I competed in PF and UIL policy debate. I prefer link debate with some good impact weighing. I will be fairly bad at evaluating K’s, so please don’t run them.

Email for chains: chrisbrannen(at)gmail. com (Put the @ where the (at) is)

Teacher in Goose Creek CISD

I’ve been an educator for 15 years and coached Debate for 8 years.

On Policy:

* On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round.

* On Kritiks: I don't like kritiks much, but I recognize they are a thing and that even the actual government uses the reasoning present as a justification for some policy decisions. Personally, I find K logic to be circular and uncompelling. If you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it but I probably won't enjoy it much. :(

* On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you

*On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.

* On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.

* On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

* On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being mean after the round. I'll even go tell on them to their coach if they were really bad. :)

* On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.

* On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

* On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.

* If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On LD:

# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

# On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell.

# On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.

# On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP.

# On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

# On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

# On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)

# On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

# If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On PF:

% I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

% On Speed: I'm good on speed, but PF is about communication. Don't be too obnoxiously fast. If you're going faster than Ben Shapiro, you're going too fast. Also, I’m kind of deaf so yell.

% I like frameworks. If you don't give me a framework in the constructive, I will default to reasonability.

% On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

% On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

% You have to do the order of the speeches and crossfire the traditional way. Don't negotiate to change the times or skip the grand crossfire.

% Use the final focus to tell me why you won. Crystallize the round for me.

On Congress:

! On Structure: Speeches that have solid structure make me glad. Intro/Thesis/Transition/Body/Transition/Conclusion.

! On Clash: DEBATE!!! It is Congressional DEBATE! DEBATE! Clash with your opposition!

! On Decorum: But be nice about it.

! On Argumentation: I don't like or expect the same speech 4 or 5 times in a round. The flow ought to grow. Call out the names of other reps and agree and/or clash with them! I start giving lower scores for speeches where I just hear the same thing. Bring something new! (CLASH, baby, CLASH!!!)

trigger warning stuff: if your arguments contain mentions of suicide, please warn me prior to the start of round

overview: I debated high school policy for 2 years in West Texas which was primarily traditional debate and I am in my second year of debate for UH. Debate for me personally is mostly about the educational and self-discovery aspects but I think you can make of it whatever you want, whether that be a game or a home. I am fine with most arguments, and think that by the end you should have impacted out your arguments and give me reasons that they outweigh or should be voted over your opponents

speed: I am fine with speed, but you should slow down on your tags and analysis by a lot. I will also go ahead and put here that I am not super great at catching really fast technical debate so bullet-pointing things for me and making it more clear when your moving onto an argument you want me to flow separately would also help.

T: In my experience T vs policy affs tend to mostly be a wash. If your running T their should be a clear violation and a specification of how the aff explodes limits or makes you lose core topic ground.

FW: I will reiterate here that I am not super great at catching technical debate. To win framework you should prove that you didn't have enough ground to debate properly and that some topical version of the aff should solve. I still haven't judged a lot of these debates and mostly only debated framework so my opinion here is subject to change

DAs: Nothing specific here, you just have to win all parts of the DA and prove why it turns or outweighs case.

CPs: I don't debate these often enough to be familiar with most of the different types, so you should either keep things simple or just carefully explain how the CP works and how it solves.

Ks: Familiar with these for the most part, just explain your literature in a way that someone with no prior experience could understand.

K Affs/Planless Affs: I am fine with these, they just need to have some relation to the topic, even if said relation is how the topic is bad. Otherwise I am more likely to lean neg on framework.

other stuff:

I am not comfortable with death good as an argument so I will not vote on it. Obviously messed up arguments will also warrant an auto-lose from me.

tech > truth, except on stuff that is incredibly suspect or just flat out lies.

policy affs that a spread bunch of meaningless and under-highlighted cards to spread 8 extinction scenarios make me very sad.

T-Substantial must be x percentage is a bad argument unless you have a topic-specific and warranted card, which you probably dont.

My email is abrooks7704@gmail.com, please add me to the chain.

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.

School Affiliation: Coach at Lovejoy High School

Debate Experience: Coaching and judging LD and CX since 2013, PF since 2016

Email: jakecosio123@gmail.com

On CX and LD:

Speed - I don’t mind speed. Please clearly signal that you are transitioning from cards to tags. Slow down for your tags (especially if they are super long) and cites. If you could number or in some way signal me on analytics to help me get my flow to match yours it would be much appreciated. In summation, the more explicit you are with organization the better I will be able to flow. Additionally, I will say “clear” if your words are slurred or say “slow down” if you are simply outpacing my ability to flow accurately.

Theory - I like theory when it is necessary, but dislike the use of blippy theory. If you have any theory (or any other format of arg) that says using specific words is bad, just tell everyone before the round what is preferable. If they bait it after that then I’m all ears, but will have a really high threshold on this otherwise (as in you will have to prove to me why it wasn’t important enough to disclose before the round but is important enough for me to vote on). On other issues, I’m really looking for good internal links to your voting issues. Absent debate, I tend to prefer single actor CP’s to multi-actor and dispositionality to condo.

Topicality - I default to competing interpretations. In round abuse is preferable, but I will listen to potential abuse if well developed and defined. Make sure to clearly link and establish your impact(s) to your standards. I am generally not inclined to vote on T as an RVI.

Kritiks - Being completely honest, I am not the best at evaluating K debate. I prefer strategies going for a mix of DA/CP/T/Case and am much more comfortable evaluating these. I would say you're running the K at your own risk. If you are a K debater, that’s fine, but please take the time to explain your K to me without assuming that I have read your authors and/or have intimate knowledge of their content. To be clear, speak in plain English when explaining everything (even your tags).

Speaks - I generally reward organization, clarity, and efficiency. In essence, the easier you make it for me to flow (without boring me to death) the better your speaks will be. On the other hand, I penalize rudeness and unprofessionalism. I expect a fairly high level of decorum (stand while speaking, don’t use offensive/vulgar language, etc.).

On CX specifically:

To categorize myself neatly in some distinct category isn’t fair for anyone, but the closest approximation that I can make is to place me on the policy maker side of tab with a few caveats (as outlined above).

In cross-examination I have a preference for the speakers traditionally assigned to a certain cross-x to be the people that are active during this time. If your partner is answering a significant portion of the questions asked of you, you will be penalized in speaker points. One or two questions isn’t a big deal to me, but 50+ percent of them would see a small penalty.

On LD specifically:

Keep in mind that I am not necessarily expecting (or even wanting) you to run policy args. A good framework with well established advantages of affirming/negating is a completely acceptable strategy to me.

On PF:

Speed - a fast conversational seems best suited to PF for me.

Format of Summary Speeches - I would prefer a line by line, but if grouping is necessary for efficiency I am ok with it.

Role of the Final Focus - Weighing and voters

Topicality - Run it if it is necessary, but I am most likely just going to default to reasonability and gut check it before anything else on the flow.

Plans - I think all offense should be linked directly to the resolution, but you can characterize how the resolution would be implemented. In the instance of Con speaking first, I will not allow the Pro to no link all of the Con offense simply because they present a plan.

Kritiks - I'm really bad at them. Probably not a good idea (see above).

Flowing/note-taking - I will judge based on my flow.

Argument vs style - my ballot will be based on the arguments. Style will not weigh in much to my decision (as long as style does not interfere with my ability to understand you).

A few questions you may want answers to:

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, it should be extended.

Do I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

Anything else:

Feel free to ask me questions before the round if you can be reasonably specific.

***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org (for speech docs).

I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, oratory and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF.

As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters.

I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'.

If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points.

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault.

Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.

Revision Date: 09/13/2017

Affiliation: University of Houston

It's been awhile since I've been involved in the activity, but there are some things that I still maintain:

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

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

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

Critiques: I used to be comfortable with critiques, but arguably far less now because I've been removed from the activity. If you want to win, your critique should be able to articulate why the critique turns case, and an alternative that resolves the links. 

Framework/Topicality: I don't particularly care for these debates. That being said, I understand why they happen. Affirmatives should probably read a topical plan in front of me just to avoid these questions. 

Conditionality is also probably good, unless there are 4 (arbitrary number) different positions. 

Update: Bluebonnet World Schools '24 - hello! Happy to be judging here, and welcome to Texas to all the international competitors! My debate experience is in American high school and college policy debate, and this is my first time judging World Schools - I'm excited to judge your debates! The most important thing to know about me as a judge is that, given my background, I valueorganized refutation andquality evidence above all else - given CX's emphasis on extremely fast, technical debating with lots of evidence, I will likely care much less than the average judge about "presentation" aspects of the debate (although perceptual dominance and rhetorical flourishes certainly cannot hurt your points!), and am more interested in thequality of your argument (claim, warrant, implication). In short, a good argument beats a pretty-sounding one, but the best debaters will have both. I will flow very diligently, and I will use that as the sole referent for how I decide the debate - this means that worse arguments that are not answered properly can still win.

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine."act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

1. Policy 2023-24 - fiscal redistribution

a. taught at the UTNIF, coach a team, and do moderate card cutting, but judging less policy this year than last year – consider topic knowledge high, but meta knowledge medium. I can hang for debates over dense economic concepts, but worth slowing down and explaining current trends and relevant debate shorthand.

b. so far, extremely reliable single-issue voter, with the single issue being business confidence. it is likely a bad argument, but the cards are excellent and nobody is making the good arguments against it. overlap between K and policy debates is that it all requires a dense operating knowledge of economic concepts, which makes me like this topic. most turns case/link arguments and most link turn/solvency arguments will be operating on different levels/mechanisms, and teams should contextualize why their offense matters more, e.g: if aff increases consumer spending but dumps tons of government spending to do so, how do these interact with overall purchasing power and business confidence?

c. T - Taxes seems to be the only take people care much about - probably lean aff, but only slightly. dont have strong takes on ground bc taxes don't seem impossible to defend, but also unsure how much neg ground actually relies on them. i just think neg literature seems to lack intent to exclude.

2. LD JanFeb '24 - WANA presence

a. T - "presence" is the defining battle of our times. inclined to place a much higher premium on good evidence defining presence as a term of art. probably more willing to exclude things like aid than some judges. can see myself voting aff on reasonability a lot because otherwise the topic becomes unbearably small.

b. most affs are well built to bead disads and Ks, but lose to well-executed straight turns and advantage counterplan. defining issues for these rounds often come down to a. uniqueness for neg offense, although this can be counterplanned in and might not be wholly necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence, and b. the ability to explain and unpack IR concepts through evidence properly. would consider myself extremely comfortable evaluating even the densest versions of these rounds, but threshold for good execution will likely be high. irresponsibly high speaks to a 2NR that is just turning the case if done well, though. it's a lost art.

c. assurances disad is busted. more teams should impact turn prolif.

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (highlighting/cutting, spin). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Richard A. Garner | Director of Speech & Debate | University of Houston | ragarner@uh.edu

Framework: Neg: topical version is very helpful; aff: probably okay if you defend the government doing a topical thing. One should be able to defend their model of debate. I put this issue first because it’s probably what you really care about. Everything else is alphabetical.

Case debate: Turning the case is my favorite thing to judge. Uniqueness is good here, but not always necessary with comparative evidence.

CPs/Competition/Theory: Comparisons win theory debates, along with impacts. I’m not sure that states or international CPs compete, but no one has ever put this to the test in front of me so it’s hard to say. No strong feelings about consultation or conditioning either way. K affs probably shift competition questions that rely on FIAT. Won't kick the CP unless you tell me to. Non-arbitrary interpretations are ideal.

Critiques: I understand these and am fine with them (understatement). From both the aff and neg, I enjoy narrative coherence, specific application, and alternative debates. New things under the sun are wonderful to see, but so too the old, artisanal ways upon occasion.

Disadvantages: I tend to think risk probability is never 100% absent drops, and that each internal link reduces certainty. Can have zero risk (though if the CP solves 100% of the case … probably need offense). Don’t tend to think that impacts automatically/100% turn case, or vice versa; instead, comparisons are evaluating risk probability bubbles/multiple competing worlds.

