Tab but lean policy maker - who's got the best plan to put forth / best to implement in squo (BUT IM STILL OPEN FOR ALL ARGUMENTS)

I do have a HIGH threshold for Ks, CPs however

Need you to tell me WHY I need to vote for you; give me impact calc or some easy mechanism to weigh the round

Want good clash in round, otherwise I'll tend to vote for the person who said the most impactful thing last

Speed is fine but need clear tags, I'm not going to do the work to follow along

Consider myself a tab judge, but lean more towards policy making style.

Fine with all arguments presented, but find that Kritiks/CPs can be easily lost in the round if you don't do enough work explaining/proving your case. As a result I have a high threshold for these (Ks and CPs)

Please slow down on tags/authors/dates

Fine with speed, but be careful that it doesn't hinder communication. If I miss a tag because you're going too fast it won't make it to my flow.

**For LD Debate, would appreciate slower speed (don't want to miss criterion/values/etc)**

Impact Calc/Framework goes a long way; if you're not telling me how to vote I will end up choosing based on my preferences of the round.

If you have anymore questions, please do not hesitate to ask in round before beginning.

A debate is not won by the fastest talker or the one who quotes the most evidence cards. It is won through argument. Ultimately, I decide the winner as one would decide a civil lawsuit--by the preponderance of the evidence. This means you must quantify, quantify, quantify. Both sides must quantify the degree of benefit from their respective plans and the degree of harm due to either the absence of their plan or the implementation of the other side's plan. In the end, the team that quantifies the most compellingly and effectively will win the debate.

Coppell DR

Texas DK

hetdesai10@gmail.com

"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else."

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

General

I did LD for four years on the TFA circuit. I also did Extemp with equal vigor and had a brief jaunt in Congress.

LD

I'm down with speed so long as all of you flash me cases and stay clear. If I have to yell clear more than once, I will start deducting speaks. I'm decently familiar with Critical Lit and philosophy, but I still want you to explain your arguments like I'm a five-year-old. I'm mostly tabula rasa, but I will not stand any arguments extended without warrants if you blip, your speaks dip (you'll probably lose the round too). I love performances, and I encourage you to run them, but I'm a harsh critic. Please don't read theory in front of me; this is for your sake because I'm not good with judging theory and probably won't vote off it. On T, I default to reasonability unless you can convince me otherwise. I give speaks from 26 to 29.9 based on the clarity of your arguments as well as your posturing and strategies. Rudeness will dock you speaks. Make me laugh, and I will give you an extra 0.5 point.

PF

I'm cool with speed and theory. I'm substance over rhetoric. If you want my ballot, give me a comprehensive and persuasive framework.

CX

Pretty much the same as LD.

Congress

I'm substance over speaking here. I don't care if you have the voice of an angel. If you make bad arguments with faulty reasoning, you aren't going to place. Also, please don't yell at me; I can generally hear you from across the room. Don't BS sources, I'm lenient if you fumble dates, but I will drop the hammer on you for incorrect information.

Extemp

Same as Congress with the minor caveat being, I appreciate comedy more here than anywhere else (except, of course, in Interp). It won't supersede substance, but it may be a decision-maker.

Big Questions

I want to see a clear articulation of your arguments that displays your familiarity with the topic. The topics are broad, and I encourage you to be creative with your arguments and introduce new and esoteric concepts while making them accessible. In addition to proper argumentation and refutation, I want to see a good explanation. I'm peeved by filler words and would appreciate you going slow if you can remove them from your speech.

Policymaker, weighing advantages vs disad.

Hello, I'm Jack Madden and I am currently a senior at the University of Oklahoma. I am currently getting my masters in cybersecurity, but I did my undergrad in economics with a focus on trade. I am no longer currently debating, but I debated for 4 years at Jesuit Dallas. My speaker position in high school 2n/1a, but I also spent time as a 2a/1n (if that helps shed some light on some of my argument preferences). In general, apart from arguments like racism/sexism/etc good, I will evaluate everything if it is argued well, but below are some of my predispositions and biases. (and if you are pressed on time, read just the general information and the short version at the bottom).

General Information

- Read what you are most comfortable with-excluding things like -isms good, I will listen to basically anything and while some arguments frustrate me more than others, I still think that people should read what they are most comfortable with running in debate.

