Hypothesis Tester.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know:do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They givepoorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debateand try to find themost creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that,when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparisonis under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school.If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge onimpact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I amtowards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points givehighly organizedandstructuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, andemphasize key momentsin their speeches.
• Just like most judges,the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview anddo as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them.I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained.The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NCfor me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefercase-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kickthe CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possiblebut difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think thatI lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here.Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judgeintervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast,being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher pointsand never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards.It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Former UTSA debater, I have the most experience running and working with performance/K and straight policy affs. I appreciate performance pieces, but if your performance has no function other than being just "something to do" (unless that ties into your argument somehow) I'm definitely going to notice. I, like literally anyone who's ever watched a debate round, appreciate well thought out arguments, and teams that have good energy in round. If you outline the role of the ballot clearly and weigh out your impacts, I'll find it a lot easier to vote for you. Stick to what you know, don't misrepresent yourself or your team, and I think we'll be fine.

Things that will hurt your speaks, if they don't cost you a round altogether:

1) Making racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted remarks or arguments. Seriously? It's 2018. Don't be that kid. Yes, dogwhistles count too. It's gross, please don't. If someone calls you out for saying something offensive, your reaction to that confrontation will play a huge role in how I proceed with my judging.

2) Being unnecessarily rude in round. There's a time and a place for excessive attitude, and a debate round just isn't it.

That's it. Just those two things. I appreciate sarcasm, quick wit, and debaters who are unapologetically themselves in round, provided that doesn't come in conflict with the two things listed above. Spreading is cool, but not necessary, and not doing so won't hurt your speaks. Be aware that if your arguments can't be understood, they can't be flowed. Other than that I'm told debate is supposed to be a game, so do your best to have some fun and we'll have a great time!

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."

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

I will take whatever is thrown at me. I lean to more to critical forms of debate, but that's not what I will only vote on. I believe that policy debate and role playing have an important place in debate. Saying that do what you are best at if you are better at traditional policy debate do that instead of critical debate and vis versa, I will try my best to comprehend what you are saying.

Debate has evolved into fast reading and card over load, while this has its place I prefer less card dumping and more in depth analysis as the round goes on. Please do not just scream 483729 cards at me in the span of 8 minutes it hurts me ears and my hand cause i gotta flow all that.

The resolution is pretty important and I think teams should find creative ways to work under it, but you do not have to defend the usfg or read a PT. You just better be ready to read some framework as in why you (the aff team) have to take this position.

I prefer to see good internal link analysis if I have no idea what is going on then I will probably not vote on it, tell me a story with good impact calc at the end. Threshold for voting neg is that they have to prove why we have to reject the aff, rather than just a counter methodology or alternative. When it comes down to evaluating arguments I vote for the team that has some sort of framing that tells me the judge what to value in the round.

It is very hard for me to vote on theory, but better have a good violation with even better voters.

some side notes: I prefer email chain but flashing is fine, I do not count flashing as prep (as long as you don't take long to do so) Don't be mean in round it makes you look like a ass-hat have respect for your opponent and act professional in round. My name is Aaron I also go by AJ (he/him)

If you have any other questions about my paradigms here is my email: aaronjgarcia22@gmail.com

PUT ME ON THAT EMAIL CHAIN. sgaskey@gmail.com

I am a senior UTSA policy debater.

I will evaluate all arguments made. I see value in K’s, T/FW, DA’s and whatever else you have to offer me. Give me reasons to vote for your teams, I vote on offense not defense. As a K rage debater that has both lost and won against strict policy teams, I will evaluate every variety of appropriate argument and appropriate offense a team may have to offer. Make sure all arguments are extended through your rebuttals from the constructive appropriately. Dropped arguments no matter how compelling they are, will not be evaluated. If an argument infringes on someone safe space in a round and personal identity or is blatantly racist/ sexist/ xenophobic, its unlikely to receive my ballot.

I’m not huge on line by line, I understand that some debaters don’t debate line by line and rather big picture. Either way, both ways should be organized in a way that’s easy for me to evaluate and write my ballot. I am not down with speedy speedy reading, if you feel the need to read very fast, it has to be clear.

I prioritize fw and link debates. I need to know what lens to looks through, and why one should be preferred over the other on the grounds of ethicality. If you link to a DA and don’t offer push back, I will have no choice but to vote on that.

I love personality, be yourself and have fun. Be your authentic self, be confident, and believe in your arguments. Whatever sort of debater you are, do that shit great.