Judge Space: Judges are human beings, not argument processing machines; enjoyable debates matter. Evidence comparison is the highest art. Debaters’ flowing/line-by-line is generally terrible; embedded clash is nice, but at its root it depends on an organized approach to the flow. Drops: before the burden of rejoinder attains, there must be a full argument (claim/warrant/implication). I am displeased by a) subpoints with no b) subpoints, and by "Is anyone not ready?" because it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay). I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting: needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting (ok: United States; not: neoliberalism). If I cannot understand the highlighting, I will not read the rest of the card for context.

Logistics: Add me to the email chain. I don’t read speech docs during the debate.

*Principles: Without getting too philosophical, I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein.

Speaker Points: I approximate community norms, and adjust each year appropriately.

Topicality: I evaluate it first. I enjoy T debates, and lean more towards ‘better interpretation for debate’ than ‘we have the most evidence’.

Brief Debate CV:

South Garland (competitor): 1995-1999

NYU (competitor): 1999-2003

Emory: 2003-2004

NYU/Columbia: 2004-2005

Harvard: 2006-2015

Houston: 2013-present

*

Random Poem (updated 3/30/23):

Strange now to think of you, gone without corsets & eyes, while I walk on the sunny pavement of Greenwich Village.

downtown Manhattan, clear winter noon, and I’ve been up all night, talking, talking, reading the Kaddish aloud, listening to Ray Charles blues shout blind on the phonograph

the rhythm the rhythm—and your memory in my head three years after—And read Adonais’ last triumphant stanzas aloud—wept, realizing how we suffer—

And how Death is that remedy all singers dream of, sing, remember, prophesy as in the Hebrew Anthem, or the Buddhist Book of Answers—and my own imagination of a withered leaf—at dawn—

Dreaming back thru life, Your time—and mine accelerating toward Apocalypse,

the final moment—the flower burning in the Day—and what comes after,

looking back on the mind itself that saw an American city

a flash away, and the great dream of Me or China, or you and a phantom Russia, or a crumpled bed that never existed—

like a poem in the dark—escaped back to Oblivion—

No more to say, and nothing to weep for but the Beings in the Dream, trapped in its disappearance,

sighing, screaming with it, buying and selling pieces of phantom, worshipping each other,

worshipping the God included in it all—longing or inevitability?—while it lasts, a Vision—anything more?

*

Previously

Dunya Mikhail, "The End of the World," The Iraqi Nights (3/30/23)

Sakutaro Hagiwara, "A Useless Book" (8/1/19)

Catullus, 101 (1/4/18)

e.e. cummings, "O sweet spontaneous" (1/4/18)

&c

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

Background info/General info

I debated for Barbers Hill high school from 2013-2017. I'm currently an Economics major at the University of Houston who judges in my free time.

If you want to include me in the email chain, my email is: ethan.goode000@gmail.com

If you are using a flash drive I'm not going to be super strict on my enforcement of prep, but if I feel as though you are stealing prep, I will warn you first and then penalize you if it continues. Please don't steal prep.

Meta perspective

My overall judging philosophy is to remain as unbiased as possible. I will evaluate all arguments as I am instructed to on the flow, unless they are clearly bigoted(slurring, hate speech, white nationalism, etc.). I prefer for debaters to go for arguments they are most comfortable with presenting. The 2nr won't hurt my feelings whether it's PTX, or T, or a kritik. This goes equally for affirmative strategies. Present your best arguments, and I will always try my best to evaluate them on the flow with respect to the debate (impact framing, framework, rob, etc.).

I default to tech over truth. That being said, I still require a strong reason to vote in favor of a given argument. A weak or under developed argument is likely to not hold a lot of weight on the flow even if it is dropped.

Sometimes I will call for evidence if it was largely contested in the debate round or debaters argue that it is key to making my decision. I will analyze this evidence through whichever lens it is presented to me in the round, unless I'm not given a framing mechanism. I won't call for evidence in circumstances in which debaters have clearly represented the chunks of evidence which are relevant to my decision. For example, quoting a specific author and comparing this to an opponents author would be a circumstance in which I wouldn't feel the need to read the entire piece of evidence (unless otherwise instructed).

Topicality/Framework

I don't come into any given debate with my mind made up about which affirmatives are topical, and I particularly don't care until I am instructed otherwise.

If you are a team which likes to go for T in the 2nr, the best way to win my ballot is to provide a clearly impacted out standards debate and a relevant definition. Even if I feel your definition to be incorrect, I will still be inclined to "believe" it on the flow if the author is relevant to the topic and provides a clear intention to define whichever word is being violated. I didn't go for T very often when I debated, but I was frequently stuck on the other side of T violations. If you provide clear comparative analysis on the standards and definition flow, you can very easily steal my ballot.

If you are a team being threatened by a neg going for T in the 2nr, clearly contest the standards and definition flow. If you are obviously non-topical, I want to know how engaging the aff provides unique benefits that topical version can not provide. Reasonability is also a fair argument, but it is very difficult to evaluate when I don't understand what it means to be reasonable within the boundaries of a topic. If you want to go for reasonability I need to you to tell me how to be reasonable, which is likely linked to the limits arguments being developed by the neg.

Overall, think in terms of impact calculus. Show me how the aff either harms, or doesn't harm the debate space/community.

I evaluate framework in a similar way to the above statement. I will flow any argument you throw at me on this flow, just make sure it is clearly impacted out. Framework is an argument I find extremely important in determining rounds.

Counter plans

While case-specific counter plans are more interesting for me to listen to, I don't evaluate them more favorable than generic counter plans. Just contextualize your generic solvency evidence if you choose that route.

Don't assume I kick the CP (or anything for that matter) from the flow unless you instruct me to. My flow will look exactly how you tell me for it to look.

If you are running a PIC, be prepared for a theory debate and the perm debate. I don't default a certain way, but I think both of those arguments are important barriers for you to overcome if you want to win my ballot.

If I didn't cover anything feel free to ask me before the round! I don't have much to say, because I feel like CP's shouldn't really be controversial.

DA's

The most important flow for me when evaluating a DA is the link debate and then the impact calculus. Don't be afraid to run generic (or even non-topic specific) disadvantages; however, your success with those arguments is entirely dependent on your ability to contextualize the link for me. After the link is clear, provide me with a tool for comparing your impacts to the affirmative's impacts. I'm not picky about how impact calculus is done, but it is almost a requirement to win. If neither team provides some comparative impact analysis, I'll just default to magnitude.

Kritiks

If you are a team that wants to go for a K in the 2nr here is a list of factors I will incorporate into my decision and some general tips for winning my ballot:

- Please contextualize the link debate. Link contextualization, in my opinion, is the skill which differentiates bad k debates from good k debates. I will flow in favor of an affirmative "no link" argument if you do not put effort into fleshing out the link debate. That being said, I don't just stop flowing if I can't see the link; I need the affirmative to make those arguments before I will take them into consideration.

- I think role of the ballot arguments and a general meta-framing debate is the easiest way to both win or lose my ballot. I am giving you, the debater, the ability to control the lens through which I evaluate all arguments. Arguments like the ROB are tools for you to powerfully influence the way I write my RFD. I am very receptive to these arguments.

- Cross-apply the k flow to case arguments being made. I have seen this done in a multitude of ways. If you aren't finding a way to do this, throw me some k tricks (like root cause or a priori arguments). I am very receptive to these arguments, and when performed with cleverness will earn extra speaker points.

- Clearly show me the world of the alternative. I've judged and been a part of a lot of cap k debates, but I still want you to explain to me what orthodox Marxism looks like if I write the ballot in your favor. I've seen teams kick the alternative and adapt the k to serve as a large case turn. Theoretically, I'm fine with that, but be ready for some level of theory debate from the affirmative.

Theory

If you run ASPEC/OSPEC I will likely cry. If you make vote in favor of ASPEC/OSPEC I will likely quite judging, pack my bags, move to California, start a surf punk band, go to rehab to recover from a harrowing addiction to peta bread, only to finally open a small shack that sells overpriced beads to disillusioned rich folk and tourists. I like the way I live. Please don't read ASPEC/OSPEC. If you decide to read [Insert letter here]-SPEC, don't make me vote on it, unless you have a strong desire to ruin my life.

I evaluate everything else on face.

If you really want to make me smile run a theory shell on spreading, or a kritik on spreading. I won't evaluate it more favorably than other positions, but I think it provides a legitimate criticism of common discourse in rounds.

Shop keeping/more general info

Give me a 7/10 for your personally fastest speed. In years past I could keep up with the fastest speakers, but now that I have been outside of the community for a couple of years I'm a little rusty. Don't be scared to go fast though, I will say slow or clear if I'm having any issues. My goal is to flow your arguments in the most accurate way possible, so I will intervene if necessary.

I'm not harsh on speaker points, but I understand how important they are for tie-breakers and prestigious speaker wards. You will not likely earn a 30 from me, however as long as you avoid belligerence, the least you will receive is a 27. I tend to be generous with speaker points, and they will not be based in your argumentation, but purely your presentation. This is an extremely vague paragraph, if you have any questions just email me or ask me before round.

At the end of the day, I want the debate space to be as open as possible for you to run the arguments you find most appropriate and powerful. My recommendations are to run whatever your comfortable with, and show me your depth of understanding. I will provide my fairest evaluation of the round, and will attempt to be as thorough as possible in my RFD.

Hi, I am a Finance and Supply Chain Management major at University of Houston. Yes, I do want to be added onto the email chain. I believe that debate should be a fun activity for everyone involved. I will not appreciate any one team being dismissive or disregarding of the other team.

Email Chain: put me on it. amyho2016@gmail.com

Background: Kinkaid '19 | Rice '23. I was both the 2A and the 2N. I ran both policy and critical arguments (cap, gender, psychoanalysis) with a lot of soft-left affs.

Top Level/Meta Things:

In almost all cases, tech > truth.

Mark cards (and do it yourself in your own files) – I have no tolerance for clipping.

Clarity > speed – I will say clear once.

Respect your opponents.

Conceded arguments aren't auto-wins for the other team – you still need to explain the impact of the conceded argument and extend it – I'm not going to intervene and do work in connecting implications of arguments for you

Line by line and evidence comparison are important and very much appreciated.

Framing in the rebuttal speeches is key (weighing etc. to set up my ballot, why should I vote for you?)

Paradigm: Run what you are most comfortable with. Even if I am not the most familiar with your literature base, doing what you do best will result in a better debate than watching you struggle to overadapt. That being said, I do have some predispositions outlined below:

Kritiks: I am more familiar with structural Ks than with post-modernism/high theory (I don't really like pomo/high theory). If you run these, please explain your jargon so I know what you are talking about. Additionally, even when running Kritiks I prefer listening to organized speeches, line by line, a shorter overview, etc.

Counterplans: I love counterplans. They're best when you have a solvency advocate or are case-specific. I currently don't lean on either side on counterplan theory.

Disads: Love em. Do impact calculus!

Topicality: The better your definition card is, the better off you will be on T. However, that doesn't mean I'll do work for you – just because you have the better evidence doesn't mean you can lazily debate it.

Framework: I went for both procedural fairness but also clash/topic education so you do you.

K affs: In my opinion, I lean more on the side that K affs should have at least some relation or tie to the topic in addition to an advocacy statement. Thought out articulation of your solvency method will go a long way for me.

Email: jjenningscrosby@gmail.com

Last updated: 10/4/20

General:

Summary - Read basically anything you want, go for what you're good at, try new things if you want, Don't be rude.

About me - I debated at Crosby highschool and middle school for a collective 6 years and I debated policy at University of Houston for 3 years. I used to help as an assistant coach for The Kinkaid School for about 3 years.

I am fine with almost any argument, so if you want to read it I'll listen, unless it's things like racism or patriarchy good.