- I will keep time for both sides and I don't count flashing/emailing as prep

--CX is open, but try and let the person whose CX it is speak

-- Prompting is allowed, but try and keep it at a minimum

--Please please please flow and base your arguments off of the flow...It makes the debate much more organized and easier to follow. In fact, if you show me your flows after the debate and I can observe that you did a good job with utilizing them to give your speeches and basing your speeches off of the clash in the debate (not the speech docs), I will add an additional .5 speaker points to your total.

--I generally default to tech over truth, but that doesn't excuse running "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" strategies (i.e. the generic 9-off strategies, affs with 20 impacts and shoddy internal links). I will say, however, that I am probably more truth level than most people and will prioritize 5 smart arguments over 25 nonsensical argument.

--Clarity > speed

--Evidence quality is very important--so important that it can be a deciding factor between two relatively evenly matched teams. This means that one well-warranted card can easily defeat several under qualified/out of date/poorly highlighted cards. However, in most cases, you need to initiate the comparisons yourself -- that way it'll be clearer precisely which pieces of evidence I need to take a closer look at after the debate, as I don't enjoy intervening too much.

--Don't resort to offensive language or hostility towards your opponents or others. There is a line between being persuasive and being malignant. I understand that people get passionate, but I also think that debate is a game (that has a few educational benefits) and you should maintain a certain level of decorum. I will drop you a lot of speaks if you are abusive, since I think that's far more important than whatever you are arguing about. The caveat to this is that I am a big believer in matching energy. This means that if someone is being rude or abusive to you first, I think that it is more than fair to be a bit rude back (they probably have it coming)

--Call me whatever you want to, but I would prefer you don't call me judge because it makes me feel like I am an authority figure, which I definitely am not.

--I prefer email chains (flash drives and pocketbox take too long to execute/set up); my email is jmadden1242@gmail.com

-- Be yourself and we will all be great

-- I feel kind of weird about abuse language. Terms like gaslighting, abusive relationship, etc have very specific meanings and I feel like some teams (mainly K ones) throw them around a lot and I will admit, I am not the biggest fan of that/would prefer if you avoid using those terms while I am in the room. I think that given that you will not know where everyone in the room is coming from, it is better to be safe than sorry and avoid mentioning those terms (this also extends to graphic terms describing things like sexual assault, etc).

-- Also, if you are funny (like actually funny), make some jokes (if you can make me laugh, I will give you +.5 speaks)

-- Finally, for online debates, it is probably a good idea to have your camera on while you are giving a speech, but it is honestly your call (unless the tournament has specific rules)

Theory

I'd probably be hard pressed to reject the team unless the argument goes completely conceded or if the other team reads something that is extremely abusive, but I will evaluate it on a case by case basis. Slowing down and doing comparison rather than perpetually reading your blocks is key.

Debates I'm willing to hear: multiple conditional (contradictory) worlds, PICs bad, process CPs bad, Consult CPs bad, Conditions CPs bad, 50 states, solvency advocate theory (for both affs and CPs)

Please don't run in front of me: new affs bad, whole rez, disclosure/wiki theory, uncondo bad, no aff/neg fiat. I'll really only vote on these arguments if they're never answered, but even so you will not make me happy, which will definitely impact your speaker points. All the other team in my mind needs to do is say "that's silly."

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT STEALING EVIDENCE: If a team copies and pastes evidence cut by another school that was acquired in a previous debate round into their own speech docs in a later debate, your speaks will be heavily cut, and it constitutes a theory argument that the other team can win on if you stole their cards (unless the other team says it's ok). To be clear, I'm not saying you can't re-cut articles that other teams read because you think the articles could be useful, or read cards that were cut and open-sourced during summer camps by other people, but there's a difference between that and straight up copying and pasting other teams' evidence into your speech docs.

DAs

I love DAs and try and reward good policy debates, since that is what I enjoy the most. However, I find politics DAs that are a mismatch of out of context paragraphs from random articles that never actually mention the aff outside of the tags to be extremely frustrating and if you chose to read one, know that I will probably give the other side leeway with their answers. So, to basically make my thoughts clear, I love DAs, feel like I am typically well versed with what they are talking about and they are what I typically go for used to go for before politics became nonsense, but I also think that you should read a specific link (or at the very least make good link contextualization) and do good impact calculus. (and if you are good at DAs, go for them because you will be rewarded).