Paradigms Last Modified: 7/30/2020

Judge Name: Victoria Graves

School Requirement (Affiliation): Texas City High School (Coach)

I probably default to policy maker judge. I view debate as a discourse for growth and education.

Summary: I competed in policy debate and extemporaneous speaking for 2 ½ years in a 5A high school. I coach at a 5A school and have been coach for approximately 6 years. I will try to answer questions to the best of my ability before the round within reason. I have taught English for approximately 5 years. I have been judging for 13 years. I judge CX regularly.

Round Preferences:

Stylistic Preference:

Speed is fine if I am still flowing; nonverbal cues-pen drop. Be clear on tags and citations. Road maps and sign posting is preferred. Avoid doing the weird breathing thing. If you can’t read your arguments and breath in a way that doesn’t sound like you are going to choke, you probably shouldn’t do it. Don’t yell at me. Do have eye contact with me when possible but don’t be weird. Lowest speaker points will be 26 unless your behavior and performance warrants something lower. Perform with professionalism.

TFA-I don’t care if both team members contribute to cross examination; however, I do not like for the students who is not allotted for the cross examination time to dominate the time either with questions or answers. This is a teamed event not a solo, so don’t carry your partner or prevent them from speaking.

Theory:

I operate as the affirmative plan should or ought to be considered not that it will or would be done. The affirmative can only fiat components that exist in the status quo (“should” must imply “could”—the plan would work if it were to be adopted). I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Prefer Quality of Arguments

Communication is important in the round but not more important than argument. Quality of evidence is of importance than quantity. Variety of sources is smiled upon. Don’t waste time on evidence that will not come up again. If you want me to vote something up or down then spend the time to explain it. If you want me to call for evidence flag it in the rebuttals. Complete warrants are NECESSARY for each argument. (abuse, education, permutation)

Kritiks

Don’t be general or generic. Germane and provide alternative not a rejection. Will give more credence to the most logical or realistic argument will be accepted.

Topicality

I prefer analogy or example for better limits. The quality of a definition in context is important to me. Providing a list of cases that meet your standards will play greatly in your favor. Be clear on standards if they are not provided I will default to reasonability.

Counter Plan

Topical CPs are accepted. Single agent of action is better than multi-agent. Plan inclusive counter plans are accepted. The more vague the more likely I am going to accept “perm”. 1NC must indicate conditional, non-conditional, or dispositional. A Net Benefit DA will make the CP more in your favor.

Disadvantage

DAs will be weighed at the end of the round. I will vote for the team with the better impact calculus. I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts.

Conditional Arguments

Preferences said arguments as disposition as long as they are competitive. Conditionality under certain conditions. Durable fiat will not weigh heavily on my decisions.

Kicking

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

LD Debate

Value and Criterion-Must be able to measure your value; while not my primary means of deciding the round, it is a factor depending on how it is used. I teach LD traditionally but am fine with progressive.

Additional Comments:

· Generate clash and solve

-I do not flow the CX period. If there is something stated that you want me to weigh in the round, it needs to be specified in your next constructive.

· I will not disclose.

Harvard update (2/12/2024)

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (davy.holmes@dsisdtx.us).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Updated 1/3/2024

Top level observations for all debate events:

-You should not assume what your opponents' pronouns are. Ask if you don't know, and then make every effort to use them. When in doubt, referring to your opponents as "the aff" or "the neg" is probably a good idea.

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

I lean more truth over tech in the sense that I will not vote on something that can't explain to the other team at the end of the debate, but that doesn’t mean you can just drop things and hope I ignore them. Do what you do best. Seriously. I would rather judge a good debate on something I am less familiar with than a bad debate any day. The more you can write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me what I am voting on and why, the more likely you are to win but also the more likely I am to give you better speaks. Make my job easy and you will be rewarded.

Take risks. It makes my job a lot more fun and often pays off big. Your speaks will be rewarded for it.

K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Fairness is an internal link, but negative engagement and clash are very compelling impacts

Counter-plans-

-If your CP competes based on the certainty or immediacy of the plan, it doesn't take a ton on theory for me to reject the counter plan.

-I won't kick it for you unless you tell me to and win that judge kick is good.

