Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.

PF: I did PF for the last year and a half in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you warrant it. I won't do any work for you so be clean with your extensions and weigh for me. 

LD: I did LD for the first 2 and a half years in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you sufficiently warrant it. I won't down you for running any argument, I try to be as Tab as I can. If it comes down to it I evaluate framework over contention level debate. That being said just because you win framework doesn't mean you automatically win the round. 

Speed: Don't spread. 

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I am a senior in college studying engineering. I debated PF on the regional and national circuits back in high school.

My process for voting is as follows:

1. What's the most important issue/value in the round
2. Who holds the strongest link into that

Feel free to ask any questions before the round begins.

Email: Cameronallinbarrett@gmail.com

Judging Paradigm: Cameron Barrett: Tab Judge at heart. Debated for three years, judged debates for several years at this point.

Theory: I’m ok with theory arguments, that being said, I have a high tolerance. It’s hard to prove you lose ground on the neg/aff when/if you coincide a theory argument with five-six minutes of On/Off case arguments. Theory also kind-of forces me as a judge to insert my opinion into the debate round, which I will never do with anything else. It forces me to evaluate “Do I really think [insert generic theory here] is abusive?” More than not my answer will be no, but if you argue it effectively and the other side drops key points, or doesn’t extend standards/voters I will certainly vote on it.

Topicality: The topicality debate is crucial for debate as a whole, for, while I do like squirrely affs, it does help to check those. Now, only run Topicality if there is a clear violation. One time a team I went against used “NGO’s” (Non-Government Organizations) as their funding, now of course that is a clear topicality violation, but if you are going to run Top., just hoping the aff drops it, with a plan to kick T if they don’t, then don’t expect me to vote on it, unless the aff actually does drop it, and if you do want to go for it, the entirety of the 2NR should all be topicality if you go for it, if you run anything alongside topicality in the 2NR, and the aff brings that up, you will likely lose the round, but not necessarily.

On-Case: I will vote on a defensive case argument, I feel like the “try or die” kick out of all solvency arguments is just a way of the aff saying “I can’t really effectively respond to this argument.” However, always try and accompany defensive solvency arguments with case-turns and off-case arguments. I align with the stock issues judges in that, you need to have every part of “THISS” in your case. Therefore, I will vote on “not inherent” if there is literally no inherency in your case or if the affs exact plan text is being done, but generic stuff like “funding now” or “research now” won’t work with me.

Kritiks: Love’em. Run a kritik if you want, run 10 of them. I feel like kritikal debate allows debater to go more in-depth in a debate round rather than just “nuclear war and extinction.” That being said, I will not just vote on a kritik because the neg ran one. The framework and the Role of the Ballot debate/alt solvency on K is key to me evaluating which side wins on a K.

Counter Plans: I enjoy these as well. However, they must be well developed. I will evaluate consult CPs, and the like, however, a CP needs to be more than one card. If you have a CP saying “Australia should do it because…” That isn’t enough. You need to have at least three or four extra solvency cards along with that in order for me to choose your policy option over the aff, but if the aff doesn’t make that argument, then I will flow/vote on a one-card CP.

DAs: Don’t mind them. The more specific the better, if they are generic (i.e. China DA, BioD DA) the more specific the link the better.

Impact Calculus: Should be at the end of every rebuttal. The impact which kills the most people does not necessarily win just based on that. If your impact is dehumanization, value to life, or 5 million people starving, explain why I should prefer that impact over extinction. Probability, Timeframe, Magnitude are all three equally important. If you lose on magnitude, but when on Prob./Time then I’ll flow you over the other team. Impact Calc. is where debates are won and lost. Cards are always preferred over analytics in my mind, but don’t read 10 cards with no analysis and expect me to evaluate that.

Speaks: I will never give speaks lower than 25 unless someone it incredibly bad, incredibly bad. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I will almost never give 30 speaker points. If you get a ballot from me and it has 30 speaks on it, that means you were pretty much one the top 1% of debaters I have ever seen.

Rudeness: I will not vote a team down for being rude, I draw that line at speaker points. If you are incredibly rude, you will have incredibly low speaker points.

Spreading: Don’t care, go as fast as you want. Just make it clear when you go from one card to another with a loud/abrupt “AND”

Bias: I will NEVER say “I don’t buy that argument.” I will evaluate any argument made in the round. If you want to run something off the wall in a normal conversation, go ahead. I will always flow a side with evidence over the side without it. “That’s an insane argument” will never work on me. I side with more games-playing judges in this regard.

*These are all general rules for how I view debate/rounds, but feel free to challenge them as you see fit. I've voted for students that have not done any of the things I've described for one reason or another.

I am the Coach at Carrollton High School, Carrollton, GA. I have been coaching for a number of years. I have coached policy, LD, and PF debate.