Speed - Go for it. I will not say clear if you're partially unclear, unless its egregious.

Edit for online: remember, not all microphones are created equal, so make sure your microphone can adequately pick up how fast you’re going (maybe record you practicing a block to test it), because your mic may only be able to pick up about half of the syllables you say if you’re going too fast for it.

Cx: (LD is below this)

On topicality and theory, I default reasonability if there is no discussion of this in the debate because it's much less of a risk for the neg. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

On Counterplans, I love good counterplans, as long as your story on the world of the cp is clear and you're winning a net benefit that you solve, you should be fine. Do clear solvency/net benefit comparison.

On Disads, have a logical story as to why the aff links and how that causes the impact. Do impact comparison.

Non-traditional Affs - I will evaluate any affirmative even if it's non-policy, just make sure if you're untopical, you have a reason to be untopical.

Framework – I am not afraid to vote on this, I think there are benefits and disadvantages to policy debate and benefits and disadvantages to kritik aff debates. Make sure you weigh the Interp vs the counter Interp because a lot of people weigh the debate in terms of there being no counterinterp.

For LD:

I’ve judged a lot of LD debates. I have coached a few students in LD as well. I am a CX coach/judge/debater normally so do what you want with that info.

I will evaluate almost any argument, I tend to think of the debate round on the bigger picture focus (mainly because the 1ar I feel is rough and it allows better debates for LD), although I have no real predisposition against technical debate, the debaters should tell me how to frame the debate in the context they desire.

Framework: I'm fine with policy, whole resolutional or k debates, just debate out how I should evaluate who wins.

Topicality: I will evaluate T, I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way. Make sure to make it very clear what your interpretation is and exactly what portion of the plan violates that and explicitly apply what ground/predictability/education/etc you lose from their specific interp compared to yours. A lot of T debates get lost in the impacts of standards/voters and don't contextualize it vs the counterinterp.

Theory: I will evaluate most theory, but it has to make sense and I tend to have a higher threshold on what I think is a voter, meaning most theory I've seen in LD doesn't rise past the level of reject the argument, while some LD judges would reject the team. I will not vote on RVIs. I also probably won't vote on frivolous theory (which I think is a very subjective term), which all I really mean is make sure theory has a legitimate reason to reject the team. I default to reasonability if no arguments are made but I will evaluate it either way.

CP: I think CPs make the most sense vs plans and I can be convinced Topical Cps are illegit if you’re winning whole rez should be the focus of the debate (all up to debate).

K: On kritiks, You HAVE TO explain the alternative, in debate people get away with not doing that too much, which is annoying as a judge. The only exception to "not explaining the alt" is when you kick it and go for just the k as a k of policy framework/policy debate itself (I don't think is applicable to every kritik, but it is to some). I like when the link is contextualized to the aff (give specific analysis about how the aff makes the system of oppression worse or prevents it from changing).

Updated - 11/18/2023

Email: njenningsuh@gmail.com,

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (2.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
• If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
• Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
• All permutations must have a text.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Framework

Framework is very normally in high school debate used as a way of excluding debaters. Framework doesn't have to be this but unfortunately in the vast majority of HS debates it is used this way. The framing is an exclusionary one and doesn't have the nuance to get out of most of the aff offense.

If you read framework this way then I'm not the judge for you, not because I would be upset with you but rather because I will likely be very sympathetic to aff arguments about exclusion. If you think your TVA is a silver bullet it's not, and your SSD arguments a lot of time are overhyped. I think I agree fundamentally that most of these debates devolve into meaningless hyperbole on both sides. The aff is always debatable and somewhat predictable the question is how does the expansion of predictable limits make it so that the debate is worse and how that change is bad. In this way limits are generally an internal link to clash or fairness and I really think that a clear weighing and impacting out of these is of the utmost importance. I am substantially more likely to vote for clash if it is used as an impact filter/impact than I am persuaded by fairness.

Framework is best when it's simply a disagreement about the meaning of the topic/roles and the negative impact and weighing is about the relative change in the way that debate functions. The expansion of limits and the recognition of the affs value is important. Questions about the roles of the sides and preparedness for those roles. About the ground that the negative has under each interp and why one interp is better than the other. To me, the most important question the negative can push forward is "why negate?" a lot of the affs answers to this question seem problematic. This is not a question of value in fact it seems to assume if the affirmative is right about their normative claims about the resolution why should anyone have to affirm it and if that's the case how do we determine what we are debating about? Why is the negation of negation good? This puts a higher burden, in my mind, for the affirmative to win the framework debate. Most affs have great reasons why they are good but they do not tend to have good reasons why they should be negated.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritiks need to have a clear link-impact scenario with a way of resolving those claims. That could be the framework Interp, or the alternative in most debates.

Framework debates can be very important. I think interps that ask me to wish away the affirmative impacts are lackluster. I'm more interested in how we should be weighing things than an argument that says we should artificially bracket off the affirmatives 8 minute speech. You can definitely win we must prioritize ontology, epistemology, or Ethics, or we should bracket off certain types of considerations if they are bad, however, I'm not generally willing to bracket off the aff's ability to advocate for their should statement but rather if their impacts are important or not.

I am way more willing to vote for specific instances of link-impact scenarios than I am for an uncontextualized larger theory of power claim. Specificity will almost always be important to win my ballot. I am a bit pessimistic about what we can achieve in debate rounds but also believe the entrance of different scholarships into debate can and do have value. It however is up to the debaters to make those arguments in a compelling way.

Non-Kritikal Debates

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all three components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument.

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever you want)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

TL;DR: I debated in high school. Any speed or style is fine by me, please don't change your argumentation to fit me! Semi-versed in everything typically run. Add me to the email chain by copying and pasting this:

hjordanpro@gmail.com

Feel free to email me if you want more clarity on an RFD, card, or feedback.

Note: Please, call me Hunter/He/Him! Don't call me 'judge" or "sir", it comes across awkwardly.

I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying of any type

Background

Debated in CX for 3 years at Prosper HS in Texas mainly at local TFA tournaments. Broke at a few national tournaments, including NSDA, and won a third-place medal at UIL State. I don't have a set style, just thoughts on what I normally see run in a debate round. I did both policy & K debate.

Arguments I went for too much in my high school days: Capitalism, Bio/Necro ptx, Ptx DAs, and environmental impacts.

No one is truly tab, but I try my best to be open-minded and unbiased to any argument, and generally, I will default to tech > truth, barring a compelling reason. There are exceptions for this, but I hope you're not invoking them.

Ptx junkie, so I have a higher threshold on elections/senate/x bill DAs. I will burn terrible uniqueness cards into smithereens.

I can still do my pen flip from high school, but only with my eyes closed.

Don't be obnoxiously rude in any round with a clear skill gap between the teams, just debate normally and without condescending moments.

Toxicity is always bad. Respect the pronouns, experiences, or identities of the other debaters/judge(s)/crowd. Treat your partner nicely, and don't lash out if the round isn't going your way.

There's a line between arrogance and confidence, and you should try to stay on the confident side.

I was definitely an intense debater, but remember that it's just a debate round at the end of the day.

Do these things:

-Specific line-by-line analysis/organized speeches = cool

-ROB/Framing = cooler

-Warrants are the coolest.

Avoid these things:

-Blippy, blitz analytics

-Late-breaking shifts

-Generics

-Stealing prep, I'll probably notice you doing it.

*Merging docs together or whatever as your partner furiously types is still prep*

Speaks

I'm not a hard judge to impress, so if you want higher speaker points, debate however you normally would. Please don't try to 'adapt' to me, I won't hurt any debater's speaks for using whatever style they prefer.

On my speaker points scale, the points are typically 27.5 - 30. That's the range, but it's kinda hard to be at the lower end of the spectrum with me judging, I'm pretty forgiving. Still, I'll adjust it slightly to the tournament setting if I need to, yet a 30 is almost always a 30. Post-rounding is fine, but don't overdo it.

RFD's

- I'll always try to give an oral decision and RFD.

- Please feel free to ask questions and interrogate it, if it's a panel, maybe hold off until the other judges have spoken. Even though I'm fine with you grilling me about my ballot, recognize that it won't change either way.

- If we're in a rush or whatever, shoot me an email or find me later on at the tournament to clear anything up.

Policy Affs

-Don't assume I know the aff or topic literature, especially at the beginning of the year.

-Please don't ignore the mechanism of the aff post 1AC, sticking a line in the overview isn't enough either.

-Weaponize the aff, most of the time the neg team does minimal actual debating on the solvency or inner workings of a 1AC, and they shift the focus purely to internal links to the impact scenarios.

-I think aff teams that can extend and expand on the core thesis of the plan are a lot more likely to win a perm or beat a CP or Alt straight up.

-Solvency advocates are nice but you can win without one

Topicality

-Every aff challenges T in some way. I'll default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise persuasively. Reasonability is a contextual argument, it can definitely be won in front of me.

-The neg needs to win an impact here, and the more articulated this is, the more comfortable I am voting on T.

-I think FXT and Extra - T are severely underused arguments that can prove abuse.

-I like the Block/2NR to have a case list of hypothetical topical affs.

-If the aff is questionably topical, make sure you convince me that it is/isn't topical

K Affs

-These are super common, read them if you want, I've certainly read my fair share.

-Outline the methodology or the stance, don't be beyond shifty in CX on what the aff actually does.

-Please try to keep it in the direction of the topic.

-I'm well versed in most K lit, but don't assume I understand your unique spin on "insert author here".

-The same logic applies as above, most neg teams still fail to attack the actual mechanism of the aff, so utilize that.

-Performance affs are also awesome and totally have a place in the debate space, I've judged them

Framework

-The best FW args are the ones that actually recognize the point of a K aff.

-A TVA or SSD is much more persuasive than fairness by itself as a voting impact

-That being said, in round abuse exists, and FW can easily be won in front of me.

-Just tread carefully, and keep how you access the ballot as the focus (for both teams, if that wasn't clear.)

K's

-Win a strong link. Articulate an impact chain. Outline the method of the alternative for me.

-Don't assume I know the K lit. Avoid buzzwords and 4-minute overviews.

-Remember that ROB/ROJ args make it a much easier ballot for the K.

-I'll vote for any K argument that you can explain to me, but sometimes more is less with K debate on the links or MPX.

-If the K is your typical strategy, don't change it in front of me

DA

-The more specific they are, the better!

-Don't read outdated ptx scenarios or whatever if you can avoid it

-Internal link chains are nice when remembered.

-A 2NR can totally torpedo a solid policy aff with an equally solid DA, if this is your style, go for it.

-I enjoy a unique DA with a fun impact scenario!

CP

-Innovative CPs are much more likely to get my ballot, but I'll listen to whatever.

-Consult, delay and that whole crowd are probably abusive and a reason to reject the CP outright.

-A CP that goes for sufficiency framing is cool, but your CP out-solve (resolve?) the aff too.

-Solvency advocates crystallize a CP for me, but you don't necessarily need one

-Net benefits are under-explained or often chalked up to a DA, so focus a tad more on how you differentiate from the aff.

Theory

-I don't like intervening, so please don't make me vote on whether your 15-second blip in the 2AC/the block that became 5 minutes of the 2NR/2AR was worthy of voting down the other team, yet...

- Disclosure theory is :( and usually used by big schools to bully smaller institutions, but brand new K affs are probably bad.

-CP's theory is the most common stuff I come across, go for it. I'll def entertain condo theory if there are 3+ CPs or Ks or whatever. As noted above, abusive CPs like consult or delay are legit theoretical aff objections.

-Speed theory or something along those lines is solid if you can explain an accessibility concern, that's a true reason to vote down a team.

LD

-I have a decent enough background with LD. Do whatever you normally do, everything noted above and below applies with a few caveats.

-Theory hacking is annoying and quite boring. Time sucks are probably bad.

-LARP or progressive debate techniques are totally welcomed in front of me

-Some sort of framing is probably a good idea, but I'm not some value/criterion absolutist.