Disads

-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can win that agenda disads are not a logical opportunity cost

credit for the paradigm from mason marriott-voss and david kilpatrick

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

I debated for four years at Wylie High School (currently a student at UT Austin) in Lincoln Douglas and Policy on several different circuits, so whatever style you debate in is alright, though I tend to prefer faster and more intense rounds with a lot of clash.
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Short version: I consider myself straight tab with a tendency to vote on whatever the debaters emphasize as the most important with a default to policymaking if necessary (and stock issues if it really comes to that). I’ll vote on essentially anything except offensive/morally unacceptable case turns (i.e. racism good, genocide good, etc.), and I have a high threshold on T and Theory.
Long version:
General: I won’t make arguments for you, have clear extensions with warrants, don’t just shout authors at me and expect me to remember exactly what they said. I’ll vote on pretty much anything as long as it’s well-warranted, but I’ll default policy-maker if needed. It’s okay to be somewhat aggressive but don’t be openly rude (that’s not helping anyone within the debate or out).
Speed: Speed’s not an issue. I’ll stop flowing if you’re not clear.
Prompting/Open CX: Depends on the circuit since they all have different rules. UIL: No prompting, no open CX; not my rule, it’s theirs, so if you prompt, I’ll have no choice but to give you a drop. NFL/NSDA: at the discretion of the teams and/or other judges (in the case of a panel). TFA/TOC: go for it; if one team is uncomfortable with it that’s at your discretion, you do what you want in terms of prompting; don’t try to make it a rules/voting issue because it’s legal and if you go for it you will not win. Other circuits: I probably will be more lenient in unclear settings, so if the rules are unclear, I'll treat prompting as acceptable.
Rules/Violations: In the case of accusations rule-breaking such as use of cell phones/internet or card-clipping, the round will be stopped and the tournament director will be contacted, so don’t go stopping a round on a false alarm or worse trying to make rules a debate argument; this is above that so take it seriously.
T/Theory: Like I said, I have a high threshold. For T, don’t run a generic T as a time suck; it wastes time on both side and drains the quality of the debate, and I will know what you are doing and I will not like it). Running theory is fine but I likely won’t vote on it unless it is the focus of the last speech, so unless you plan on going all in on theory in the 2AR, it’s better not to waste your time.
Framework: Framework debate is fine by me (and sometimes necessary to a well-organized round); it’s not a voting issue itself, but allows a lens as to what the voting issues are, so don’t go completely in on framework in your last rebuttal, but rather use it to frame your arguments as the most important in round. Remember, framework alone will not win you a debate.
Case arguments: In a policy round, case is essential on both sides, so make sure you spend enough time developing your case in the 1AC, attacking it in the 1NC, and making extensions. Obviously you don’t have to spend a majority of your time on case, but make sure it’s addressed since it is the reason for all of the arguments made in the round.
Disadvantages: DAs are usually necessary (especially in a policy-oriented round), so generic DAs are fine as long as they’re unique and you have a good link. Also, don’t just run a bunch of DAs at the beginning of the round and go for all of them; a few well-developed arguments is way better than not narrowing down enough for the rebuttals.
Counterplans: CPs are fine (condo, dispo, any status is okay). Make sure you have a clear CP plan text; if not, it’s not a CP and just a fancy and terrible case argument that will not win you a round. I don’t have a preference on whether or not they’re topical, but make sure they’re competitive (but if it’s not it’ll usually be taken care of in the perm debate).
Kritiks/K affs: Ks are find and I love K debate, so feel free to run whatever (as long as you have warrants). Discourse/Language Ks are fine if there’s a link, but I prefer you run ones that have an active effect (i.e. Gendered Language, Ableism, Race, etc.) rather than spending your 2NR on a grammar K about the word “the” in the resolution. Philosophy Ks are fine and encouraged, but make sure you know how to run them, and be prepared for a framework debate (it might be good to run a K framework shell in the 1NC on top of the K proper).
Perf Cons/Multi-Worlds: While I’m fine with perf cons and multi worlds, avoid going for multiple contradictory arguments in the 2NR (for perf cons you shouldn’t be doing this anyway), or I’ll err aff on contradictory arguments. Also, don’t cross-apply arguments across contradictory arguments; it makes no sense and is heavily abusive.
Happy Debating!

Post-Addition: Extemp and Congress
Even though extemp is a purely speech event and congress is a mix of a speech and debate event, but my philosophy will likely be the same for both: content and speaking skills are weighed equally for me in these events. In extemp, good analysis of the topic through REAL sources is just as important and presenting this analysis in a sophisticated and relaxed manner; in congress, clash between speeches and addressing fellow representatives/senators is important to keep the debate fresh, as well as presenting your analysis in a proper fashion. Any other questions can be directed to me at Evan.Lope13@gmail.com.

Debate History: St. Mark's '10/Trinity University '14
Assistant Director of Speech and Debate - Hendrickson HS (2017-2023)
Director of Speech and Debate - Sandra Day O’Connor HS (2023-present)

Lincoln Douglas thoughts

I come from a policy debate background so I definitely feel the most comfortable judging debates where the negative utilizes things like CPs, DAs or Ks. However, I am totally game to judge a traditional value/value criterion debate.