I expect debaters to weigh arguments, if you don’t then I'm going to weigh them and you probably won't like that. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground on it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Speed is okay as long as you speak clearly. Arguments that you want me to vote “off of” should be extended through summary and final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech. I think that debate should be about integrity and truth, meaning be aware of the language you use and the validity of your evidence. There is no place in debate for misconstruing and/or using fake evidence. The flow is important for me in making a decision. If an argument is to be evaluated it should be cleanly extended through the debate. I hate voting on arguments that were not well developed. The debate should not be about blindly reading cards without understanding them. I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round. Contextual analysis is always good.

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

Tab judge. I have coached, or actively coach events, on local UIL, TFA and national circuit for over a decade. For Debate, please ask specific preference/style questions before round and in the presence of your opponent(s).

Interpretation: Very open to community standards and performer specific interpretations of literature. I try not to bring any preconceived understanding of literature into the round. I do prefer a teaser of some length before the introduction. Blocking and vocal characterization should be as distinct and clearly separate throughout performance.

INFO: I do prefer the use of a visual aid throughout the speech. Topics that are creative and challenging, or inspiring, are most intriguing and tend to separate themselves in a section. Sources are not as important in quantity, but the information should be presented in a fresh and relevant manner.

Extemporaneous: I prefer a balance of information and speech fluidity and personality. Clearly answer the question with a unified answer and give enough background/context in the introduction. Sources should be used significantly throughout the speech, but do not sacrifice a personable delivery simply to provide facts/analysis.

NO SPREADING!!!!!!!!! I cannot emphasize this point enough! Debate should be about how well you know your case, can support your case with evidence, use logic to link your case and evidence together, and use logic and evidence to counter your opponents arguments. Speaking so fast that the judge or your opponent can't understand you doesn't mean you are a good debater, it just means you can talk really fast (and maybe not even say anything). I don't like winning on technicalities. Spreading is a means to winning on technicalities. Speaking fast so you can get lots of arguments in that your opponent will drop is my definition of winning on technicalities. I realize this is a game and you are trying to play that game but I also believe this should benefit you in life. There is no use for spreading in life, period!

I am a traditional LD/PFD judge. I don't want to hear K's, counter plans, or theory. If you want to do that you should be in CX/Policy not LD or PFD. You were either assigned a side or flipped a coin for a side. A good debater can debate both sides. Please tell me what you are going to do then do that. Also, please use logical reasoning to link your argument together as well as with your evidence. Don't skip steps. Don't use reasoning such as If A then B therefore Z. In doing this you have skipped lots of steps. I'm not saying the conclusion of Z is wrong just that you haven't proved that Z is correct. Don't make me skip steps to get to your conclusion because I won't, that is your job. An example of this is the nuclear war argument. You can't say things like if a particular political party wins an election then nuclear war is imminent. This is complete non-sense and shows me that you have no idea how to reason. Solving for nuclear war is hard and requires lots of steps and evidence to get there. Don't use that argument unless you are prepared to do the work to get me there.

I really dislike it when the debtor just reads their case. I'm not expecting you to have it memorized but know it well enough that you can talk to me about it. If you just read it that doesn't show me that you know anything about your case, just that you can read. You should be able to present your case in a way that shows me either you wrote your own case or that you know it well enough to be able to speak without having to rely on your computer for everything. Obviously if you are a Novice then I don't expect so much from you. However, both Novice and Varsity should be able to pronounce correctly all the words you use.

Your summary/final focus speeches should tie everything back together for me. Tell me what arguments your opponent dropped. Give me voters. I realize this is a game and you are throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks but lets pretend that is not what is going on. So please don't say things like "Judge, if you don't believe that then how about..." You better believe, or at least act like you believe, your whole case or I'm not going to.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

Hello I am Max :3

I would like you to answer the five quintessential questions of fundamental debate:

1. Who?

2. What?

3. Where?

4. When?

5. Why?

6. How? (Optional)

Feel free to read the Uigher oppression argument. I am Taiwanese :)

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

Speaks: I really, really don't like speed. I'm not even talking about spreading. If you go fast, i'll flow it and i'll evaluate the arg, but i won't want to, so if you dont want to take the risk on your speaks and/or the ballot, go slow.

Evidence: I will always call for evidence. Especially for args that are critical to the round. Don't misrepresent, or you're pretty much screwed. Also, I don’t flow card names in constructive/rebuttal, so if you want me to notice a specific piece of evidence, tell me what it says on top of its name.

Extensions: Offense needs to be extended in all speeches except for maybe the 1st rebuttal (if its offense in case). Some judges ask for 2nd rebuttal to be interactive with the first rebuttal, and while i agree its definitely helpful if you don't have to respond to everything in summary, it isn't necessary to secure my ballot. Impact extensions can be really short, since i would prefer to see more clash in the links.

Args: Don't run progressive arguments. Also, i'm tech over truth, but i will really not want to give you the ballot if you run bad args like extinction (unless you really convince me it will happen!). If one of yall is throwing on purpose, lmk beforehand so i dont have to flow.

General Speaking:

1) If you don't signpost, you're gna see me not flowing, so if you want what you say to be on my flow, please tell me where you’re at.