PF

-I will never approach a PF debate as a lay judge, sorry.

-Refer to the above

-Sticky defense is fine

-Send the speech docs, I like to read PF evidence since it's so blippy.

-Impact debate is really cool, but framing is even cooler.

-Feel free to run CX/LD style arguments

Policy Debate

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one. my email is jessekeleman@gmail.com

Every time I try and cut down my paradigm it gets longer. So here's a brief summary:

I haven't judged much on the nukes topic, so keep that in mind

Enunciate tags

Spread full-speed through your blocks and all their wonderful sub-points at your own risk

Tell me why it matters that you won an argument (even a conceded one)

I don't have strong argument preferences, do whatever you want. I've put my general proclivities for each argument below

An author name (alone) is not an extension

I'm not well-read on most kritikal literature these days, so if your argument has a lot of terms of art I probably don't know them. That being said I'm used to not being well-read and generally can figure it out from context, but the more specific, concrete examples you can give of how your impact manifests itself, the better off you will be.

Don't take my paradigm to heart, use it as a general reference. You can see how long it is and I've probably already forgotten half of it

Basic philosophy

I am not the fastest flow-er in the world. Slow down a bit or enunciate your tags/ argument names so that I know they are special, and it shouldn't be too much of a problem. As long as I have enough of your argument flowed down to jog my memory, you should be fine.

I debated at UT and debated for 4 years at Grapevine in highschool. I'm currently a lawyer (not an expert on personhood). I really like well-researched PICs.

Try to be clear on what arguments you are winning and why you are winning the round because of it. What this means is that when you make an argument, make sure you explain the larger implications it has on the debate. This doesn't mean make everything a voting issue, but rather that your arguments should all fit together in a neat and understandable way. If I have to do a lot of this analysis myself, you might not like how I end up evaluating your arguments.

An author name is not an extension, and I think debaters tend to breeze over conceded arguments without impacting them out in the way I talked about above. If you think an argument is conceded or mishandled, it still needs to be explained in the final speeches.

I'm not too familiar with a lot of the kritikal literature bases besides Virilio and anthropocentrism (and somewhat Buddhism. Daoism because I've been on a mindfullness binge recently), so keep that in mind when explaining your arguments. I still love hearing kritiks, just be sure to make your arguments as clear as possible.
I haven't heard a lot of debates on this topic, so try and keep that in mind if you were planning on throwing around a lot of acronyms at a fast pace. Making your arguments clearer can only be good for your speaker points.

I like hearing specific disads, generic ones are fine too if you can contextualize the link to your argument to the affirmative. Same thing with kritiks.
I'll be glad to answer any more specific questions you have before the round.

Disads

I prefer specific disads, but of course that's not always possible. I find that disad links can be pretty awful, and think that it can be a great place for an aff to gain some ground against the disad. However, I think that disads with strong and well-explained links can be extremely convincing. Politics disads can either be underwhelming if extremely generic, or very solid arguments if your link story is a bit more nuanced then "some people in congress hate the plan, so congress will suddenly decide they hate immigration reform.".

I did mainly kritikal debate in college, but in highschool I was more policy oriented, so don't be afraid to lean more policy infront of me. I actually find 8-off debates to be pretty interesting sometimes; I think that they force interesting strategic decisions and require a certain skill to both answer and execute well.

Counterplans

I am not a fan of conditions counterplans, or any other counterplan that causes a very small change in the process the aff goes through (consult counterplans also fall under this category). I tend to think that they form boring and repetitive debates. I will still vote on them if you are winning the argument, but I find the theoretical objections to them to be pretty convincing. I am a huge fan of specific pics. Any well-researched and well debated pic will likely give your speaker points a boost. I am not a fan of generic pics, or some of the old-fashioned word pics, such as the "the" pic. I think advantage counterplans can be extremely strategic, especially when paired with a strong disad.

Kritik

Kritiks are great, but I am not very familiar with a lot of the more complex kritikal literature. This means you have to make your explanation of the argument clear to me, or I'll have a hard time voting on it. I have no problem with affirmatives that don't defend government action as long as they are relevant to the topic or have a convincing reason not to be, but at the same time I have no problem voting for framework if the negative gives me convincing reasons why debates about government action are more useful than what the affirmative performance is trying to do. I would prefer negatives use well thought-out counter-advocacies over framework as those debates tend to be more interesting, but I do believe that framework has its place in debate.

I generally prefer that your link arguments prove that the aff makes the world a worse place in some way, rather than only prove that they are complicit in certain structures. I think that really talented kritikal debaters are proficient at framing their link arguments in offensive ways that show how an aff replicates problems in the world, rather than just claiming that the aff doesn't acknowledge a problem. The exception to this is if you can win substantial framing arguments that mean I should ignore the aff entirely.

I find anthro to be one of the most persuasive arguments in debate, and mourn its disappearance.

Topicality

I'd generally prefer a DA or K, but I think that topicality debates can be interesting in their own way. I think that high school debaters tend to expand the topic a little bit too far, and get away with affs that might not necessarily be topical. Running topicality against a clearly topical aff will most likely not get you anywhere, and should probably be replaced with more viable arguments.

Framework

I decided to make a separate section for this, since I've been judging it a bit more and have more thoughts about it now. I think that sometimes teams forget that when i vote on framework, I'm voting on an interpretation of how debate should be, rather than voting on whether a team broke some "rule" of debate or not. Your argument could of course be that I should vote them down because they broke a rule, but I find this less convincing than arguments about what debate ought to be. I think that ways of mitigating the other team's offense is vital in these debates. For the neg, those would be SS args, TVA args, or any other argument about how your interpretation doesn't exclude their education. For the aff, this usually takes the form of criticisms of the neg's ideas of education.

A lot of the framework debates I've judged seem to focus on the aff alone, rather than the entire interpretation. I think that this is a mistake, and I would like to see teams tying their arguments back to their interpretations rather than just ignoring the interpretation after extending it and proceeding to talk about how unfair the specific aff is. I find a lot of aff interpretations to be very vague, take advantage of this when you make your predictability and limits arguments.

As a final note on framework, I think that novel and strategic aff interpretations could get you further than just "teams have to talk about the topic".

Theory

I find that there are certain arguments in debate that seem polarizing, as far as if they are beneficial arguments that should be used in debate or not. For these arguments that do seem to spur disagreement, I think that theory can be a fantastic argument against them, and would enjoy seeing an in-depth theory debate about them. On the other hand, theory arguments arguing that you shouldn't speed read, that counterplans are bad for debate, or that kritiks belong in LD, I do not find convincing. You're not likely to win on these arguments unless the other team severely mishandles them, so you might as well actually engage in their arguments instead of trying to just ignore them. A questionable argument that has been well-researched and has specific evidence is much more likely to look legitimate to me than a generic counterplan that just pushes the aff back a year and claims a politics net benefit. I think that clash is one of the most important parts of debate, and that if an argument disagrees with the actual content of the 1AC in a substantial matter, it should be permitted in debate. If an argument tries to avoid clash in unhealthy ways (mostly in ways that don't promote topic-specific research), then I am more likely to decide that these arguments are illegitimate.

Conditionality -

I think that more than two conditional arguments is pushing it, but I do not think there is much merit to saying that the negative cannot get even 1 conditional argument. If there's one conditional argument your time is probably better spent on debating the substance of the debate. I also think that you should make your argument as nuanced as possible, for example instead of saying just conditionality is bad, say that multiple contradictory conditional worlds is bad.


Speaker Points - I haven't judged enough rounds to have a well though-out system of giving speaker points, but in general better arguments will get better speaker points, and more persuasive speakers will get better speaker points. I also enjoy hearing novel arguments, especially in areas of debate where you often hear the same arguments over and over again, such as theory debates.

LD

I rarely judge this event. Assume I know nothing about the topic, but I am probably somewhat familiar with the critical literature base you're drawing from. I have a hard time voting aff in LD debates because of the huge time discrepancy that makes it seem as if there are a lot of dropped arguments. To get around this, I suggest grouping arguments often as the affirmative, and making it clear how your impacts outweigh any risk of what the negative is talking about, bringing up at least a few specific examples in the process.

*Still in progress. I've been writing bits and pieces and haven't completed this yet* *please ask me questions!*

Email Chain: Please put me on it! danidebate2019@gmail.com

Background: I'm an ex-debater from the Kinkaid School in Houston, Texas. I did policy for a total of five years and was both a 2A and a 2N at different points in my career, but I haven't been competing since 2019. I started out running mostly policy arguments as a 2A -- soft left affs and CP's DA's on the neg -- but when I became a 2N I began to run other stuff, mainly the Gender K, Psychoanalysis, and Cap.

Paradigm: You do you! I do my best to let the debaters decide the debate with as little intervention from me as possible. I want you to run the arguments you love, not only because those are likely the arguments you are better at, but also because those tend to be some of the most fun debates to watch. What is honestly most important to me is giving me a coherent story and a clear path to voting for you at the end of the day. I want to do as little work as possible putting your arguments together after the round and have to intervene as little as possible to tie up loose ends. What is most compelling for me is clearly evidenced arguments with examples, good interaction on the line by line, and adaptation to your opponent's specific arguments. Im a lot less compelled by heavy overviews if they aren't brought into the line by line of the debate and applied appropriately. If you don't tell me what arguments answer what, I'm not as comfortable doing that work on my own. That being said, there are some types of debates I feel more qualified to judge than others and I'll try to break things down more for you:

• T - In more traditional policy debates, I find myself focusing a lot on the definitions -- the more well-sourced/relevant to the topic/better intended to exclude/define etc the better. If you have a good card, emphasize it! This probably means I can be convinced to vote against an interpretation of the topic that is untruthful even if done well in a very technical T debate. The interp would have to be egregiously untruthful for me to write it off, but if that's you, know that I'll have a harder time voting for you. In more frameworky debates, I need clear explanation of why your vision of debate and framework is better. What do we lose under the other side's interp? Don't just read me an overview and blocks, really engage with the other side's vision and show me why yours in better. Give examples and tell the story.

• K - I am not the most comfortable judge in high theory debates or off-the-beaten-path K's. I don't know the literature base well, and if you want me to confidently vote for these arguments you will have to take the extra time in your speeches or CX to explain these arguments. I did run psychoanalysis in high school for a brief stint, but as was the pattern with most of the K's I ran, it was a very practical-leaning version of the K.

Like I said above, I tend to prefer well-organized speeches that engage the line by line rather than debates that rely on a hefty overview and cross applications later. When speeches are structured that way, it becomes easier for my mind to wrap around the arguments and I feel like I am able to evaluate the debate more fairly.

• DA's - Impact calc is huge for me, so be specific and engage with your opponent's impact scenario. Tell me why I should prioritize you.

The more specific your link, the better. If you have generic link cards, tell me why they specifically apply to the aff you're debating against.

• CP's - I prefer case-specific counterplans (are u noticing a trend here?). If you want me to judge kick the CP you have to tell me cause I'm not going to do it on my own. I'm less receptive to CPs with lots of planks that you kick n modify and stuff in the 2NC but I will still vote for them.

Misc. Notes:

1. Please mark your cards. I will give you a warning if I catch you clipping cards, but if you do not fix the issue, I will likely vote you down or at least give you low speaks. Even if I vote you down I will let the debate continue and give all the relevant feedback to the arguments in the round. I want everyone to get the most out of the debate but punish unethical behavior. That being said, if you notice the other team clipping/know of an ethics violation in the cutting of their cards/any other concern and you feel uncomfortable calling it out in round for whatever reason, shoot me an email during the debate and we can discuss as a group.

email: rakoort99@gmail.com.

former debater at UH, now judge/coach there.

You do you. I have few predispositions about how the round ought be. I have no real preference between policy and K arguments, but I am significantly more experienced with the policy side of things. I won't be as familiar as you with your specific lit base.

Judge instruction is important and I take it seriously. It is better for you as debaters and me as the judge when you explain a clear path to the ballot rather than having me do unguided forensic analysis on the flow.

