP (1)

I also did a ton of LARP debate. Plans, CPs, PICs, DAs, all of them. The really creative plans and CPs will definitely increase your speaks.

- Again, weighing is really important (please do it!) so I don't have to choose which arguments to prefer. If you don't want to wait for your RFD, please do weighing.

- Explain the link chains to me like I don't know anything about the topic (because I don't!).

- PICs are a very powerful tool, but make sure it actually works against the aff your opponent read.

Tricks (1.5)

Don't try to be tricky by not explaining your tricks. I probably won't understand it and neither will your opponent. A good tricks debate is really fun to judge and analyze.

- Have all the tricks on the doc, and if you end up extemping them, still send a doc with the analytics you red.

- Spiked underviews are great. Have fun with them.

- Like theory, most tricks are stupid, but the debates are fun.

- Tricks v K and Tricks v Theory are very complex debates. You should ideally both engage with the K/Theory and give me reasons to prefer your tricks over it.

Phil/FW (2)

I was more of a techy FW debater and read Kant and Util. I have a beginner's knowledge of other authors but don't assume I know every caviat of your framing. Explain why I should use your framing.

- Give me examples of what your buzzwords mean.

- Don't try to BS your framework by using buzzwords. Especially with Kant and Util.

- Weighing (have I said this enough?) frameworks is a good thing to do. Please.

Kritiks (3)

I am not very well versed in Ks and only read the occasional Cap K here and there. I know a bit about Settler Colonialism and Baudrillard as well. That being said, feel free to read your Ks but explain to me clearly why I should vote for you.

- Tell me explicitly (when extending especially) how the aff links into your K. Most Ks I've encounted had some pretty sketchy links.

- Reading afro-pess when you aren't black is a bit sus, and I would strongly recommend against it. This applies to other pess args as well.

- Explain to me what the alt actually does. Why is it better than whatever your opponent has (whether it is their K alt or a plan)

- Again, don't shy away from the K v Theory debate. It's a fun debate.

Non-T Affs (4)

Yeah, so I've never read a non-T aff before in round. An explanation is your friend here.

- Explain why you read a non-T aff and what it actually does.

- I'm down to watch any performance affs, but you need to tell me why I should vote for it. Why is that better than a regular topical debate?

Traditional Debate (5)

I haven't encountered much traditional debate, but feel free to read it.

- Most of the traditional debate I've done has boiled down to value / value criterion debate, so please don't do that. Debating the topic goes a long way.

PF Paradigms

If I somehow end up judging PF, here it is. I haven't debated PF since one tournament in middle school. My PF knowledge mostly comes from judging practice PF rounds at Westlake. Jason Luo is someone who is a good PF judge (and a cool person) so look at his paradigms for further depth.

- Since I did LD, read all the progressive stuff you want to. Speed is also fine as long as I'm on the doc.

- Weighing. Do it.

Speaker Points

I will try to give speaks over a 28.5 every round, but if you do something abhorrent, it will be lower.

- Clipping. Don't do it. I will be on the doc.

- The "give both sides 30 speaks" argument will be evaluated if I feel it's done well enough.

- Be nice during CX.

- A good Marvel or Star Wars reference goes a long way. So do jokes.

Have fun, don't be a jerk. Debate can be a toxic place, but it doesn't have to be. If you have any mid-round crises / emergencies please communicate them to me and I will be understanding. At the end of the day, debate is a tool to have fun and become better people, nothing more.

Debate Experience: Did LD for about 3 years and PFD for about half.

LD: I prefer a round with clear concise arguments with good framework but can also judge progressive.

Speed: I prefer clear concise speed where i can follow. SLOW DOWN WHEN GIVING VOTERS.

Kritique: Can judge general kritiques like biopower,ablesim,afropess,.... other than that if you know what you are doing I can probably follow.

Theory: No

General: I think fw is important. Make sure to weigh and give voters. I also really like stock issues. I like rounds with a topical aff and where the neg doesn't only do defense. I also listen to cross-ex and will give critiques on it. Give me the big pic with impacts and links. Make sure to have warrants with your claims.