2) WEIGH WHAT YOU SAY IN ALL SPEECHES. The worst thing as a judge is to intervene because each side had an argument get extended. In that case, i will just vote with my gut feeling, and you probably won't like it. Also, weighing doesn't just mean throw out buzzwords like "we out weigh in scope" and then say something completely unrelated.

3) Give me a roadmap, and if you tell me you're starting with an overview, please tell me where to flow it.

4) I was hella abusive in crossfire when i debated, so i won't straight up down in you speaks for being a bit rude. However, if you're not letting your opponent talk at all, i'm probably not gna like you, and if i don't like you, you won't like your speaks.

5) I’m not a big fan of funny tag lines. It doesn’t matter too much but I personally think your tagline should get right to the crux of the argument so i know what im looking for.

6) In a bubble round, if you ask me how to get 30 speaks, ill tell you, and if you don't screw it up completely, you will probably get at least a 29.

Other Stuff:

1) I'm generally gonna disclose and give the exact rfd as to how i made the decision from the perspective of the flow. However, if you have any questions about speaking, feel free to ask me.

2) I probably won't be giving all my attention to crossfire, and i probably wont be flowing it either. If you wan't something to be evaluated that came from cross, bring it up in your speech.

Debate:

No two rounds are the same, so depending on the round, I can vote on framework, clash, structure, analytics, or impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Persuade me why I should care and vote for you.

Ensure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right.

I’m good with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, don’t go overboard to where you do so much that you can't keep up with your arguments and structure.

I have a background in both traditional and progressive LD and PF. If I am in a CX round, then something has gone terribly wrong.

If you are rude, condescending, abusive, etc., in the round, you WILL be called out and possibly ranked down because of it. This is supposed to be a healthy, educational environment, and I don't condone people acting like they are better than any other competitor just because of how many rounds they have won.

Congress:

I should put this in all caps, but if you behave unprofessionally in the chamber, I will completely dock you. Nothing is worse than complete disrespect for the round, competitors, and judges.

Also, I don't automatically vote you up just for being PO. Don't run for PO if you don't have your Parli procedures down; I know them.

Content is key to winning in congress and being active in the chamber. Ask questions that make you stand out for the RIGHT reasons, not because you made someone laugh.

IEs:

I have multiple state titles and have competed in numerous national out rounds on the high school and college circuit, so I don't just go by "who has the best story." Characterization and development are important, as well as clean delivery. No topics are off-limits, and follow the parameters of the event.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at ashlyntrokey@gmail.com.

I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 16 years, coaching for 10, and this is my third year in Minnesota.

PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a tad bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.

LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.

PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:

1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.

PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.

2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).

3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.

4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.

5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.

6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.

Congress:

PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.

Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:

• When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
• For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
• When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"

Some other PO Notes:

• I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
• I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
• I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
• The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
• The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.

Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up.

Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.

I am lay.

I do try try to flow but it is my second time judging.

I am NOT ok with speed.

I am a lay judge. I work in the medical field

I like a slower speech, with eye contact and one that is presented towards an audience. I like a speech that engages the audience, and is clear and concise. It should meet the criteria of the presentation.

For debates, while I lack in depth topic knowledge, I will take notes and evaluate the debate as a whole.

I have judged both IEs and debate at a total of around 15 tournaments for the past few years.

Name: Shefali Gandhi

School Affiliation: Clements High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 3

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A

What is your current occupation? Nurse

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery

· - I am a parent judge, so please don’t go too fast. I would rather you develop a narrative in the round so that I am able to follow you.

· -That is not to say that you have to speak as if I was a child, but rather you speak at a moderate rate (similar to that of a conversation)

· -I prefer the quality of the argument over the substance of material you present.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

· -Summary should be slow, but address and condense the arguments in the round.

- Give reasons to prefer your argument.

Role of the Final Focus

· -This speech I find to be most important. Please tell me what your final arguments are AND why they are important in the context of the round

-Go big picture. Tell me exactly how I should decide my ballot.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

-Topicality: N/A

-Plans: N/A

-Kritiks: N/A

Flowing/note-taking

· -I don't flow like a professional debater. I will take notes to the best of my ability. I may not catch everything.

· -In order to compensate for my inability to flow like other debate and/or coaches, speak slowly and explain your argument and why they outweigh your opponents.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

· -Both style and argument are important. What you say always comes first, but the way in which is presented is still very important

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?

· -If you want me to consider an argument that you believe to be winning, please mention it in both the summary and the final focus. The arguments should be consistent and clear.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

· -No.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

· -No.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

· -Nothing else to be said. Have fun! Do what is expected of you in any basic lay debate round.

- Don't be derogatory towards India! I have read some articles on the topic, and am slightly informed.

I am a lay judge, I have judged many rounds before. I prefer quality arguments over quantity. Please signpost clearly and make sure that your speeches are well-organized.

About Me:

Private Coach (2018-Current)

Klein HS Competitor [TFA, NSDA, TOC; Congress, Extemp, OO/Info, PF] (2014-2018)

Meme (1999-Current)

Paradigms:

I've attached the links below to my paradigms. Don't be afraid to ask me anything if you have any questions before the round begins, I won't bite unless I don't get my fix of coffee/green tea.