I love case debate. I think it is underutilized. The 2ac is often allowed to get away with far too much. I am not unwilling to zero solvency when affs are missing key pieces. I take evidence quality seriously when it is made an issue in round.

Almost certainly won't vote on condo or new affs bad, won't default to judge kick but can be swayed.

Be kind, have fun.

Add me to the Email Chain: myl813.ml@gmail.com

Katy Taylor '19
UH '23
1N/2A
She/her

Updates per Online debating: Because of the nature of online debating, I am often times having a hard time understanding/taking in visual cues. Please take this into consideration when debating and prioritize clarity to an extent. Also appreciate analytics, although I guess it's ultimately up to you - if I didn't get it on my flow, it's probably net worse lol

Also feel free to email me with questions if any are unanswered, both before and post round.

General/TLDR:

I think debate is an activity formatted as a game, but ultimately should be used to reap external values/impacts. It also definitely is more than a game to most of us involved; debate is in fact a consuming activity. What I prioritize in evaluation will vary by round, based on the progression of the debate, and I will leave the strategizing for a ballot up to you.

Do what you do best. I’m open to all types of argument as long as it is well executed- I was not a big K debater through HS, but if you do your job I should have no problem understanding the round/the literature. I would much rather judge a nuanced and engaging debate that I am unfamiliar with over a poorly executed round. Likewise, Ks should not be read in the hopes of simply reading the K getting a ballot.

Proper showcasing of your knowledge in the subject, clever strategy, and some courtesy in round make judging easier, more enjoyable, and will work in your favor.

Specific Things:

Framework/T-USFG:

Both teams should have a defense of the model provided by their interpretation. I think Affs should have some relation/link to the topic (not necessarily with a plan text)-I don't think it's easy to win a round with an aff that has no relation whatsoever, but if this is the case, I would expect VERY good reasons to buy that. Offense is key to win FW debates- how well these arguments apply/interact in round are important for a decision. Along with offense, there needs to be well explained impacts by both teams. (i.e. explain what “destroying fairness” does to debate, etc.)

Topicality:

I'm usually not a heavy voter on T, because a) most times T debates feel like nothing more than a time suck and b)I do think that debate is a space that has the capacity in which a variety of dialogues can and should take place, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it and/or this is the cue to read whatever you want w zero correlation. Both teams need to defend their interp of the topic with well-extrapolated standards and impacts. Mentioning the words “limits”, “fairness”, and “predictability” doesn't mean much until you explain why that matters. Impact comparison and substantive clash over models of the topic via definitions and standards make T debates much easier and more enjoyable to evaluate.

Kritiks:

Despite the fact I wasn't much of a K debater, I feel they are very enjoyable to judge when executed well, and can very well be the opposite if not done so. I have found myself finding K arguments very compelling because I buy that the problematic ideologies that shaped the fundamentals of our society are violent/pose a threat constantly. Well-developed links that are specific and turn case are essential. I believe the framework debate is generally underutilized by the negative, usually those debates end up with the affirmative getting to weigh the Aff. If you read external impacts, you must explain the internal link to that impact. As mentioned above, I was not a big K debater through high school, so I'm probably super close to an actual blank slate- With that said explanation within your speeches and CX will be rewarded, and essential for me to evaluate. A clear explanation of the argument should be a requirement anyway; just know that you will not gain much if not lose expecting me to know each K inside out. The affirmative should have a combination of offensive and defensive arguments. A purely defensive strategy against a K will probably not get you a win.

K Affs:

They need to have a clear and preferably nuanced method that can solve the impacts of the Aff. I think the major pitfall of K Affs is having generic or vague methods that open the doors to a lot of persuasive presumption arguments. There needs to be a defense of why debate is a key space to read the Aff. The 1AR and 2AR should have both components on some level or else I’m left to guess as to how the Aff/aff offense functions against the negative's position. As explained in the K section above, do not assume I’m well versed in the literature you are defending.

Disadvantages:

Be specific. A robust explanation of the link to the Aff and impact calculus supplemented with embedded turns case analysis makes these debates very enjoyable to judge. The Affirmative should try to find holes in the DA, whether that’s through internal links not lining up or through their evidence. I think a combination of offensive and defensive arguments is smart and will make it harder for the negative to hedge their offense.

Counterplans:

They need to have a clear plan text and an external net benefit. Make sure the CP is competitive- as simple as it is I feel like people forget and then I have to vote down on perm. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better. The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement. It's probably helpful for the aff to have some offense- just defense is in most cases not sufficient to beat the CP.

Misc.:

- Strategizing the round is up to you, but I do find myself not loving the timesuck-16 off- strats

- I think case debating is very under-utilized

- recutting evidence from the opposing team is rewarded

- Flashing/Emailing isn’t prep but be efficient

- If you still have questions, ask them before the round

-Don't be rude; there's a difference between that and being sharp

Add me to the email chain: kmirazee@gmail.com

Debated at The Woodlands for 4 years.

4 Bids to the TOC

1st Place Senior Michigan Round Robin

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

***TOP LEVEL***

I have exclusively invested my high school career in non-traditional debate. And I am most familiar with structural criticisms (Anti-blackness, Queerness, Settler Colonialism, etc.)

If your ideal 1NC is a 6 off DA/CP strategy vs a plan affirmative, pref me lower.

If your ideal 1NC is a 1 off kritik vs a plan aff/non-plan aff, pref me higher.

This is not because I do not see the merits of plan-based debate, but rather that I am unfamiliar with the technical jargon of rapid paced economic/IR/political/etc. theory.

**Framework/T

procedural fairness is not an impact.

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

*Miscellaneous

--- I tend to think conditionality is bad.

--- I am somewhat unsympathetic to Topicality vs. plan affs

--- Disclosure is good.

--- Evidence quality matters, but articulation and spin matter more

--- Judge Instruction is great - isolate your best arguments in the 2NR/2AR and explain why that means you win.

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)

Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.

TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)

Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.

If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.

Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge

Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.

I want to be added to the email chain: bibigianna713@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

I graduated from Heights High School. My competitive experience is exclusively in policy for three years, but I attended Texas Debate Collective, an LD camp, for three consecutive years.

I was a stock policy debater for the first two years of my high school debate career before I moved onto reading non-topical performatives. As a judge, I try to be as tab as possible. I presume affirmative most of the time. 

All I really ask is that you understand and explain your arguments well. 

I will say that I have not debated nor judged in about 3 years, so take that as you will. 

tech > truth (most of the time). 

Please don't be rude. If someone's clearly way less experienced, please make the debate round more accessible to them. I don't tolerate any slurs or any insults thrown at your opponents. I will also vote you down if you read racist/transphobic/bigoted arguments. Throwing in 5 second arguments that make no sense about communities you are not a part of will not appeal to me; if you don't know what you're talking about, don't make the argument. I think it's important to remember everyone in the round still has to leave the round and continue living - what you say in round does not always stay in round.

Stock Policy Affs

I was a stock debater for the first two years of my debate career, so I'm familiar with stock debates. While I usually prefer more kritikal rounds, I won't vote you down for stock policy affs, and I'll try to be as tab as possible. 

K-Affs

I'm 100% okay with Kritikal Affirmatives, but I think you should have a clear ROB, especially if you're non-topical. You should be defending your ROB until the end.

Performance

I really like performance; I think there's a lot to be said through debater's personal narratives.

CPs/Disads

I don't really feel any type of way towards CPs or DA. If you're reading a CP, you should explicitly state why it's competitive. If you're reading a DA, the link and internal link should be strong.

Theory

I don't particularly like theory, but I will vote on it. I have a high threshold for theory, so I'll be less inclined to vote for you if you're reading one to just to read it. You should have a clear abuse story.

Kritiks

I ran a fair amount of kritiks as a senior, so I'm probably a bit biased, although I know that kritiks aren't always well understood by debaters, so if you're reading a kritik, I like good link stories as well as alternatives that make sense. I'm more likely to vote for you, if you can explain your kritik well. As a judge, I'm more receptive to identity politics. 

From the beginning, I think debaters need to understand that I was never a policy debater myself. I took over a successful team at Caddo when they needed faculty support, and the debaters and alums taught me the activity. Over the next fifteen years I learned enough to teach it to novices and intermediates. I judged actively for about fifteen years, but since bringing a new coach to our school seven years ago, I have not been in many rounds. If you want someone who is going to understand clipped references to acronyms or core camp affs that you think everyone already knows on the NATO topic, I am not that guy. You are going to have to break things down and explain. I am a flow judge, but very rusty.

Now, Caddo has been known as a fairly critical team over the last decade, and I have learned to appreciate those arguments a good bit. As someone who teaches sociology, psychology, and philosophy at my high school, I am sympathetic to many identity arguments, critiques of epistemology, etc. However, I am not going to be down with a lot of jargon-filled blocks on framework—you must explain why I should weigh your project or method against fairness arguments of the policy world. I like the kind of literature discussed in critical rounds, but I have voted for policy affs outweighing a critique in different debates, especially where the aff won the framework and the neg did not.

That being said, I am very comfortable listening to case, disad, counterplan rounds. I think topicality sets important rules of the game & so if you plan to flout those rules, you better have a compelling reason. I certainly value the kind of knowledge and skills that policy debaters learn through the activity.

Ethos matters. We all know how important cross-ex is to establishing a confident position, but don’t be rude. If you can have a really competitive round and still treat your opponent—and your partner!—with respect, then that goes a long way with me on speaker points.

Email chain—yes. nnormand.cmhs@gmail.com

I am not a proficient enough typist to flow on the laptop, but if you signpost your arguments well enough, I should be able to flow a debate at speed. Being able to read the evidence during the speech certainly helps me though.

Do what you do best in front of me, give full explanations of why I should vote for you, and you will be ok. Make blippy arguments that claim you won because of something that was barely in the debate and dropped by the other team—then no matter how pissed you act when “post-rounding” me at the end, you will still have lost.

This is a great activity. Have fun with it & don’t take yourself too seriously, then we all win.

Last updated: September 12,2020

Background: I graduated from Karnes City High School in 2017. Debated at Texas A&M University for a year (policy) and graduated in 2019. I have a M.L.A. with an emphasis in Government from Harvard University and am currently a 1L at the University of Dayton School of Law in Dayton, Ohio.

Simply put, I am a tabs judge with heavy emphasis on stock issues. You run it, I’ll flow it. But I expect you to either carry those arguments throughout the round or kick them. Debate is educational, make it that way. Big fan of the T debate-- have every element of a T arg if you one one. Have a strong link to DAs or don’t run them.

Speed is ok as long as I can understand the tagline, author and date. Please analyze each card you read after finishing it to allow for better understanding for all parties in the room.

I tend to think I am a traditional judge. I follow traditional debate theory. Although young, I am an old debate judge at heart.

Ways to win a round: Cover all arguments and then provide meaningful impact calculus with tangible warrants that uphold your claims (VERY important at the end of the round). Convince me that the impacts of your side of the debate outweigh the impacts of the opposition.

I have extensive high school and college debate experience and am more than willing to help each team as much as I can. I am here as a resource, use me! If I don’t know the answer to something, I will certainly find it and get it to you!

Put me on the email chain: palmerk10@udayton.edu

**TFA -due to tabroom crashes during ballot submission, if you have any follow up questions I will be holding on to my flows for a week and can be reached at sparker112015@gmail.com for any clarification on ballot decisions**

I prioritize arguments that are well-reasoned and supported by evidence, while also valuing a passionate and engaging performance style in debates. My approach is non-biased and inclusive, welcoming diverse viewpoints and innovative arguments from all sides. Respectful and inclusive discourse is key, where every participant feels empowered to express themselves freely. Demonstrating passion and conviction in your arguments is essential, regardless of the perspective you're advocating for. Let's make this debate both intellectually stimulating and emotionally compelling.

I, myself, am a former policy debater of 6 years, I have taught middle school policy debate with the St. Louis Urban Debate League, and perviously judged LD, CX, Public Forum, Worlds, Prose and Interp.