I am a third year out and I did CX and LD at Austin SFA from 2015-2019.

I would like to be on the email chain - anevayel@gmail.com

General:

I have 0 preference for argumentative style (traditional, “progressive” etc). Yes I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go.

Tech/Truth: I default to tech on arguments I either have personal opinions about or don’t understand but please don’t mistake tech as just having more ink on the flow. I swing more towards truth in matters where whatever is being said is like common knowledge or a fact about current events etc.

I will not disclose your speaker points and I won’t give you a 30.

Speaker points are 60% strategy and quality of argumentation and 40% how clearly you spoke and your in round etiquette. I will give you the lowest points I can if you are nasty. Don’t be.

LD/CX:

Kritiks: Fantastic. Please make sure you understand it and you explain it clearly. I’m probably familiar with whoever you are reading so I wouldn’t downvote you because I don’t know/understand the author but the burden is still on you to explain and win their argument as if I don’t know who they are.

T: Please be mindful I have not judged many rounds on this LD or policy topic so I have 0 preconceived notions of what is T and what is not. You must give me a clear violation->impact story.

Theory: If you’re in LD or PF-I don’t evaluate theory. Ask me for clarifiers if you must. CX- do your thing but please don’t just spread through a bunch of blocks someone else likely wrote

Disads and Counterplans are great! Make your link stories specific! Please, don’t forget to debate about the aff!

PF:

Please be nice to each other. Don’t quote the TFA rules at me. Run whatever arguments you want but you absolutely must tell me a coherent story that is backed by your evidence.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Shortcuts

K – 1

LARP – 3

Phil – 1

T/Theory – 2

Trix – 1

Ideally I would like to be 1 for all styles as I am not ideologically against any of them, this ranking reflects my current confidence/ability to deliver a good decision in a particular style.

Background + General

Hey y'all. I'm Nate. I did LD all throughout high school in Texas and judged regularly until the pandemic, last tournament being TFA state 2020. I've been out of the meta a hot minute but I'm looking forward to getting back into it. Yes I want to be on the email chain, bonus points if you start the chain before the round to speed things up - my email is nathan.smith191710@gmail.com

- I'm fine with speed I'll give two verbal clears and then I'll stop flowing until you change.

- Tech over truth 99.99% of the time. (that .01 being clearly discriminatory/exclusionary arguments)

- People who's paradigms I generally agree with - Patrick Fox, Ethan Massa, Rob Glass, Richard Garner.

- Please be civil, why debate if it makes you miserable? If debate makes you miserable but you still want to do it, why take that out on someone else? You and your opponent are both humans and deserve as much kindness as can be mustered. Being competitive and being kind go hand in hand, productively debating good debaters make you better so why not want everyone to succeed ?

Arguments I will not vote for / will vote you down for

Doing any of these things will provoke a reaction from me that ranges not flowing it to immediately giving you an L-25 depending on the severity/intentionality of the offense.

- Arguments that are explicitly racist/sexist/transphobic/ablest/etc

- Arguments that claim nonhuman animals have no ethical value / claim the oppression and/or suffering of nonhuman animals is good in any way shape or form. Maybe this is a hot take but I've learned not to care, feel free to discuss this with me after the round.

- Making the argument that the death of your opponent would be good in any way, shape, or form. I do not care what K this may be tied to, if you do this you get an L 25.

- I refuse to vote on anything that happened before the 1AC or after the 2AR. The only exception to this is disclosure. This includes arguments that link to positions your opponent may have run in other rounds.

- I won't evaluate the debate after the 1AC.

Defaults

These can all be changed very easily in round but this is how I evaluate until told to do otherwise.

- Truth testing > Comparative worlds.

- C/I > reasonability.

- Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic modesty.

- DTA > DTD.

- Fairness > Education.

- Presumption and permissibility negate.

Disclosure

Disclosing is good and I'm sympathetic to it but have also voted against it. Here are 4 cases where you will not be able to get me to vote on disclosure: 1 - performances which disclose sensitive personal information 2 - novices 3 - People who are not aware of the wiki 4 - cases where the wiki has been down (in this case speech docs/disclosure should be done person to person until it can be disclosed). I am trusting you to not abuse these exceptions, don't make me sad.