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

Congressional Debate Paradigm

World Schools Debate Paradigm

Lincoln Douglas / Cross Examination (Policy) Paradigm (If you have to read this then I'm VERY sorry. tl;dr default to my PF paradigm & ask before the round starts for specifics, i'm pretty amenable)

Brownie Points:

Now if you really do want brownie points from me, here's my Starbucks order:

Venti Blonde French Vanilla Latte w/ Toffee Nut & Whipped Cream
- OR -
Venti Hot Green Tea Latte w/ Whipped Cream

If I'm hangry, some salmon nigiri or a nice triple cheeseburger would calm me down. Even more bonus points for the stack shack from shake shack.

grossly overqualified parent judge

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

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

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

Quick guide to prefs

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

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

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

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

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

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

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

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

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

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

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

kant without tricks: 1-2

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

most other k/nt aff: 3

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

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long version:

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

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

(cw: self-harm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD/Policy Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

I'm a middle school debate coach with about 20 years experience. Right off the bat, I'm not huge on spreading. I am open to a lot of arguments. If you don't say it, I don't flow it and I weigh rounds on quality of arguments. I rarely give 30 speaker points unless it's one of the best rounds I've ever heard. I'm looking forward to judging! Good luck to all!

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

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

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

If I call for a card, send it to my email and send the cut card. This includes PF.

This is not about the stats you have, if you are not making an analysis with your stats, that is reason enough to vote on presumption (please don't make me). Just having bigger numbers, doesn't mean the round is a clear win.

UNLESS IT IS A GAME CHANGER please for the love of whoever you pray to, do not try to win a debate round on recency of evidence. It becomes a moot point and a waste of your breath.

I debated for Barbers Hill HS for four years. In both LD and CX. Qualifying for TFA state my junior and Senior year. I did IPDA- public debate- with during undergrad until Spring 2020. I now consult in disability advocacy and DEI development.


TLDR (1 = best):
LARP/Stock: 1
K: 1
Framework: 2
Theory: 2
Tricks: 5
Generic: 3-4


General: I'm fairly open to seeing what you're most comfortable doing as long as it creates good debate. Many times I have seen rounds where it was like two ships passing in the night because someone read something so off the wall there was no way to respond to it, or maybe there is a way but no one knows it but you. That's not cool. I will yell slow, clear or loud. Sit, stand or float. I don't mind one way or another. I always stood, but because my coach didn't afford the option-- do what makes you happy!
Taken from Megan Nubel’s paradigm- “Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks."


Speed:
You do you. I will yell slow or clear if need be. Please, though, for the love of debate, slow down for author names or tags at least. If you get an unnecessary amount of "clear" warnings, I'll probably deduct speaker points or stop flowing altogether. You need to be aware of your threshold of what is clear and what is not clear.


LARP:
I've always been a Util debater but will listen to the best you have. Having done policy before, buying extinction impacts are more difficult for me (I say this because I had a judge say they were totally cool with it all, I read an extinction impact and then was told I read the one thing they wouldn't ever vote on), but I won't vote on it. You just need to make it very clear to me why it's such a big issue. Tip: the longer the chain the less buy-able the extinction impact is. If you want an easier way to my heart and my ballot, read short chains with more plausible impacts.


Ks:
I fell in love with the K debate at the end of my junior year and tried to read them as much as possible in my senior year. While I wasn't necessarily a K debater all of high school, I've read plenty to know generally where you're probably going to be trying to go. But do not assume I know everything about your K. I don't appreciate backfile Ks just to have something to read-- I feel like that errs on the said of the bad debate. Taken from Cameron McConway's paradigm- " I’m willing to listen to critical affirmatives but am also willing to listen to framework and cede the political style arguments against non-T affs. I also will default to evaluating the K the way it is articulated in round, not based on how I understand the literature. I do think incorrect interpretations of literature are fair game for lower speaks, though."


T/Theory :
Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well. I’ve had my butt kicked by too many good debaters with very good T/Theory strats to just be okay with you reading something and not doing something effective with it. If you read it to try to spread the aff out of the 1A, it's strategy, but I’m not a huge fan of kicking something like that. I was taught it was the top layer of debate, so I wouldn’t kick out of the top layer of debate. I will just you (get it because I have the ballot lol). I don’t want to feel like I should be defaulting to anything, but if I have to not only will I draw a sad face on the ballot but I’ll only to it to drop the argument and competing interps. I also believe it’s a very good strat when faced with these arguments, to go ahead and read RVIS. I will for sure evaluate them if you do it correctly.


Phil/Framework:
I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates because that’s one thing I prided myself in doing fairly effectively. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I’m not proud to say, but I feel fairly underread in phil to be able to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I normally would.