1. Policy-Oriented: I prefer debaters who focus on concrete policy proposals and impacts. I value in-depth analysis of real-world consequences and evidence-based arguments.

2. Philosophy: I enjoy debates that delve deeply into moral and philosophical principles. I appreciate debaters who can engage with complex ideas and thinkers, and who can apply them effectively to them. I'm deeply interested in the philosophical ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, emphasizing the tension between individual freedom and societal constraints. Additionally, I'm drawn to the thought-provoking social commentary of George Orwell and the critical insights of Michel Foucault into power dynamics and societal control.

3. Progressive/Critical: I encourage debaters to challenge traditional frameworks and interrogate power structures. I value creativity, critical thinking, and the ability to deconstruct underlying assumptions. If a debater is able, to logistically and factually support, weighing the harms of the debate space and challenging that exact framework it is built on, is an immensely impressive feat.

4. Speed-Friendly: I encourage, and, I am comfortable with debaters spreading (speaking rapidly) as long as they maintain clarity. Prioritizing substance over style is key but appreciate I debaters who can effectively utilize speed.

"RW," please and thank you. I use the "he" pronoun series.

Email: poole.ronald344@gmail.com - Please add me to the email chain

--

In general, I don't care what you do-- notwithstanding overt harm. I only wish for you to do whatever it is you do, well. You are an intellectual, so you will be held responsible for your performance and the scholarship you choose to forward. I'm a young judge/coach, yes, but I've been doing debate long enough to genuinely not be surprised by anything you could do in round. This is not an invitation to shenanigans. Let's all be fr.

I flow. I'll read speech docs, sure, but I flow... 'If I didn't flow it, it didn't happen' is my default. It's also a cautionary note to speed. You can turn yourself blue reading through your blocks so long as you don't expect me to understand you. You should slow down to a conversational pace when you're saying something I should flow. Otherwise, we'll just be looking at each other.

As for the technical aspects, everyone has equal access to competing interpretations. This is an important note on FW, T, the K... all of it. Folks should come prepared to defend their model of debate in the context of the opposing model presented by the opposing team. That's debate...

You can mark me as a 1-3 for pretty much all K & Theory debates (so long as you are absolutely sure you can out-tech your opponents). These debates-- K v. K, (some) performative debates, debates about debate-- have the potential to be super interesting and enriching for the game. They, most often, are not. Since I don't know that this can be helped entirely, my suggestion to you is to be clear and to make it make sense-- defend your assumptions to get access to your impacts. Given today's average K-team, that's the very least you could do for me to be engaged. Ultimately, I'll only consider smart, thorough offense on the flow-- y'know, the line-by-line. High theory stuff (à la Baudrillard, D&G, Bataille, and their others) is cool, but I tend to vote based on advocacy, i.e., through some definitive method which expands the (educator) framework I'm inclined to default to, not how well you can explain the ineffable in a 3 or 4-minute 2NR overview.

*Flag your analytics for me. Knowing what's you versus your authors is important for assigning speaks.

While I'm not a fan of all-out policy showdowns, since I (regrettably) end up sifting through massive speech docs, checking cards in the post-round, trust that I can keep up. On the DA, uniqueness and the link should be bracketed to tell a story. 'Uniqueness controls the link'-- I need to be clear on how uniqueness and the link interact... Another cautionary note to reading generic disad sequences, since DAs should be intrinsically related to the action of the Affirmative advocacy. I'm not so sanctimonious that I can't at least meet you half way (re: generic offense), but it is your responsibility to explain why your disad outweighs the advantages of the plan, convincingly. These thoughts similarly apply to how I vote on the CP. There should be some intrinsic connection between the plan and counterplan. There are minimum competitive thresholds (re: clarity, reasonability, functionality, and solvency) a CP should pass for me to even consider a "net benefit."

Speaker Point Ranges

28.1-28.3 = Needs Improvement

28.4-28.6 = Well Done

28.7-28.9 = Excellent

29.1-29.5 = Thoroughly Impressed

30 = Top Seed

Add me to the email chain: Reddyaakash01@gmail.com

Debated at The Woodlands for 3 years.

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

***TOP LEVEL***

I have exclusively invested my high school career in non-traditional debate. And I am most familiar with structural criticisms (Anti-blackness, Queerness, Settler Colonialism, etc.)

If your ideal 1NC is a 6 off DA/CP strategy vs a plan affirmative, pref me lower.

If your ideal 1NC is a 1 off kritik vs a plan aff/non-plan aff, pref me higher.

This is not because I do not see the merits of plan-based debate, but rather that I am unfamiliar with the technical jargon of rapid paced economic/IR/political/etc. theory.

**Framework/T

procedural fairness is not an impact.

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

*Miscellaneous

--- I tend to think conditionality is bad.

--- I am somewhat unsympathetic to Topicality vs. plan affs

--- Disclosure is good.

--- Evidence quality matters, but articulation and spin matter more

--- Judge Instruction is great - isolate your best arguments in the 2NR/2AR and explain why that means you win.

yes, add me to the email chain: claudiaribera24@gmail.com

I've worked/taught at camps such as utnif, stanford, gds, and nsd.

overall thoughts: I believe it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and extending some sort of impact framing in the debate because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is a place for you to do you. I will make my decisions based on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. This means I am unlikely to decide on debates based on my personal feelings about the content/style of an argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. It is up to the debaters to present and endorse whichever model of debate they want to invest in. Have fun and best of luck!

Case

-- Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part of every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.

Policy affs vs. K

-- I am most familiar with these types of debates. With that being said, I think the affirmative needs to prioritize framing i.e. the consequences of the plan under a util framework. There need to be contestations between the aff framing versus the K's power of theory in order to disprove it, as not desirable, or incoherent, and why your impacts under the plan come first. Point out the flaws of the kritiks alternative and make solvency deficits. Aff teams need to answer the link arguments, read link defense, make perms, and provide reasons/examples of why the plan is preferable/resolve material conditions. Use cross-x to clarify jargon and get the other team to make concessions about their criticism.

CP

-- CP(s) need to have a clear plan text and have an external net benefit, otherwise, I'm inclined to believe there is no reason why the cp would be better than the affirmative. There needs to be clear textual/function competition with the Aff or else the permutation becomes an easy way for me to vote. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better.

-- The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement the net benefit. The 1AR + 2AR needs to have some offense against the counterplan because a purely defensive strategy makes it very hard to beat the counterplan. I enjoy an advantage counterplan/impact turn strategy when it’s applicable. Generally, I think conditionality is good but I can be persuaded otherwise.

DA

-- Please have good evidence and read specific DAs. If you have a good internal link and turn case analysis, your speaker points will be higher. For the aff, I think evidence comparison/callouts coupled with tricky strategies like impact turns or internal link turns to help you win these debates.

Theory

-- I don't really have a threshold on these arguments but lean towards competing interps over reasonability unless told otherwise.

-- When going for theory, please extend offense and weigh between interps/standards/implications.

-- When responding/going for theory, please slow down on the interps/i-meets.

Topicality

-- Comparative analysis between pieces of interpretation evidence wins and loses these debates – as you can probably tell, I err towards competing interpretations in these debates, but I can be convinced that reasonability is a better metric for interpretations, not for an aff. Having well-explained internal links to your limits/ground offense in the 2NR/2AR makes these debates much easier to decide, as opposed to floating claims without warranted analysis. A case list is required. I will not vote for an RVI on T.

T-FW

-- I prefer framework debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in the constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more toward competing interps than reasonability. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff teams are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. I am persuaded by standards like Clash and topic education over fairness being an intrinsic good/better impact.

K affs vs. T-Framework

-- There are a couple of things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your framework of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear are buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote to neg on presumption.

-- You need a counter-interp or counter-model of debate and what debate looks like under this model and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.

Kritiks

-- I went for the Kritik in almost every 2NR my senior year. I have been exposed to many different types of scholarship, but I am more familiar with some critical race theory criticisms. This form of debate is what I am most comfortable evaluating. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism.

-- You should have specific links to affirmatives because without them you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact.

-- The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explaining the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is an important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually winning an impact-framing claim.

K vs. K

-- These debates are always intriguing.

-- Presumption is underutilized by the neg and permutations are allowed in a methods debate. However, it is up to the teams in front of me to do this. There needs to be an explanation of how your theory of power operates, why it can preclude your opponent’s, how your method or approach is preferable, and how you resolve x issues. Your rebuttals should include impact comparison, framing, link defense/offense, permutation(s), and solvency deficits.

Tricks/frivolous theory/skep

-- I am not the best at evaluating these types of arguments. It is important to extend the claim, warrant, and impact of your argument and WEIGH. Please slow down on analytics that are important, especially in theory debates.

Email: mxsanchez1211@gmail.com

General

I debated policy debate for 3 years at Heights High School in Houston. I have been judging for the past 3 years at Texas Forensic Association tournaments. I am a third-year philosophy major and I respond well to kritiks because I have read a great deal of the literature. Because it is my third year out of debating competitively, I am not great on speed. However, that does not mean I discourage debaters from spreading at the speed they are comfortable with. I generally ask debaters to slow down and be clear with taglines and authors. When I judge a round, I look for which team weighs arguments the best. The round goes to the team whose analysis of the arguments demonstrate precise reasons why the team should win. I try my best to evaluate the round based on my flow. I tend not to exclude arguments out of the debate and give debaters full agency of the round.

I default to tech>truth. However, when arguments talk about factors outside of the round, then truth becomes incredibly important to me. For example, arguments that talk about issues in the debate space as a whole rather than the one round.

Affirmative:

My personal view of the affirmative is simply that it should push for a positive change in the status quo. I am fine with stock option plans and I am fine with kritikal affirmatives.

Counterplans and Disadvantages:

I will evaluate any type of counterplan and disadvantages although I have a harder time evaluating Politics DAs.

Theory, Topicality, and Kritiks

I have a high threshold for topicality arguments. In other words, I generally do not vote on T. I am very skeptical of topicality arguments. If an affirmative team can make a convincing reasonability argument in the 2AC, I would most likely buy it. This threshold is generally the case for most other theory arguments as well. However, I will evaluate offense on the theory. For example, if the theory shell turns some part of the case, then it demands attention from the debaters.

Kritiks may be the only argument I have a partiality for. They are my favorite type of argument. Although this may lead some debaters to want to run them to gain favor, I am also acutely aware when a kritik is ran poorly. I will evaluate any type of kritik. When evaluating a kritik, I look to see if there is alt solvency. Generally, kritiks tend to have strong links but weak alternatives. I have no problem with in-round solvency, but the debater needs to make that explicitly clear. They also need to be able to articulate why the in-round solvency is key. When running performative kritiks, debaters need to remember their criteria so they have access to their framework. Otherwise, the kritik is harmed without some access to the role of the ballot or other frameworks.

For any other specific questions please feel free to ask me before the round.

PLS BE CLEAR; seriously, CX is still a communicative activity. PLS.

I debated for Westwood for 4 years. I was ok.

Add me on the Email Chain: presumption99@gmail.com

- I am not familiar with the topic. In fact, assume I am not familiar with most topics.

- I am comfortable listening to K affs. That said, I’m more than comfortable when the negative goes for framework.

- Impact things out. If you can’t explain why something matters and outweighs, I will be unlikely too. For example, if the negative has a conceded social death claim (throughout the round) but does not impact that out(at any time), I will be sad and still vote aff on extinction outweighs if that argument is made.

- Slow down, especially when explaining concepts. I’m an alright flow.

- An argument requires a claim, at least a warrant, and hopefully an impact. Make arguments, not claims.

- I give speaks like I tip. I'm reasonable, but I'm not rich.

PLS BE CLEAR; seriously, CX is still a communicative activity. PLS.

I am a graduate from the University of Houston!

My degrees are in Political Science and Philosophy, with a focus on Public Health and Bioethics respectively.