Pet Peeves:
1) Do not run a disclosure theory or any other argument based on pre-round norms unless it TRULY rises to the level of making the round IMPOSSIBLE to debate - 99% of rounds do not rise to this level and I am tired of judging rounds with constantly moving goalposts (wikis, 30 mins before round disclosure, full open source) for what constitutes "proper disclosure".
2) Have a plan before the debate for evidence sharing - I prefer an e-mail chain but SpeechDrop works too, but please do not wait until the end of the first speech to decide how this will be done.
3) I honestly lose respect for debaters who I feel are running identity based arguments for the sake of a ballot without either authentic personal connection to their scholarship or the ability to make authentic connections to the topic. If you are just running Race War because you saw some other team do it or you think it makes you a cooler debater, it doesn't and please stop. Racism doesn't exist for you to pick up debate ballots.
4) Not a pet peeve - but the debaters I enjoy watching the most are the ones who treat the debate like a game of chess in terms of setting up well-planned strategic moves through targeted cross-ex questions and well planned argumentation and blocks. The more strategic and prepared you seem in my eyes, the better your speaker points will be.

Public Forum thoughts

Please for all that is holy - do not try to become a policy debater just because my background is predominantly in policy debate. I have judged and coached PF consistently for over 5 years at this point and recognize its value as an event that is distinct from policy. There is nothing worse than PF debaters who attempt to cosplay as CXers.

Going off of what is stated as above, there is no circumstance in which a lack of disclosure makes a PF round impossible to access/participate in. Therefore, there is no circumstance in which I will decide a PF round on disclosure theory - you only get a month to debate your topic, lets actually debate it please.

In terms of what I actively DO look for, impact calculus actually grounded in evidence and active analysis. I feel like "debater math" is often arbitrary and replaces actual contextual impact analysis.

Please don't skip crossfires or grand cross, these are the moments where clash often occurs - to me it is tantamount to skipping a speech and speaker points will reflect it.

Smart and strategic choices to invest or divest from flows/arguments reflect public forum debaters with great critical thinking skills and knowledge of their case/the topic at hand. Speaker points will be rewarded to those who make smart, necessary, strategic choices instead of collapsing/extending purely for the sake of it.

Policy/CX thoughts

I treat each debate round as an academic exercise in decision making. I leave many questions of framework and impact calculus to the teams debating, however if not otherwise explicitly stated I will default to a policy making framework and utilitarianism, respectively.

T/Framework:
I typically evaluate this from a competing interpretations standpoint and an offense/defense framework but can be persuaded otherwise. When making these kinds of arguments, negative teams typically forget that their interpretation is of how the debate space should operate and thus must defend it as so. Negative teams MUST explain why their interpretation is better for the overall debate space in order to get my ballot. In round abuse arguments are compelling, however, they are nearly impossible to prove and I have a high threshold for voting on them.
I am a fairly firm believer that debate is a game and that structural fairness is an impact. However, this also means that fairness should be utilized as a lens or impact filter for all the other impacts in the framework debate.

Counterplans:
Many of my thoughts in the above section apply to my thoughts on counterplan theory. I feel that 2 conditional advocacies is the most that the negative should run, much to the chagrin of most folks (new affs are an exception). That being said, I won't default certain ways in theory debates. I will be considerably more compelled to deem that a counterplan solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. Specific PICs that have functional impacts on plan implementation are so much better than your generic process counterplan. So, so, so much better.

Kritiks:
Many kritik teams tend to focus more on tricks than substance. The most important portion of this debate for me is the link debate and I expect a clear explanation of why the specific affirmative links. It is the negative's task to explain why the permutation cannot possibly solve back/overcome the links. I will default affirmative in many of these debates. I feel that the best kritik debaters are the ones who are willing to adapt their strategy and link debate to the specific affirmative that they are debating.
Links of omission are functionally spotting the aff a uniqueness overwhelms the link argument to the net benefit to a very vacuous alternative. Please have link specificity.

Disadvantages:
I didn't think I had thoughts on this until recently. There are very good disads and very bad disads. If you are aff against a very bad disad, don't be afraid to point this out! I feel like I am more likely than most to say there is zero risk of a disadvantage when the uniqueness very clearly overwhelms the link or there is zero link specificity.