Tricks:
I’ve never been a fan, but if it's what you do and you do it well enough for it to get my ballot then by all means. I wasn’t sure what else to say, so I did some searching and Cameron McConway put it perfectly. “ I think burden affs can be interesting and strategic, and I am willing to listen to scepticism to contest frameworks or justify frameworks because it is the grounding of most normative ethics and important in philosophy, but please do not read skep to answer oppression arguments. [...] I’m not going to be thrilled if there are arguments that change function or trigger something in the next speech either; I think the function of arguments should be clear from the time they are read (not saying you cannot use something to take out another argument that it doesn’t appear to interact with- this is about contingent standards).”


Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:
-Racism, sexism or anything that is offensive to anyone
-Belittling someone in round-- also called ad hominems
-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable
-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one
Please always remember: debate is a safe space and should be treated as one


Things I appreciate:
-Kindness
-Politeness
-Assertiveness (there is a difference between being assertive and aggressive)
-Trigger warnings
-Being true to yourself as an individual, a debater, and an advocate
-Having fun


Speaks:
I was once, told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” I do not believe this is true to an extent, I will give you a 30 if you deserve it. Speaks are about clarity, strategy, and ability to adapt to the room. If you’re a seasoned debater and you go five off on someone who got thrown into varsity, your speaker points may hurt a little, but not enough to hurt you from breaking if I feel like you deserve to break. I average a 27.5-28. If you get a 25 from me then you did something horribly egregious in round, and you should expect it to be on the ballot with some way for your coaching faculty to contact me to discuss it in depth, if they so, please. A 29 means that you did very well, but you made some easily fixable errors.


PS:
I hope you find yourself in debate to grow as a person. Be an advocate for something you care about, be true to yourself, and be comfortable saying the important things. Remember, it isn’t always about the ballot, but the message you bring in and out of the round.

PPS:

A couple of times, I have had people ask if I would be okay with them trying out an unorthodox or new strategy in round. I, always, feel like there has to be a spot for it. I think that if you want to try something out and you want feedback beyond the ballot back, just let me know and I'll be sure to be super extensive and let you know. I want debate to be a learning experience before anything else.




Any other questions feel free to:
Email me: sage.e.hooks@gmail.com
Text me 7..133...14..62......30
Or ask me before the round

Elkins '19 |TAMU'22| Rice '24

TLDR: Tech>Truth. My debate philosophy is that of the classic flow judge that I vote for the debater with the least mitigated link chain to the best-weighed impact.

Substance/LARP/Theory/K- 1|Heavy fwk- 2 |tricks etc...- 4

PF

1.I look heavily towards the terminal impacts at the end of the round so weighing/crystallization will ultimately be beneficial for you. Just saying, "we outweigh on scope, magnitude, etc..." does not qualify as proper weighing. Give me the actual reasons/stats as to "how and why" you outweigh on all those fronts.

2. If you guys arrive at the same terminal impact ie; poverty, climate change, war, etc... the first place I look at is the strength of link on both sides.

3.FWK- I default to cost-benefit analysis unless any other fwk is given in round. If any other framework is given in the round, I will hold you to a higher standard in defending that framework. Overviews are fine with me but must come in the first rebuttal (no offensive overviews in the 2nd rebuttal).

4. If you are the 2nd speaking team, you must frontline all offense stemming from the first team's rebuttal. It is preferable if you frontline a good majority of the defense. Any dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal is conceded to me; all you can do after that is weigh against it.

5.Anything said in final focus must have been alluded to in the summary.You guys literally have an extra minute of prep and time for your summary so there should be no excuses in not extending terminal defense and turns AND do some solid weighing. That being said... PLEASE EXTEND YOUR Turns/Terminal Def etc... through both Summary and Final Focus.

6. I know paraphrasing abuse has become more relevant these days so I will typically not have much leniency if I call for evidence and your paraphrasing completely misrepresents the evidence. That being said, it would be a safer bet not to paraphrase. Also, when I call for evidence, I will need to look at the entire article.

7. Speed is fine, just slow down on warrants, authors, and anything extremely important, ie; weighing/stats. But make sure there is clarity and organization (line by line) in all speeches.

8.Speaks: 28-30 usually. If you strategize really well and weigh/crystallize well, I'll give you a 29.5, even if you catch an L.

LD

DA's/Advantages

A lot of advantages/DAs are super contrived, and it’s easy to convince me that impacts short of extinction should matter more. I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." If accessing extinction specifically, as opposed to just a big non-existential impact, is important to your impact-framing arguments, then you should justify that last internal link.

CP

Make sure you specify the status of your Counter Plan in the constructive. If you do not have a properly warranted solvency advocate in the constructive, the chances that I will vote on the counter plan are slim to none. Make sure you establish a strong link chain and ensure that the plan itself is competitive.

Theory/T

Unless it's Disclosure theory, I WILL NOT evaluate any out-of-round abuse. If you want theory to be the highest layer of offense in the debate, make sure you explicitly state it. The only exceptions are theory shells which involve actual real-world norm-setting, that isn't ridiculous (like shoes and clothes theory). For Theory/T, I default to competing interps and Drop the Argument.