I want screenshots of the violation in the speech doc. Don't make me handle your gross laptop to see them.

LARP: Cool.

I won't kick the CP for you. Please for the love of god weigh things for me. The spark DA may be the funniest thing I've ever heard, if you run it in front of me and execute it perfectly, expect good speaks

- 2 condo is maybe ok? 3+ is probably abusive.

- You don't get to kick planks of a condo CP.

Ks: This is my favorite genre of arguments

I am familiar with most critical theory (I ran/have read outside of debate a lot of Baudrillard, anthro/animality, and psychoanalysis) and I'm happy to answer questions about individual Ks before the round BUT you should start the round with the presumption that I have no clue who on hell is Baudrillard because it encourages you to give better explanations. You will not win your K if you don’t explain it. I only have jurisdiction to vote on what your articulation of the K is, not what I've read outside of the round. Aff, please impact turn anything that won’t be morally repugnant. The more specific the links are to the aff the happier I will be.

Words/Phrases that bad K debaters have convinced me are meaningless - Subjectivity, "power relations," ontology, "[X] bodies," co-option, neoliberalism, "rendered," pedagogy.

K affs: Very cool and nice.

I prefer these be interesting, unique, and have a clear topic link. You should be able to explain in round why not only the READING but also the DEBATING of the aff is a good idea. If you answer the question "what is the role of the negative" with "to lose" I will be immediately less convinced about the legitimacy of reading the aff in debate. I think there is some value in debate even if that value is to just have fun so I appreciate thoughtful and intelligent consideration about not just why your scholarship is good but why bringing into a discursive sphere like debate is uniquely good.

If you don't like these affs, read framework and engage with it. 5 frivolous shells will make me hate you.

Phil: Good and true

Phil debates are cool. I think contextualization of why I care about offense is equally important as the offense itself.

Here are some authors/Lit bases/arguments I feel comfortable evaluating.

- Kant

- Levinas

- Virtue Ethics

- Mackie/error theory/emotivism

- GCB

T/Theory

General - I'm a fan. I think It's ok to use theory as a strategic tool and I find claims that a certain shell is frivolous totally dependent on whether or not an abuse story is being won or not.

T Framewonk - I think Framework is a good model for debate. I think plans and stable offense are probably good for the event. While this does not mean I hack for framework (my voting record is about 50/50 on this issue) I am unconvinced by lazy arguments that presume I am naturally disposed against framework because of my love for the K. Anyone running a K aff has the burden to provide a justification for why the debating of the aff is good and what the role of the negative should be under their model of debate. K debaters and Framework debaters that have utilized that issue effectively for their side are often the ones that pick up my ballot.

Trix

I dig trix debate. There's a line to be drawn for sure but most of the time I think it’s ok. I think Skep is a fun argument and T/T vs comparative worlds is a fun debate when done well! Yes I vote on a prioris.

Speaks

Things that will make your speaks go up

- Kindness, respect, and general helpfulness

- Unique and well executed strategies

- Good Baudrillard debates

Things that will make your speaks go down.

- Rudeness towards opponents

- Bad Baudrillard debates

Update 2020: I haven't judged in a couple months! But hey there, I am college student who graduated from Flower Mound High School in 2015. While in school, I mainly competed in LD debate on the national circuit. Since high school, I've spent time coaching students all throughout the country and judging on the Austin circuit.

I will not vote on brackets theory especially if the implication is evidence ethics. Stop reading theory arguments for the sake of reading theory.

General Views: I am pretty familiar with progressive debate concepts, so there's probably nothing you can't read in front of me. I enjoy debates of all kinds so don't be afraid to pull out your theory shells and/or kritiks. That being said, feel free to ask me questions before the round. I want you to debate in your comfort zone, so if that means sitting down and debating, or debating without your shoes on, go for it! That being said, I feel like from personal experience debaters that stand up and read are clearer with their articulation. I tend to view the round under an offense/defense paradigm, so make it clear to me what offense you are going for and how it wins you the ballot.