Ks

I will listen to them, will vote for them, find them fun to watch for the most part and even probably agree with a lot of them on a thesis level. However, I feel like most K teams have a couple of issues. First, I feel like they rely on big words that don't actually mean anything just to sound smart. I totally understand that complex issues require a complex vocabulary, but please, for the love of god, DO NOT JUST THROW OUT A BUNCH OF BIG WORDS THAT YOU NEVER EXPLAIN. I am a big believer in the idea that the best and smartest arguments are those that can be explained to anyone, so while I don't think that you need to provide a list of definitions, I do think that you shouldn't just use a bunch of obfuscating language to spook the other team. I think that their second issue is that they are increasing looking for academic niches that only one person writes about so that they have something that no one else has heard of. This issue is more of just an observation and won't really affect my vote, but I just thought I should note that. Third, I think that too many K teams rely on generic links basically amount to aff is bad. I think that if you are going for a K in front of me, you should try and read a specific link and if you don't have one, you should try your best to contextualize the link to the aff. Fourth, I think that a lot of K teams have issues with the alt level as well. I need you to explain the alt to me besides just the tag line because I am not an aff links= aff loses guy and I need a competing option to vote for. Finally, I don't think that it is a link just because someone gave you an answer to an extremely vague CX question (think "What is death?" or "What is structural violence?").

I also think that I should note a couple of things. First, very few things in debate get me more frustrated and less likely to vote for you than if you read "death good", read suicide as your alt or endorse school shootings or anything of the like. I find these arguments to be extremely toxic for the debate community, to be mocking the suffering of others for the ballot and that people who read them think that they are a lot smarter and more edgy than they actually are. If you do decide to read one of these in front of me, I will evaluate it, but I will probably not be giving super high speaker points. Next, while I do think that debate is a valid form of expression and narratives about personal experience are good and cool, I do not think that teams reading things like D & G or Baudrillard should be saying that it is violent for your K to be excluded. Third, I'm not the biggest fan of ontology focused debates. I think that a smart way to beat this is just have some counter-examples, so if you do that, you will be rewarded. Fourth, I really hate the giant overviews. To me, they just show that you have a fancy overview you prepped out, not that you are actually engaging with the debate. This has two implications. First, I will try my best to flow these, but I know I will probably drop one of the 17 links you hide up there and if I do, I guess that's a bummer. I am going to give the other team some leeway when answering stuff here though, since they are honestly just a lot. Second, if you read this and still decide to read your 4 minute overview, more power to you, but know that I will probably give you a 28.5 at max (and will honestly probably give you less). I just want to be the change I want to see in the community by discouraging these things, because they are honestly miserable for everyone in the room to listen too (and if you ask me to get a separate sheet to flow your overview, I will, but I am giving you a 28). Finally, if you skipped the rest of this and just want to know what Ks that I really like, here is a mostly complete list: Berlant, discourse-based Ks, Cap, fun post-modernism, not Bifo, really wild stuff like Posadism or the dolphin K, etc.

CPs

Also something that I really like, to the point where they are probably my second favorite part of being negative. I really like the specific counterplans that have unified solvency advocates. I am not as big of a fan of the multi-plank disjointed CPs, but I still think that if they are well explained, then they are fine. I think one thing that the aff does not utilize as much as they should is solvency specific deficits to the CPs. I do think that there are some dumb CPs that should not be read (think consult Jesus, Ashtar) and while I will laugh when you read these, I will also probably not evaluate them.

T

Topicality is about competing interpretations for me, unless you tell me otherwise. There should be a specific explanation in the 1NC of what word or phrase the affirmative violates. Negatives should explain what allowing the affirmative in the topic would allow— ie what other affirmatives would be allowed and what specific ground or arguments you have lost out on. Affirmatives should, in addition to making counter-interpretations, explain why those counter-interpretations are good for the topic and/or better than the Negatives. Case lists are underutilized in these debates – both about what they exclude and realistically justify on both sides of the topic. Topical version of the aff is an important but not a must have – especially if you are partially trying to say that they are SOOOO bad I shouldn’t want them to be a part of the topic. I believe that limits and fairness are really the only impacts, but I will vote on education. Finally, please, for the love of God, EXPLAIN WHY YOUR IMPACTS MATTER. Do not just say, they dropped it, explain why it matters.