Kritiks

I can always appreciate a well-written Kritik, however, do not make an attempt to commodify for the sake of picking up a ballot. Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. Minimum standard of clarity: don't phrase your alternative as an infinitive.None of this "the alt is: to reject, to challenge, to deconstruct, etc" business. It needs a clearly specified actor.

+1 speaker pt for a Starbucks frappuccino mocha/vanilla iced coffee

I will not vote on any arguments that are racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic.

If you have any questions, email me at ppj1002@gmail.com

- also for the email chain if need be^

Experience heavily concentrated from high school competition and coaching in IEs. However, I've judged debate for about 2 years so I'm aware of most of the nuances of the craft. I have a lot of respect for you all who do it- and respect for those of you who really know the ins and outs and the tech-y stuff (that phrase in of itself should be indicative of my in depth debate knowledge).

I'm a Novice college policy debater, so treat me as a semi-lay judge. I LOVE K debate (red flag), and honestly could care less for T debate, why lie. I have been told I'm a "progressive" LD judge. I approach debate from my background and knowledge of policy debate.

I view debate as above all else, an educational and safe space for all to learn and to express their ideas. With that said, be respectful of your fellow debaters, and if anything in the round makes you uncomfortable- let me know. Speech and Debate is a powerful forum for me to hear your voice, your story and see your personality and narrative. Those aspects are paramount to me as a judge.

Err on the slower side with speed, and don't be messy with your spreading. My background is in speech so you gotta earn your speaks with me- especially if you wanna go fast. Be charismatic in your speaking and present clear and well-articulated arguments, don’t use too much debate jargon or run uber-complex theory. Convince me why I should vote for you.

1. Preflow before the round begins. Please do not sit in the round preflowing while making everyone else wait for you.

2. Defense sticks. Offensive arguments need to be in both summary and final focus, so collapse and weigh strategically (obviously, right?)

3. Start weighing early. I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus absent any weighing done by either team at any other point in the round.

4. Evidence is meaningless to me if unwarranted. I am very receptive to logical warrants and analysis.

5. I hope this paradigm reflects the style of debate I prefer: concise arguments, specificity, and coherent organization.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round begins.

I do my best to be a traditional, stock issue, tabula rasa judge. I was a CX debater, coached debate, and am a law student. I'm fine with speed in CX. K arguments, theory arguments, and other progressive arguments are fine, as long as they are topical.

Debate:

I prefer evidence over pragmatic analysis, yet pragmatism over philosophy.

I am willing to listen to and judge a theory argument even though I may hate having to do it.

Theory over kritiks, but traditional debate over both.

Valid, relevant, credible evidence is a must. If your evidence is from questionable sources, or biased, or generally in contrast to what I know about the topic I am going to put more weight on analytics as a sort of check on reasonability.

Clarity and content over spreading. I’m too old and have been to too many concerts and don’t want to try and decipher what you are saying.

Less emphasis on topicality, higher burden of proof.

Don’t rely on voters to win your round, I will flow your round.

Sort of a combo of: stock issues, tab, games, speaking, hypothesis.

Conviction.

Speech:

Make it interesting and enjoyable to listen to, quality evidence over quantity, don’t throw out a bunch of garbage evidence just to fill your speech. Virtual delivery is tough, I am proud of all of you in this manner.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc. in a virtual world? Do your best in this crazy time.

If character work adds to the quality, it's great. If it does not, it’s a distraction. Use it when necessary, the more differentiation (when you have multiple characters) the better. Don’t rely on character work if your characters all sound/act the same, it gets confusing.

Author's intent and appropriateness of a piece: Tough/mature topics are difficult to do,if you do it well, it goes far. It takes conviction for sure. It needs to be believable, some students just arent ready to speak on these types of topics. I will not drop you because of appropriateness so long as you can, with conviction, speak on the topic or with the language.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Hey!! I did PF for four years @ Colleyville on the Texas & national circuits.

**Tech>truth unless something is oppressive. However, the more ludicrous an argument is, the more work you’re going to have to put in to get my ballot.

**Since I’m no longer debating/researching the topics, please explain topic-specific jargon to me (ex: fonops w/UNCLOS, or evergreening patents w/Pharma). If I don’t understand something, it’ll be difficult for me to vote on it!!

**While I’m fine with you going tech on the flow, I’ve never learned how to properly evaluate progressive arguments (theory, k’s, etc.) Don’t run theory or a K just to confuse your opponents/beat inexperienced teams. I wouldn’t recommend reading a progressive argument in front of me, but if it’s imperative to read one, explain it to me like a regular argument & flesh it out in a simplistic way.

**Defense sticks in 1st summary unless frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

**I prefer line by line summary > big picture summary

**If you want to be safe just treat me like a flay judge. (in the sense that I will evaluate the flow, but I think that establishing/extending a narrative throughout the round is also very important)

Do:

• Warrant your arguments! I prefer a well warranted & logical argument to an unwarranted one corroborated by a sketchy piece of evidence. (warrants>>>>)

• Extend arguments and not just author names! Don’t just say “extend the NYT evidence” without actually extending what the NYT evidence says.

• Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh! Please do comparative, round specific weighing - it will make my life so much easier. If you don’t weigh, then you leave me to intervene & one team is going to think they got screwed over.

• Meta weigh!!!! If one team is trying to outweigh on probability & the other is outweighing on magnitude, explain to me why I should look to probability weighing over magnitude weighing or vice versa.

• Evidence Comparison! If your opponents have evidence with polar opposite claims, explain why your evidence is better in the context of the round instead of simply reiterating your evidence.

• Collapse! Don’t go for everything in summary and final focus. Even though summaries are 3 minutes now, still collapse on a few arguments. (quality>quantity)

• Mirror! If you don't extend links, warrants, impacts, and weighing in both summary and final focus, I WILL NOT VOTE OFF OF THE ARGUMENT. (the extensions should not be blippy) New in the 2 is not the move :// but the only time I will evaluate new weighing in FF is if there has been no prior weighing throughout the round

• Frontline turns/offense in 2nd rebuttal! 2nd summary is too late to start responding to offense that was placed in 1st rebuttal.

Don’t:

• Be rude! Please be respectful of your opponents & please don’t let crossfires escalate into a shouting match.

• Miscut evidence! Depending on how severely miscut a card is, I may drop you or dock speaks. I’ll call for evidence after the round if a team tells me to call for it, or if both teams have directly conflicting evidence & neither team did evidence comparison.

• Just card dump! Obviously it's good to reference lots of cards, but be sure to add in extra analysis & weighing that specifically interacts with the arguments made in the round. Remember: fewer, & more fleshed out arguments are usually easier to vote on than lots of blippy ones.

• Spread! I’m cool with a fast pace as long as you're clear, but I won’t be able to adequately flow/process spreading. With online debates, talking too fast can be a risk. (don’t sacrifice clarity for speed)

• Shake my hand! Germs suck.

****I definitely appreciate humor in rounds & will be prone to increasing your speaks if you make me laugh. However, if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will tank speaks & be wayy more inclined to drop you!

Just be a nice person & have fun. :))

I debated for four years at Lamar High School in Houston, Texas in PF.

Summary

Normal flow judge.

Debate - General

I believe that debate is more of a game than anything else, thus if an argument is dropped it is true (tech > truth). Speed is fine if I cannot understand you then I will just say clear. If you continue to be unclear than I will just stop flowing and stop saying clear. No matter what speed you are going at you need to signpost in every speech if I do not know where you are on the flow more than likely I will not write it down. On signposting, make sure that you are specific about which case you are on, what part of the case, and the specific part of the argument as well (link etc). I am looking for the easiest way to vote not the most exciting. So if there is a drop or turn that is clean extended your best bet is to go for that argument over the most contested (assuming similar impacts). Also, I believe that counterplans and plans add a lot to debate so feel free to run them, just makes sure that there the inherency or tradeoff evidence is strong. If you run a plan you cannot fiat specific implementation, you have to show that it is at least possible.

The Debate - Later Speeches

Like all judges the arguments that you discuss in final need to be in summary as well. My brightline for extensions, in summary, are extremely low (saying a card name and tag is enough) for me to give you access to that argument in final. That being said if there is a five-second extension for an argument out of summary it should not take up all two minutes of your final focus. Look at my paradigms on weighing below.

On Weighing

I think that weighing is important but it will not win the ballot. I believe that weighing is now used excessively by teams to supplement in round thinking. If you are going to weigh it needs to begin in the rebuttal, summary at the latest. Like any argument, if the weighing is not in summary it cannot be in final focus.

Non-Starters

Disclosure Theory, Identity Politic Ks, and bigoted stuff

Neither speed nor file justifies lack of clarity. Slow for tags and, especially, authors if you're going fast.

I can understand and vote for anything with warrants & clear explanation

Do not clash and refute from after constructives until the absolute end of the debate. I need voters and/or weighing to vote for you

LD/CX:

Varying degrees of knowledge on diff philosophy/high theory, up to you to risk finding out whether our knowledge intersects,

but anything w/ warrant/explanation

PF:
Line-by-line, weigh

Ask in round for more specifics

I am what you would classify as a lay judge.

I will judge on 3 things.

1. Content

2. Enunciation

3. Civility

Go slow, make your arguments clear, and tell me why you want me to vote for your side at the end of the round. I will choose the side who makes it the easiest for me to vote for them.

If you speak extremely well you can get from a 29-30 for speaker points.

Make sure you have fun.

2016 - 2019: Debater at All Saints Episcopal School

2019 - Present: Student at UT Austin

Questions/Docs: evan.pan@utexas.edu

TLDR: I've been out of debate for about ~3 years now. The last round I judged was probably March 2020 so I am quite out of practice. You can run most arguments so long as it is warranted, contextualized, impacted, extended, and cleanly articulated in the round. That being said, there are arguments that are better fit for certain debate types due to exterior factors (speech timings, norms, etc). Quality > quantity. Do whatever makes you most comfortable. Also, because I've been out of the debate ecosystem for a good amount of time, please do take time to ask me specific questions at the beginning of a round.