Speed: Go as fast as you want and I'll say clear if needed.

Critical Arguments: While I don't really see these kind of arguments too often anymore, I did my fair share of reading into dense philosophy like DnG and Foucault. I still won't do any work for you, make sure you can properly explain all of your arguments no matter how complex.

Speaker Points: Strategic decision making, vocabulary, and quality of argumentation are all factors that go into determining your speaker points, but I honestly think of myself as a speaker point fairy. Also if I'm giving you a huge thumbs up in the 2AR you've already won the round, just end the speech asap and save us both some time. Winning quicker will get you better speaks, if you can win with more than a minute to spare I'll give you a 30!

Prefiat/Postfiat: I'm honestly very annoyed with the current trend in which debaters sketchily extend embedded evidence as prefiat reasons to vote a person up in a round. This is a cop out and often times doesn't even make sense. Additionally, it also frustrating when debaters turn clear postfiat defense/offense into "independent reasons to vote someone down". For example, I find it hard to justifiably vote a debater down just because they read Util and Util can justify oppression. That's simply an articulation of a flaw within Util not a prefiat reason to vote someone down. The only scenarios I feel justify voting someone down immediately is when debaters condone oppressive norms in general through their rhetoric or words. I am also now firmly against voting someone up for just happening to introduce the discussion of oppression in the round absent a justification as to why their performance and the ballot is key. Sketchily extending a one line "prefiat" justification is no different than sketchily extending a blippy theory argument, and from now on I will treat the 2 as the same. This does NOT apply to performance based positions that do a great job explaining the importance of their performance.

I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.

I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)

Specifics

CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Flush out your ideas.)

LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.

Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.

Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.

Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.

I'd like to be on the email chain: juliatothezan@gmail.com

I am a former debater from Grapevine High School and competed in LD on the local circuit of Dallas, the state and UIL levels. I qualified for TFA state both my junior and senior year. I now judge in the Dallas, Austin and sometimes San Antonio circuits.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I did both, although I debated more progressive and tend to enjoy those rounds more. You can choose to read whatever you want but know that I'll vote you down on anything I deem to be blatantly offensive, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc.

Speed: I'm fine with any speed. Don't try to spread just because your opponent is or because you think I'll be more inclined to buy your arguments; I need to be able to hear them. Slow down on any important analytics and voters. I won't yell clear.

Framework: As long as there is some standard to evaluate the round, whether it be a traditional value criterion or some sort of role of ballot/judge, I'm good. Don't just read it at the beginning of the speech and drop it throughout the round because then you are wasting my time and yours. I like rounds weighed through framework but ultimately don't care how you weigh (impact calc, framework, comparative worlds, etc.). Pre-fiat like arguments are fine.

K debate: I'm fine with it as long as you explain the lit/philosophy. That being said, don't automatically assume I know whatever K literature or philosophy you are using, so please explain it anyway. I very rarely buy "reject the aff" alts; they don't actually mean much in the round and take away from substance. I will vote on them if the aff doesn't refute it. If you're going to read a K, please make sure to find specific links. That being said, I will vote on any of this if I have to.

T/Theory: I'm okay with this too as long as I don't think you're using it specifically as a strategy because you know the opponent is not as good at T/theory debate as you are. I will vote on it if there is no adequate response from your opponent but I would prefer it only be read if there is actually abuse in the round.

DAs/CPs: I'm good with both.

---------

PF Paradigm:

Speed: See above

"Progressive" PF: I will evaluate any arguments brought up in the round. I understand PF has the tendency to be more traditional around framework and impact weighing; however, the nature of these events is that they can and do tend to run more progressive at times (I say this as a former progressive LDer). I am cool with you running Ks, DAs, CPs, etc., but I am not super comfortable with T/theory/tricks in PF because I don't think they are arguments most PFers can run comfortably. I say this as a general rule, but if you are a good T/theory PFer, by all means, run your arguments. Just know I probably can evaluate these arguments better than you could successfully run them in PF. Frivolous and not well run t/theory in PF is somehow a thing I keep seeing. I tend to grant more RVIs in PF unless the aff is proven to be clearly abusive. For specifics on progressive arguments check the LD paradigm above.