Other stuff:

More seriously, I get that debate causes anxiety for some people and if it gets to be too much, I'm chill with you stopping your speech and taking a breather. Your personal mental health is far more important than this game and I will not dock you speaker points for this/run the clock while you are doing this.

I am skeptical of the idea of debate being a place of revolutionary change where people's subjectivities and stuff are morphed. Rather, like I said above, I think that debate is a game which is good at teaching some very high level concepts, but can actually be rather bad at teaching you details about topics (ie: I think that 95% of things said about economics are not only wrong, but like aggressively wrong to the point where they might count as misinformation [looking at you cap K and big econ advantages]). I WILL still listen to this arguments and will evaluate them, this is just how I view the real world.

Speaker Point Scale

I start at 28.5 and will adjust accordingly depending on how I feel you did ; more than decent gets more points. You can gain more points by having proper line by line, clash, good evidence with warrants, good impact comparison. You can lose points by not doing those aforementioned things AND if you are snarky, condescending, etc.

Short Version:

I love clash, line by line and good evidence that has warrants. I honestly prefer DAs and CPs to Ks, but will listen to almost everything. Rule #1 is to have a good time because at the end of the day, debate is a game where you learn useful information, but are not changing the world. Just enjoy your rounds, be yourself, read what you are best at, try your best and don't be a jerk and everyone will be great.

Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX

Myself:

I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (jamammen01@gmail.com).

PF Paradigm:

My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.

3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).

4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession

5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped

6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary

7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it

12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.

15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.

Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement

Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way

Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (jamammen01@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.

O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.

General Evaluation

- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.

- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.

- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.

Speech Preferences

- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.

Framing

- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter

Weighing/Collapsing

- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.

- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.

- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)

Extensions

- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.

- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.

- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.

Speaks/Speed:

TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.

- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (jamammen01@gmail.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .

- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.

- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.

- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.

- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.

o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53914

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=art&search_last=tay

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=84007

Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (jamammen01@gmail.com)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

LD/CX Paradigm

If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.

Extemp Paradigm

IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.

If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.

Random

Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.

Lastly, have fun!

Edit for pwsh 2021: Please make an effort to clearly say what argument you're responding to. Don't just throw out a line and expect me to instantly place it in the context of the round and the argument you want. I am very dumb and slow.

** PF Paradigm**

I debated and did alright. This should be generally listed in order of what I see as important. Email for speech docs/questions you have later is mukundrao9 at gmail

Short stuff

1. Tech > truth. Exceptions are obvious. Don’t be a terrible person.

2. Turns must be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. Turns must be extended in 1st summary. If defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal then it also has to be extended in 1st summary.

3. Please Weigh. I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd ff unless there’s no other weighing in the round.

4. Please signpost. I expect you to go line by line in every speech. If narrative debate is your thing then please tell me where to flow stuff

5. I am not perfect. sorry if I mess up

Evidence

• Pull up evidence quickly.

1st summary/final focus

• 1st summary needs to extend all turns you want me to vote off of.

• 1st summary needs to extend defense if your opponents frontline it in 2nd rebuttal.

• 1st summary doesn’t need to weigh.

• If you’re conceding defense to get out of a turn, it needs to be done in 1st summary.

2nd rebuttal/summary/final focus

• 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all the turns on your case.

• If you’re conceding defense to get out of turns, that needs to be done in 2nd rebuttal.

• No new evidence to frontline in 2nd summary. Read it in rebuttal.

• Your “turns” in rebuttal have to actually turn their case. Please don’t read independent offense in front of me.

• 2nd summary needs to extend everything you’re going for.

• I’ll drop speaks for new args in 2nd ff.

Extensions

• Extend arguments not authors. If I don’t have well warranted arguments in summary and final focus, I won’t vote for them.

• My threshold for extensions of conceded arguments is pretty low.

• Extending author names will make me happy but it’s not necessary.

Disclosure

• If you disclosed, tell me before the round. I’ll give you +.5 speaker points.

• I won’t hack for disclosure theory. You still have to win the arg.

• Don’t run disclosure theory in a round where you know you’ll win anyways.