Speaking:
-Yes email chain: alymithani91@gmail.com. Every time a varsity debater forgets to hit "reply all" on an email chain, a kitten cries and you will lose 0.5 speaker points.
-Do not clip cards! If there is an ethics challenge, I will stop the debate and have the accused debater re-read their speech with either their speech document on my computer or standing over their shoulder. That being said, ethics challenges are serious, if you are making one, then you are willing to lose the debate if you are wrong. Strategic ethics challenges will result in horrific speaker points from me.
-I will call you out if you are blatantly stealing prep and it will hurt your speaker points.
-For paperless teams, I do not run prep time for saving/flashing the speech unless this time starts to become excessive or it becomes evident that prep is being stolen.
-It drives me crazy when debaters are disrespectful to each other. There is no reason why competitiveness needs to turn into aggression. Treat the debate space like a classroom.
-Another pet peeve: debaters who do not seem to legitimately enjoy what they are doing. Debaters who go through the motions are usually the ones that end up with the lowest speaker points from me. Even if you are not keeping up with the technical aspects of the debate, if you remain engaged and committed throughout the debate, I will definitely feel more comfortable with giving you higher speaker points.

Read a topical plan--------------x-----------------------------say anything

Tech-----------------x-------------------------Truth

Usually some risk--------------------------------x----------Zero Risk

Conditionality Good----------------------x--------------------Conditionality Bad

States CP Good-------x------------------------------------States CP Bad

Process CPs--------------x-------------------------------Ew Process CPs

Competing off immediacy/certainty--------------------x------------------------No

Reasonability-------------------------x------------------Competing Interps

Limits---------x-----------------------------------Aff Ground

CP linking less matters-------------------x-----------------------links are yes/no

Read every card--------------------x-----------------------Read no cards

Judge Kick------------x-------------------------------Stuck with the CP

Reject the Team---------------------------x----------------Reject the Arg

CPs need cards-----------------------------------x-------Smart CPs can be cardless

K links about the plan-----------x--------------------------------K links about a broad worldview

I vote for the team that wins. The following are things that I believe:

1) 2nr with only framework is an aff ballot. You still need a reason to reject the aff policy or advocacy.

2) a kritik needs an alternative. Reject the aff is not an alternative. If you do not have a competition advocacy I cannot vote for your non-unique disadvantage.

3) the affirmative must be topical.

4) debate should be fun. We're not here to strangle each other. Be nice, enjoy yourself, and let your opponents enjoy themselves too.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

Put me on the email chain! :) somethinggaycx@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm in my sixth year of cx/policy debate. I debate for UTSA. I debated for Airline High School and also debated at KU for a semester. As long as you aren't being offensive, do whatever you do. I will try to keep up. I enjoy both "K" and "policy" arguments on the aff and the neg. However, if you're the type of team that relies on spreading out the opponents, I'm not a great judge for those debates. I have hearing problems. So if you want me to hear what you're saying, please be clear/slow down/flash me evidence, etc. Oh, and have fun!

Kritiks/K Affs: Kritiks and K Affs are styles of argument that I'm very familiar with. However, there's a good chance I don't know as much about your literature base as you do, so it would be best if everything was clearly explained. Tell me what my role is as the judge. Additionally, I enjoy K "tricks" (fiat is illusory, experts are liars, etc).

CPs/Theory: Counterplans are cool. I even like PICS. There needs to be a net benefit or I will vote on presumption. I will vote on conditionality if that debate is fleshed out and impacted properly, but I don't have any inherent predispositions. One should always ask the 1NC what the status of the advocacies are. Always.

Disads: Explanation is key. Disads tell a story and I need to be able to follow it, especially when you're reading multiple.

Topicality: I love me a good T debate because I like to step out of fiat for five seconds and talk about the real effects/impacts of debate. I will vote on reasonability or a competing interps framework, it does not matter to me. I need to understand the interp, the violation, and why that interpretation should be preferred in every speech to vote on procedurals like T and FW.

Framework: Yes, I like affs that don't have plans. Yes, I like well-executed framework arguments. What I don't like (and no one likes) is telling people they're cheaters for talking about structures that oppress them. Contextualize framework arguments to the debate you're having. Be mindful of how you articulate arguments and know what you should and should not argue in different situations. And that's honestly applicable to debate in general. See my TLDR: don't be offensive. Don't dismiss the other team's arguments. Do respectfully argue that debates with USFG policy action as the locus (especially in this year's context of immigration) are important. Do read a topical version of the affirmative that applies to the Aff in the round.

Speaks: I say a 28 is the median. Anything below needs improvement. Anything above is good. If you say something offensive, I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Other: I'm very expressive. If I am frustrated or I don't like an argument, my face will tell you.