Framework: I like a framework debate. Numbering your voters helps. Don't drop your framework unless planning to collapse to the other teams' framework justification.

Links/Impacts: I vote off of impacts and links. I'm not going to make the link or impact calculus for you so make it clear in the round.

Extend: Extensions are important to PF debate offense so make sure you extend cards you want me to flow in the round. I'm not going to extend something across your speeches if you don't bring it up. I don't expect the first speaker to extend their own case in rebuttal since there's no offense on it. If something isn't extended to the last speech I'm not voting on it. This should come as a given in any debate type but I will make a point to mention it here: extending your card doesn't mean saying "extend *insert author name*" and moving on. Properly extending evidence means extending the uniqueness -> warrant -> link -> impact, otherwise I don't know why the card is brought up again. Unwarranted claims kills debate clash and education.

-------

Make sure you weigh the round, whether it be through framework, voters, or anything else. Otherwise, I don't know how to vote.

If you have any questions after round, feel free to email me.

I debated PF for 3 years at Westlake High School in Austin, Texas. I competed on the national circuit for 2 years.

Tech > Truth

1. 'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework and meta-weighing. I am not as familiar with kritiks, theory, and tricks but am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.

2. Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. I don't agree with 'sticky defense', I think it's a dated practice. If there is a conceded substance argument my threshold for extensions is low—but it does still exist. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through final focus and summary it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extent what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.

3. Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' two times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down. Ask for my email before round/speech and send me a speech doc if necessary.

4. Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two args I default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing I will be forced to make the decision on my own.

5. Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.

6. Presumption. If I am forced to I will presume NEG unless there are presumption arguments present and extended. I am much more comfortable presuming NEG than trying to weasel out some offense for a team that didn't actually extent their arg(s) properly.

7. Evidence. To be completely honest I have not decided where I stand on evidence yet. I do not see myself calling for evidence after round to help make my decision. However, if you believe your opponents are misrepresenting their evidence please ask me to review it.

8. Don't be (too) mean. Please be a decent human being. I understand the pressure of debate and have seen how rounds can get heated. I enjoy the competitive aspects of debate because I think it makes the rounds harder. I will, however, dock your speaks if you are clearly extremely rude. I will give you an L with 25s if you are blatantly offensive by using targeted rhetoric.

9. I disclose. I will always disclose. If time allows, I will always give oral RFDs. I prefer oral feedback because it allows for questioning. Post round me if you want to, I do not care. I think post rounding is good to some extent and it won't change the way I think about you or your team in the future. I will stand by every decision I've made and will ever make. I keep a decent flow and am comfortable explaining my decision. Post rounding will obviously not change my decision but instead should help you and I both learn.

My relationship to resolving debates and forming decisions is largely in-line with Adam Lipton's takes. This paradigm comes from his page with small tweaks. While virtually almost all of this paradigm is taken from his in its entirety, there might be some small differences written in.

Nonetheless, you can generally trust that this is how I view things.

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

Virtual Debate Note:

SLOW THE HELL DOWN. STG its so much harder to understand yall over the mic plus my headphones and to be fair no one exploits spreading someone out well enough so just slow down it will benefit the speaks.

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

I typically do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances. I still may ask for a card at the end of the debate to maximize decision time, I appreciate it in advance.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, which means I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments. If there is a specific way you would like me to flow give me that instruction and I will do my best to follow it.

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not.

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1ac’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level please don’t be those people.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both my decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

PARADIGM:

Speed: Okay with spreading as long as your VERY CLEAR (I will yell clear once, then ill stop flowing and you'll know to slow down)

Framework: Big on framework debate, this is a value debate so always come back to the value/ value criterion, or any framework associated with other types of cases.

Progressive: I am okay with most progressive (not the best at evaluating T and Theory) but if you'll run anything like that, let me know and make sure to CLEARLY state your stance.

Ask me anything in round if you have any specific questions.