Theory

• I have a pretty high threshold on theory. I’ll probably vote for anything but I might not be happy about that and your speaks might reflect it.

• Your best bet is to ask before the round if I’ll be receptive to a certain shell.

• If you run theory on novices, I will tank your speaks.

• Default is no RVI, but I think in pf it’s really easy to win an RVI so don’t be afraid to go for it.

Other Progressive Args

• I’m a fan, but I don’t really know how to evaluate these args. You’ll probably have to do more work on framing in front of me than you would for some other judges.

Speed

• I’m a pretty new judge. I can keep up with pf speed (edit: not so sure how true this is anymore), but if you go fast you are taking a risk that I miss something. I will clear you if I can’t understand you and your opponents can do the same.

• If I don’t understand an argument the first time you read it, I will not vote off of it.

• Send speech docs if you’re going fast.

• If you go really fast on paraphrased evidence, I won’t be happy.

Weighing

• I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd final focus unless there isn’t any weighing earlier in the round.

Cross

• Don’t be rude. Talking over your opponent will not impress me. If I think you’re being condescending I will seriously tank your speaks.

Speaks

• My speaks are based off of general strategy. They’re not based off of speaking skills or presentation (except if you’re mean)

Misc.

• Pointing out an argument doesn’t have a warrant is terminal defense. I’ll be less likely to disregard an unwarranted argument unless you point it out. Don’t take that chance.

• Explain why non-responsive arguments are non-responsive.

• If you have any questions before the round, don’t be afraid to ask.

• If there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you, please tell me.

• Pause when you switch flows please!!

• Clarity of impact is not a weighing mechanism.

General:

Tech>Truth

Be clear, don't go fast if you're not fast

I debate for St. Mark's so I'm quite policy

Read a plan

Attempt some form of line by line

T

Go for T if you want, fine with me

I default to reasonability

Disads

Love disad debates, this is the debate I prefer to be judging

Impact calc wins debates

If you're not going for a CP you probably should spend some time on framing

CP's

2 condo/less is fine, any more and you're probably pushing the boundary

I won't judge kick until told to do so

Have a clear net benefit

I love multiplank CP's

I default neg on most theory questions, but I will vote aff if something is either egregious or explained well

K's

Not familiar with the K lit

Explain arguments well

Do specific link work

Wheeler Sears

St. Mark's '19

Last updated 5/3/2019

Email chain: wheelersears@gmail.com

Two minutes before the debate:

- tech > truth

- read a plan

- evidence + pre-prepared strategies win debates

- be clear

- prefer policy debates but K's are fine I guess (specifics down below)

- theory questions are all down below

Immigration Specific:

- parole + nonenforcement are awesome, utilize them

- I won't vote aff on "this disad is racist so you should reject it"--just beat the disad

Disads:

- The more specific the better

- Evidence quality matters

- UQ can control the link and vice versa, it depends on the debating

- Smart turns case arguments are good--this is more along the lines of "our internal link turns theirs" rather than "our impact means we can't do their impact"--the latter typically requires winning a large risk of the disad as well as a large risk of your impact

- 2AR's that sit on one or two issues are typically much better than the the 2AR's that try to win every issue and spend less time on each

- politics is good

Counterplans:

- A well-researched counterplan with a clear net benefit is awesome and typically where I can tell you've done research and will reward you with better speaks

- 2AR deficits should consist of two things--1. what the aff does that the counterplan doesn't and 2. why that matters--#2 seems like the argument that many 2AR's seem to forget

- won't judge kick unless told otherwise

Theory:

All of the below theory preferences are purely preferences and can change depending on debating or the quality of evidence but they are preferences nonetheless that effect how I will evaluate a debate

Condo is the only reason to reject the team

- Counterplans that compete off of immediacy/certainty and/or could result in the plan (process, consult, conditions etc.) are probably bad

- States theory is 50/50--I probably lean neg but it's really up for debate

- Multi actor fiat is fine unless you fiat multiple levels of government (ie fiatting multiple government agencies is legit but fiatting a government agency + the states is abusive)

- Lack of solvency advocate is a question of solvency, not theory

- international fiat is fine

- PICs are good

- New 2NC CP's and CP Amendments are typically fine

- Aff leaning on condo but it's close--honestly probably would like to see one of these debates more than most judges

Kritiks:

- I'm familiar with the "policy" K's like neolib/security but beyond that you're going to need to explain your arguments a good amount--If I don't understand your argument, I will vote aff

- link specificity matters--links that are highly contextualized to the aff are much better than buzzwords that don't mean anything

- I'm much more likely to be receptive to K's that clash with the substance of the 1AC

- F/W is a non-starter

- Overall I'm probably just terrible for the K so you'd be better off going for something else

K affs:

I will vote neg—you’re cheating

Topicality:

- if possible, don't go for T--it's boring

- Reasonability = yes

Speaks:

If you make smart arguments and have a well prepared strategy with good evidence you should be fine

Being unclear will definitely hurt your speaks

Debated for 4 years at Plano West. Graduated 2020. Qualified to the TOC twice.

Chain (though i don't require it unless you intend to spread spread): donovanspall@gmail.com

Feel free to ask any questions not answered here before round

1. Fine with speed. I went pretty fast sometimes. Been a while since I flowed though so maybe don't spread. If I can't understand what you are saying, you should be able to tell based on how much I'm flowing, and you should adjust accordingly. 

2. I technically don't require you to respond to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal, but if they just dropped some damning turns or DAs or a complete delink on the contention you plan to go for in summary/ff, I'd say it's pretty strategic to do so, so I'd strongly encourage it.

3. Carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. Read warrants me thinks!

4. Don't do new weighing or args in the 2nd FF.

5. Extend in summary, and point out if they didn't.

Theory

I'll evaluate it like any other argument but I lowkey forgot some of the technicals/structure of it by now.

If your opponent miscut a card or something like that, you don't need to read a full shell. You can read it in paragraph form and I will just call for the card after.

I'd prefer if you ask your opponent if they are familiar with theory before your speech, especially if you are reading something jank. In the case that they say no, I will still evaluate it, but I expect it to be read in paragraph form and won't drop the opposition on some technicality. 

Conduct

Will drop you if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Will tank your speaks if you are unnecessarily rude.

In general, if you are demolishing your opponent and the levels of experience/skill are clearly unequal on each side...please calm down. You probably already won the round, so you don't need to yell at them in crossfire or spread another hundred reasons why you won.

If both teams are of similar skill I don't mind a little sass in crossfire, but obviously don't be an ass.

St. Mark’s '19 (Senior-2a)

Put me on the email chain: 19vallejod@gmail.com

General Comments

Tech>Truth

I will read evidence if a team asks me to after the round, but I will default to in-round explanation over my own interpretation of the evidence

If I can't explain what I'm voting for, I won't vote for it

Clarity is important -- I will yell "clear" if I cannot understand your speech

An argument consists of a claim and warrant - arguments that become complete later (or blippy 1nc shells/aff advantages that become developed later) are new arguments that merit new answers

Things I will intervene on: death good, behavior meant to harass opponents, violation of tournament rules

Below are some debate things I generally think are true. My biases and preferences become less relevant the more you out-execute your opponents.

Debating Planless Affs

I find myself very persuaded by topicality - whenever I debate a planless aff, my strategy is 1-off topicality.

Fairness is obviously an impact, and it is the most important impact.

The ballot doesn't do anything besides determine a winner and loser, but it can remedy the harms of a fairness violation

Debate is a game and breaking it would be quite bad. Reading a planless aff makes debate really easy for one side. The aff would be better served going for impact turns than trying to take a "reasonability" approach. To be clear, that means saying debating the resolution is bad for XYZ reason, not that unfairness is good.

FYI: I find myself highly illiterate in high-theory kritiks

Topicality v affs that read a plan

I like these debates when they are grounded in evidence with intent to define.

A more limited topic isn't always the best thing ever.

Impact calculus is especially important in these debates - debate T like you would a disadvantage.

I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

Disadvantages

Great. Turns case is helpful and wins debates. Zero risk is definitely a thing.

Politics disads - most are pretty weak this year, but I have gone for them pretty much every debate anyway.

I tend to think uniqueness controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded otherwise

Counterplans

Counterplans that have a specific solvency advocate (or one that's as good as/better than the aff's) can bypass theory questions pretty easily.

PICs out of the plan are good, executive self-restraint is good, and most other stuff (consult, delay, word pics, and miscellaneous process stuff) is probably bad.