I've been debating since 2010 and I've been doing CX since 2012. I really enjoy public speaking as a whole.

Non-debate stuff about me (that debate got me doing): I'm the treasurer for the Houston Tenants Union and also a certified Community Health Worker. So if you need help accessing a tenant's rights/housing organizations near you, or healthcare resources, feel free to reach out via e-mail and I will send what I can :)

You can probably find my rounds/old wiki's if you want.

I want to be on the e-mail chain: JCSpiehler@gmail.com

COVID-19 2021 Digital Debate Update:

- Please make sure everyone gives a thumbs up or something before you start your speech :,) if my audio is broken, I won't respond to "Is anyone not ready". So please don't say "Is anyone NOT ready?" I will deduct .25 of a speaker point off of what I was originally going to give every time I hear you say this.

- I don't think spreading has translated super well to online debate. I don't know exactly what it is, but the sound quality varies from debater to debater and (more often than not) the words become super muddled together and tinny through my microphone. That said, I have nothing against it and I will evaluate arguments about "speed reading" wholistically. But, if I can't hear what you're saying clearly through my average laptop and headphones then I can't flow the arguments you're making. You might just need to read just a little slower than you would in person.

I <3 Debate.

Framework/T: Just because I group these together in my paradigm doesn't mean you get to do it in your debate. There are distinctions between Fw/T. I actually find that these debates can be enjoyable if you use less jargon and more explanation. If the aff does a governmental thing you probably want to be running a variation of T.

DA's: I don't regularly go for DA's but I've (obviously) encountered them often in debate. I remember the first time I really appreciated the 'art of the DisAd' was while watching an outround at Wake. That said, the best thing you can do for me as a judge, is break down the narrative of the DA in relation to the aff. I find it easy to be skeptical of most internal link stories (lazy card cutting?) so make sure you can adequately explain how your politics scenario reasonably leads to your catastrophic impact.

CP's/Pic's: I love tricky Pic's. Counterplans are alright. I think all forms of CP's are a great way to force the aff into defending their methodologies.

Theory: Just because I like Pic's doesn't mean I don't buy that they can be bad. Severance Perms are probably bad. You can pretty much sell me on most theory. But, if it sounds like you're reading backfiles and blocks back and forth to eachother don't expect me to be sufficiently persuaded. If you expect me to vote on theory then treat it like you would any other winning argument.

K aff's: I love a well executed K affs. Anything from a middle of the road affirmatives (also see Policy Affs) to performance. I have voted against these kind of affirmatives on framework (and T) before - so make sure you can defend the pre-fiat implications of the affirmative and why they matter.

Policy Affs: The more detailed the better. Personally, I don't run policy affirmatives - but I do respect people that do. The time and effort put into these arguments really can show. I actually do want to hear about what the world would be like if your plan was passed. You don't have to be hyperbolic about everything.

K's: I love a good kritik. I am persuaded by access arguments made by the affirmative. I've debated/read/seen a lot of the kritikal theory out there. I primarily ran kritiks (if you look at my neg page on the case wiki you can get an idea - although not sure if it's still up now, so feel free to ask).

Speaker Points: I try not to, but I give higher-than-average speaker points. I don't mind sharing CX, but don't answer questions your partner is capable of answering. Wait until your partner defers to you. Don't interject for them. Also, please don't be rude. You are all human. I am a person, you are all people. We all have feelings, we are all here to learn, we all (hopefully) love debate. Friendly competition is good competition.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round starts.

Eugene Victor Ungar

I graduated from Clear Lake HS in 2018 and I’m a sophomore at UH majoring in design. In high school I participated in debate for three years, and I have experience in LD, PF, and CX. I qualled for NSDA nats and TFA state in CX, and I’ve been judging at locals regularly.

Topic Familiarity

Policy: 2019-20 - Moderate (12rds)

LD: Jan-Feb - No rounds

PF: Feb - No rounds

General Rules

I strongly believe debate is- before anything else- a learning activity, and it should be treated as such. To better accommodate this space for you and your competitors, I do not tolerate any of the following:

· Bad sportsmanship before, during, or after the round (I will find your coach if I need to)

o You will get one warning, after that speaks will drop to the minimum

· Racism, Sexism, etc.

o No warnings, you know better

Not a rule, but I generally don't write a whole lot on the ballot itself, instead I prefer to use the time to talk to competitors face to face to help them in the next rounds.

Yes, you can go to the bathroom during prep.

No, I don't really care where you sit as long as I can hear you.

Policy & Lincoln Douglas:

Speaking

Per league rules, I prefer to be flashed in if the competitors are flashing, but I really don’t mind how fast you go if you remain clear, if not, then you won’t be on my flow. You as a competitor ought to be solely responsible for your speaks, but I will say clear once for your benefit. Quality over quantity is a good rule to follow when choosing what to read, too many args/cards on the flow is annoying, so please don’t throw fifteen of the same card at me unless it is necessary to the debate.

I don't mind if you decide to do open cross, but don't leave all the speaking for one competitor. I don't flow cross, but I listen in case you decide to bring something back up later. Don't use it as a speech, you have no reason to talk to me during cross.

Flex prep is fine, the teams should check each other all the time. Flashing isn't prep, but don't prep during flashing.

Topicality

Non-topical affs are refreshing, and in most cases will contribute to the education of both sides, so just go for it, and make sure you have substantial defense. On the neg side, I have voted on T before, so if you think you can win it, run it. In general though, I default to reasonability over competing interps. Don't run an "I don't have cards for this aff" T if you also run strong, specifically linked evidence, you will lose the T. Please don’t muddle up the T debate, too often both sides just repeat their interps, if you don’t have new ones, gloss over it quickly and tell me why YOU think you’re winning the T debate and I’ll be more likely to believe you.

Theory

I will vote on theory if there's a clear interpretation of the limits you want to set, and an abundantly clear link to your opponent. I like to keep your options open, so I’d say I’m more a tech judge, you should be prepared for any argument your opponent brings up, however you plan on attacking it.

CP’s

CP’s are great, but if you’re running one with only slight differences from the aff plan such as actor cp’s, delay cp’s, you must clearly show me you’re unique from aff harms.

On the aff side, perming can and will win you the round, more often than not it’s easily possible, just be clear on the mechanism, or if you want to claim fiat with the aff.

Kritiks

Above all else, K’s must be unique and have a solid link, and be clear about the alt world. I don’t vote on them often only because they aren’t run often, but if you’re up to the task go for it.

K Aff’s

Critical affs are enjoyable to watch, and the aff has to be clear on the topic’s violation, and the method of getting to the aff’s ideal world. Both you and I know that K aff’s often don’t work pragmatically, so I’d like to see the neg go after that, as well as argue the framing for the K.

Impact Framing

I think every round needs a framework to even run properly, and I’d prefer both teams have it. Generally, they’re going to be basically the same (util/justice), but when they aren’t I like to see them clash, I will vote on impact framing args, winning these args will most likely win you the round.

Disadvantages

The two things I need to flow a DA are uniqueness and impact. Run your args if you have them, but don’t flood me, two or three really good DA’s is better than four or five mediocre ones.

Case

Just don’t forget on-case arguments exist too, only impx extended in rebuttal speeches will be tallied.

General tips to help you win:

· Signpost

· Slow down on tags/defs

· Look at me occasionally, if I’m not flowing you should slow down

If possible I prefer to give an RFD immediately after the round, and I like to stay and answer questions the competitors have.

Any other questions can be asked before the round.

Public Forum is the last traditional debate event, and as a judge I have the ability to help keep it as such, so there shouldn't be any spreading, sharing individual cross, or running offcase args. If you commit any of these PF crimes I'll dock your speaks.

For example this speech is your speed limit. [20:53]

Any impx not extended in summary or ff won't be flowed, generally tech over truth but I won't vote if the impx are off a ridiculously long linkchain.

I love roadmaps, please give them for all speeches after constructive.

Weigh your impacts in summary/ff, I default to util calc but am open to being told otherwise.

If time permits I give full RFD's and answer questions after the round.

Any other questions can be asked before the round.

HOWDY!! so yall are in a hurry or doing early scouting...Early scouting...good on ya...in a hurry...great shame...ANYWAYS, I'll just keep it simple and let y'all know how I feel about each argument one by one and how I give speaks, and oh and if y'all are really really in a hurry I'm fine with speed just keep it clear and let that shit rip as fast as y'all want, but if y'all are doing a bad job at spreading I'm gonna say clear two times after that it's not my fault if I don't flow. Debate is still a communication activity and I know thats lame, but thems the breaks. I'm a tab judge (or so I like to think) , but we all have our biases and I did a lot of K's during my debate career. I try to do my best to not let that affect my opinions or how I judge rounds but alas, I am only human.

THE HIGHLIGHTS-

Tech over truth

Be clear before being fast

Open CX and Flex prep is cool as long as everyone is cool with it.

I flow on my computer unless it is dead

I will vote on anything

Please use Speech Drop

flashing and email chain is fine just put me on the email chain or toss me the flash (elijahvalerio9@yahoo.com)

Prep is over when the flash drive leaves the computer

Keep y'all's own prep

Please disclose unless y'all don't know what that is and have never seen the wiki... this is for both aff and neg.

Y'all get to break new once after that y'all gotta disclose this is for both aff and neg

TOPICALITY- I defer competing interpretations at the beginning of the topic, and If its the end of the topic I defer to reasonability...Yes i can be swayed in the debate just make the argument and I'll vote on it. I'm not a big fan of annoying T like T Subs, but all arguments are arguments as I said I'll vote on anything. This also applies to theory arguments so just make it happen and I'm ready to go. The only judge intervention I have on T is based on forum of the debate. If y'all in CX T is never a reverse voting issue, but if it's LD I understand the time skew and will vote on an RVI on both theory and T but can be convinced otherwise for any particular round.

DISADS- I love a good disad and am willing to vote on any da no matter how crazy the scenario is. Yes I will vote on dedev or wipeout so it doesn't matter what y'all run in front of me, but just make sure y'all extend and explain y'all's links, internal link chain, do impact work, and the debate will be y'all's. Sorry Aff teams I don't feel sorry if y'all don't have the ability to answer ridiculous arguments thats on y'all not me. Not every card in the DA needs a carded answer. I watch the news and can use logic so...figure it out. This is not to say that y'all can answer things by saying "well thats just not true" y'all do need to to do analysis and have a claim, warrant, and impact. However the more wonky the card the more likely I am to discard if y'all have just a true argument.

COUNTERPLANS AND PICS- I mean listen I wrote some shady counterplans and legit counterplans in my day, and I'll never question pulling the trigger on one, but I got some rules before I'm shooting my win gun. Y'ALL'S COUNTERPLAN OR PIC NEEDS A NET BENEFIT THAT IS NOT THE NEG SOLVES BETTER...THATS LAZY AND Y'ALL ARE BETTER THAN THAT...Seriously though it's important because I need the cp and the plan or advocacy or non statement or whatever type of aff y'all running a cp on to be mutually exclusive. If they aren't that a big problem. Any variation of pic or cp is fine with me. Furthermore, I'm willing to vote on the theory of like pics or counterplans bad or whatever just run the theory in a legitimate manner and it's all good.

Kritiks- I love me a good ole K and it don't matter if it's run as a standard K, on the aff , on the neg, in a poem, in a personal narrative with no cards, but that being said I hold a very high standard on the K. Please know what y'all are talking about. Don't forget the link. Don't forget the impact. Don't forget to do proper extensions. Don't forget to do proper framing. Don't forget to answer all the offense. Remember I didn't read all the lit and won't assume things for y'all, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY DON'T FORGET TO HAVE FUN!!! Framework is an acceptable answer to the K but I prefer that isn't the only answer have some actual link turns and no Link arguments, and the same is true if they run a K aff. Framework is cool, but it would be nice if y'all have actual turns, a counter K, or some cede the political da or whatever. All around just some offense that isn't based on Framework or T ya feel. I like a spicy debate please don't put me to me to sleep we all gotta do this for at least an hour and a half and K vs framework or T only is kinda boring to me. I'm okay with floating piks, but they need to be hinted at in the 2nc/1nr. I will also vote on floating piks bad just like all theory make sure y'all do a good job running it.