If the 2nc/1nr adds a plank or otherwise amends the counterplan in a way that drastically changes what the counterplan does, the 1ar gets new answers.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless I'm told to do so explicitly

For this topic, a counterplan should almost always be in the 2nr if going for a policy strategy, especially vs. soft-left/inequality affs.

Ks

Specificity is a must.

The more you talk about the 1ac (and preferably the plan), the better. Links should prove the plan is bad, not that the plan is imperfect. I think that the aff team should get to weigh their impacts.

The threshold for winning a sweeping ontological or pessimist theory is high on the side that advances the argument (both as a reason to reject the aff/law and as a reason to reject the topic)

FYI: I find myself highly illiterate in high-theory kritiks.

Debating the Case

Many negative teams forget to debate the aff's advantages. This makes the debate much harder to win.

Please do not insert more offcase at the expense of case defense. The best debates always have a large pushback on case.

Aff teams should be wary of using "framing" as a crutch

Other stuff

I'm a fan of "inserting" the opposing team's evidence into the debate, because it punishes teams for reading trash evidence. If you re-highlight a card and explain what that re-highlighting says, then that is enough for me (you don't have to explicitly re-read it).

There are impacts besides extinction that matter. That said, I would much rather you debate the specifics of a disad rather than use your framing contention as a crutch. I really don't like the Cohn card + the "insert your own skepticism about disads into the debate" framing. Think of framing as a way to enhance your no-link argument, not as a replacement for it.

Conditionality is good, to a point -- your odds of winning conditionality bad increase as the negative does more of the following: introducing contradictory arguments into the debate, making explicit cross-applications off of contradictory arguments, 3+ condo

I really, really don't like aff vagueness. At the very least, defend your stuff in CX.

CX is binding for both the affirmative and negative. If you say you fiat something in CX, I'll hold you to it, even if your plan or counterplan text doesn't explicitly say it.

I will not, under any circumstances, evaluate something that happened outside of the debate round when making my decision

If you intentionally interrupt your opponent's speech, I will tank your speaks the first time, and if you do it again you will lose

Zero tolerance for any attacks on your opponent's character, appearance, or anything else - I don't care who you are or what your argument is

Ethics challenge ends the debate - default to tournament rules for clipping, etc

St. Mark’s '19

Put me on the email chain: mwang6361@gmail.com

I'd rather not read evidence to reconstruct a ballot that doesn't reflect the debating on the flow

If I can't explain what I'm voting for, I won't vote for it

Clarity>everything else.

An argument consists of a claim and warrant - arguments that become complete later (or blippy 1nc shells/aff advantages that become developed later) are new arguments that merit new answers

Below are some debate things I generally think are true. My biases and preferences become less relevant the more you out execute your opponents.

Debating Planless Affs

I go for topicality in 99% of these debates. You can go for other stuff too. I will very, very heavily lean neg on perm/competition questions.

I start with the presumption that the ballot doesn't do anything besides determine a winner and loser

Fairness is obviously an impact.

Debate is a game and breaking it would be quite bad. Reading a planless aff makes debate really easy for one side. The aff would be better served going for impact turns than trying to take a "reasonability" approach. To be clear, that means saying debating the resolution is bad for XYZ reason, not that unfairness is good.

Topicality v affs that read a plan

I like these debates when they are grounded in evidence with intent to define. A more limited topic isn't always the best thing ever. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

Disads

Great. Turns case is helpful. Zero risk is definitely a thing. Analytic presses can defeat most politics disads.

Counterplans

Counterplans that have a specific solvency advocate (or one that's as good as/better than the aff's) can bypass theory questions pretty easily.

PICs out of the plan are good, states is usually fine, and most other stuff (consult, delay, word pics, and miscellaneous process stuff) is probably bad.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless I'm told to do so explicitly

Ks

Specificity is great. I'm pretty familiar with most of the popular literature (cap, security, afropessimism). The more you talk about the 1ac (and preferably the plan), the better. Links should prove the plan is bad, not that the plan is imperfect.

The threshold for winning a sweeping ontological or pessimist theory is high on the side that advances the argument (both as a reason to reject the aff/law and as a reason to reject the topic)

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

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

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

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

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

- Paradigm overview -

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

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

- LD -

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

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

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

- World School -

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

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

- Public Forum -

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

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

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