Performance- I don't have an large amount of experience with them besides the ones that I hit highschool or saw in rounds I watched online when I was super invested in the activity. I just want y'all to be clear with how the performance functions in regard to my roles as a judge/teacher. I believe the debate space belongs to the debaters so I have no issue with them being run, but I like to know what I'm voting for and how that impacts the debate space or real world in both a fiat and pre fiat sense.

K AFFs- I ran mostly K affs in my career so I'm okay with them in the debate space, but it's better if they are related to the topic in some capacity. They don't have to be it's just preferred. I'm not gonna vote for y'all just because y'all have one, and I'm not gonna vote against y'all because y'all don't have one just do whatever y'all think is best and don't get lost in the jargon and lit. I haven't read every K lit book and won't so I need a good explanation on what the advocacy does or what the aff does if there is no advocacy.

Framework (policy)- Framework is always a good argument weather its framework in how I evaluate things or framework in terms of USFG Plan based debate good versus a K aff. How I vote ends up depending on how I see the round breaking down. If the debate becomes a question of fairness versus education then the person reading framework T usfg is probably in the driver seat. If the debate is whats the best forum to create change the person reading the K is most likely ahead. It's all about make me highlight the most important part of the debate for y'all's argument. I'm honestly split pretty close 50/50 on this question so just convince me y'all are right for an hour and a half and Y'all can win. I do understand that it's easier said than done, but someone is doing it so why not y'all.

Framework LD- Tbh I'm probably not the guy for classical framework but will do my best to evaluate it just make sure y'all explain it very clearly and have a good debate that I explain back to y'all if y'all want to win, and if I can't I'm probably just voting on whatever i think the offense is.

CASE- Uhhhh it's case have some offense have some defense don't forget about it otherwise I gotta grant the aff total solvency or whatever even if they do bad extending. I mean it would also be cool if y'all like put the case stuff in order based on the contentions, but I'm not too picky so its connivence not mandatory...For the aff, I want y'all to actually extend the aff and answer the case offense and defense. I know I sound ridiculous for saying that, but like it would be nice if a soul would ever do it just once. I really like the case debate and it can be a huge part of the debate or a useless part just depends on what y'all make of it.

Speaks and speaking-

Speaks are given out 25 to thirty if y'all get lower than that y'all did something awful as a human like impact turning racism or sexism or said something awful in round that just offensive. I will call y'all out on it after round too just to let Y'all know. I am okay with speed obviously I'm not debating anymore so slow down on tags and dates.

25- Y'all did bad and the speaking was bad (rare)

25.5- Y'all did bad from a strategic stand point and the speaking was bad but it wasn't the worst or maybe there was some highlight in the round. (rare)

26- Y'all did bad from a strategic stand point and speaking was subpar but there was a few highlights (rare)

26.5- Y'all did bad from a strategic standpoint and the speaking was mostly par with some errors but some good probably happened (less rare)

27- Y'all did subpar from a strategic stand point and the speaking was okay to less than okay with with a decent amount of good (less rare)

27.5- Y'all did slightly subpar from a strategic standpoint but mostly on par and the speaking was largely on par with some goods (less rare)

28- Y'all were at par with the strat and had some highlights and the speaking was par with some highlights think of this a true medium (likely)

28.5- slightly above average strat with on par or mildly above average speaking. I liked the debating y'all did, but it was more slightly above average than it was good or great. (likely)

29- Y'all had a good strat with some great things thrown in, and y'all had good speaking with some great emotion. Y'all honestly did really good and were just on the threshold of being great! If I'm giving y'all a 29 I think y'all belong in out rounds and I most likely upped y'all unless it was supper close and good debate! (less rare)

29.5- Good strat with a lot of great things and the speaking was also good with a lot of mostly great things happening here. Y'all did amazing and It's almost a guarantee I upped y'all if I gave y'all this! (rare)

30- Why are y'all even questioning anything right here? Y'all did great strat wise and the speaking was fire it had passion, clarity, and i flowed with ease. Y'all were like music, and had memes and analysis that sounded like the secret cord David played that pleased the lord. Y'all are a deity and I upped y'all no question. I will ask y'all to speak so I can sleep at night thank y'all for being in my presence... (SUPER RARE)

HAVE FUN AND HAVE A GREAT DEBATE IT'S Y'ALLS ROUND MAKE THE MOST OF IT. FEEL FREE TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MAY STILL HAVE MY EMAIL IS elijahvalerio9@yahoo.com

Graduate Student - Johns Hopkins SAIS 2020-2022 (Haven't been in debate for the past two years, haven't judged virtually yet)

Debate Coach - Hebron High School 2015 - 2020

Sure, I'll be on the email chain: camerondebate@gmail.com

Overview:

I'm extremely tired of framework v. K debates. I get why it happens but please...

If the teams aren't an actual clash of civilizations then please just let me have a K v. K round.

I don't mind what arguments are made in a round, there is almost no argument that I can see myself just not voting for. I will evaluate the arguments as they are ran, which means that explanation and analysis are more important than number. I have experience with policy, critical, theoretical, and stupid debate arguments and, as such, am willing to hear any of these. To win a round, all I think that can/needs to be done is for the team to explain their arguments, do the impact work, and be strategic (both in how their arguments interact and where the team's focus should be). A team that does this will have told me what to vote on and why (this should be the top of your 2NR/2AR).

A few notes:

1. Don't assume I know what your acronym means.

2. I'm fine with speed, I'll tell you if you are going too fast or are unclear.

3. Understanding your arguments is the key to a good debater. Don't run arguments you don't know. Misapplying an author annoys me. There is room for interpreting and using an author but there's a limit past which your evidence is no longer relevant.

4. Quality matters. Quantity is almost entirely irrelevant to good debate.

5. I don't care about the "community consensus." Your argument is acceptable and winnable based off of how effectively you utilize it.

6. Kritik probably should be spelled Critique except on flows where writing "K" is easier.

Topicality:

I am probably more willing to vote on topicality than most judges are now.

The best topicality debates and the ones I'm likely to vote on are those that have a depth of theoretical understanding. Nuances such as textual versus functional violations and how those specifically link to standards or the relationships between the various standards (limits key to ground or predictability outweighs) are key to a good topicality/theory debates that can devastate opponents.

I don't take "reasonability" to mean reasonably topical. I don't know what it means to be "reasonably" topical when there is a violation. "Reasonability" is a response to "Competing Interpretations," namely it is a framework for evaluating topicality and differing readings of the resolution. Thus, "Reasonability" is supposed to legitimize your reading of the resolution or your "Counter-Interpretation." Was the counter-interpretation a reasonable reading of the resolution? Does the counter-interpretation provide a reasonable expectation of debatability? If so, then under a "Reasonability" framework you will win your topicality violation. Only in this way does "Reasonability" solve the arguments against "Competing Interpretations" such as "Race to the Bottom" arguments.

If you wish to critique topicality, go ahead. However, explanation as to why this comes before the violation is required, do not assume it is a given. Also, a critique of topicality is a critique, as a result, it is not simply another analytical response that is used to counter a time-suck. If you want to critique topicality, then critique topicality. I will evaluate critiques of topicality as I would a critique, thus look below.

Theory:

I evaluate theory similar to topicality. Having an interpretation of what is legitimate and justifying it via standards is better than just a 10 second spew of random claims to biases. I understand the utility of theory arguments as time-sucks, however, 10 seconds is probably not enough to leave that option open for later in the debate. Either way, I will initially evaluate theory arguments as a reason to reject arguments unless told to otherwise and provided a reason. Every theory argument can be made into offense except Aff/Neg Bias claims, doing so will show you take the argument seriously.

Disadvantages:

I evaluate disadvantages under an offense-defense framework. I interpret this to mean that defensive arguments primarily serve to effect the impact calculus rather than directly take-out the Disad. For example, no link claims can mitigate the probability of the 1AC triggering the DA's impacts meaning the case outweighs the DA.

I tend to err towards a risk of the DA rather than 100% defense takeouts so make sure you make impact calculus comparisons if you only have defense in the last speech that account for the mitigating defense arguments. However, "Fiat Solves the Link" and "Process" (i.e. congress links to a courts Aff) defense are obviously 100% takeouts.

Counterplans:

I like debates involving very specific PICS and/or very unusual mechanisms. I don't think that a solvency deficit means that the counterplan is nullified, just that the 1AC's advantages are now risks of a DA to the CP so it would come down to impact calculus (see above). Permutations require more response than simply theory. If theory seems like your best/only way out on a permutation then don't make it a small argument (see above).

Critiques or Kritiks:

This is probably what I am most adept to judge because of my academic work. I prefer and am more experienced with "high theory" arguments than identity ones. I expect critique debates to focus on elucidation rather than the number of cards or arguments ran. Your understanding of the argument is essential to a critical debate. As such, I think critique debates that use less cards and focus more on elucidating the position are superior. I think that most critique literature is rich enough that any critique can find good enough evidence to merit not reading much more, if any, after the initial presentation and still be able to draw offense against the other team's responses. In short, card dumping on a critique is the opposite of efficient, smart, and strategic. Put another way, if you can explain a specific link story that ties back to the logic of your generic link evidence then you have a specific link.

I understand critiques as Foucault describes them, "a critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices we accept rest.... Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believes, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such." However, that is not to say critiques attempting to do something else are illegitimate. This is just how I will understand your argument until told differently.

You do not win a critique because of your sweet jargon. Know what you're talking about.

I'm not inherently against a project team. However, I am against teams that make the argument that their opponents are inherently racist/sexist/ableist/heteronormative, etc. the moment they walk into the room.

Framework:

This is what I judge most it seems and I'm just bored of it now. I evaluate the theory parts of framework as I would a topicality or theory argument meaning that you should read what I wrote above. Some notes:

TVA's should at least be viable as strategies to access the education claims that would come from having the topical debate. (I need to believe that there may be some form of solvency mechanism.)

Fairness as a voter is something I may view differently than most K-oriented judges. I think of fairness as a sort of morality claim, you harmed my ability to participate because your crazy K stuff is unpredictable or whatever and that's exclusionary. That can be weighed against the morality claims about good education, ethical subject formation, debate bad, or whatever. However, it most often doesn't single-handedly outweigh as the K team probably has a bunch of impact cards for their education claims.

This may date me a bit but I do think there are jurisdictional arguments that can be made to combat this. This may be a bit more of how policy teams tend to think of fairness now anyway but I tend to consider them separate as this is more of a Role of the Judge/Ballot argument. I don't think it's inherently problematic to say that I, as a judge, have to ensure that a debate is legitimate or viable before I fulfill whatever Role of the Judge the K team says I must fulfill (after all I can vote on alt theory that many K teams don't even critique). However, your framework arguments need to connect to this procedural voting mechanism (i.e. ground arguments apply but advocacy skills probably aren't a procedural issue). K teams need to critique the idea of a procedure or a gatekeeper that comes before ethics.

I say all this because when teams get on the fairness debate, I am sometimes forced into making assumptions about the relationship between these arguments because teams don't explain their internal link connections well. For example, when you are talking about debatability, I'm probably thinking jurisdiction claims. Or when you're talking about advocacy skills I'm thinking of fairness as an internal link to education. If you don't want me to make these assumptions then fill-in-the-blanks for me and explain which arguments are internal links and which are impacts and why.

Please make sure that you clearly explain your interpretation or counter-interpretation and repeat it throughout the debate when necessary. I think that too often teams assume the judge is clear on the nuances that their interpretations provide and how they avoid some bit of offense or something and I'm sitting in the back wondering how you expect me to type out 10-15 words verbatim without paraphrasing when you have already moved onto another analytic.

Any questions, feel free to ask or email the address above.

Good Luck!

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.