Specific Paradigms

PF-Specific Strategy: Defense is not sticky through first summary speech. You should be extending critical defense through each speech. Also, there seems to be a really bad habit within PF of only extending claims. If you want be to vote on an issue, extend every aspect of the argument (claim, warrant, impact).

Speed: If you are going to speed, please send a doc of only what you will be reading. After yelling 'clear' more than twice, I'll start deducting speaks. It's in your best interest for me to hear and understand the evidence you are reading to me, otherwise you risk me not flowing or evaluating evidence missed.

Paraphrasing: I really dislike paraphrasing in debate. I think it is usually a poor attempt to inject extra warrants, links, or impacts by short-handing what authors write. Strategically, evidence is credible because the author who writes the text has subject matter expertise in some way. Paraphrasing and rephrasing what is written can easily lead to evidence distortions. It is probably not advantageous for you A). because paraphrasing can distort authors' intent within the process of changing and B). paraphrasing lends itself to improper extensions of warrants. If you are going to paraphrase, you should have cut evidence ready to go in case the opponent or myself call for evidence. Excessive time spent searching for cut evidence will be taken out of your prep time. Overall, I will likely scrutinize paraphrased evidence at a greater level

Evidence Ethics: This is a really important issue for me. Miscut evidence can become a voting issue in a round. If you call out evidence misinterpretations or improper cuts of evidence, please mention it by name. It would also be helpful to implicate why dropping the evidence matters in the context of the round (ie. 'this evidence provides the sole warrant' or smtg like that). I'll likely call critical contested evidence at the end of a round. It is in your best interest to represent the evidence as accurate as possible. I'll do my best not to intervene on evidence ethics. That being said, call out bad evidence and I will listen.

Non-traditional Arguments: I've spent considerable time debating LD and CX. I used to run Ks, critical DAs, CPs, Theory, etc. in PF. However, I am quite out of practice. I'll listen to non-traditional arguments if they are clear, clean, and properly warranted. Generally, I think it is much harder to run non-traditional arguments in PF, so if you are running non-traditional arguments do it well and I will happily vote for you. I do think that these forms of arguments have a place in PF but should be done exceptionally well.

Please ask me any specific questions if you are hesitant or unclear about something before a round. Have fun!

kedarpandya459@gmail.com

I debated for Elkins High School in Policy and LD. I primarily worked with the K and IR Policy, and that is what I most like to judge.

CX/LD:

TLDR: Tech>Truth. High threshold on T arguments against K affs. Fave debates are K aff v K, or Big Stick v Big Stick.

K and K aff: (top of the pref) -

Know your K. I'm not going to hold small semantic mistakes against you, but if they start adding up it'll make it much harder for me to vote. I'd like to think I know most kritiks and the arguments of their authors, but I'm always open to new ideas.

I need specific arguments about the assumptions/structures you critique, and how they relate to the affirmative. That goes for everything, but generalities tend to pop up in link, K solves case, and A2 Perm arguments.

I also like multi-layer interaction. I default to the idea that debate is kids learning things by arguing about them in a room, not a vacuum. That means real issues that you critique outside of debate exist in debate. K debaters rarely take the jump from critiquing a problem that exists in the world to finding its implications for the round. "What's the point of argumentation skills if they just end up being marketized to serve the constant expansion of global capital," is something I really like to hear an argument about.

More creative/out there the K, more speaks you get. Especially if I feel the need to google the author.

DA, CP, Policy Aff: (top of the pref for IR) (#2 or #3 for anything else)

I give some leniency towards the conclusiveness of a card vs. the purported conclusiveness of a tag. Well-researched is always better than randomly cobbled.

T/Theory: (near the bottom of the pref is this is usually your 2nr)

High threshold against K affs, Default to Reasonability and have to be convinced otherwise, I need actual explanations of terminal impacts beyond the 1nc shell.

Phil: (in the middle of the pref)

I didn't read much of this, but I don't have any predispositions about it.

Speaks: Dune and well-done Star Wars references will get you a 30. Being egregiously mean, or engaging in any phobic/rac/sex-ist behavior will get you a 25. Creative IR and K arguments, especially if I've never heard the scenario or author, will get you a 30.

PF - Be as fast and progressive as you want.

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) 2024-Present - Interim Head Coach
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow, so you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and you not read the same thing no matter what the topic is without finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. Crossfire activity/decorum/momentum is my most common ballot tiebreaker. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically go: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third. These do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this is format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the table. Generally speaking, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is great; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the table. I will enforce Rules of Order and will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolution more than voting issues.

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 03/08/2023

I am a traditional LD and PF judge.

Persuasion is necessary. Moderate spreading is okay.

If you make a non-topical argument, I will not evaluate it.

Debate:

Please speak clearly and concisely. If you speak in a rush I may miss your arguments and contentions.

Be courteous, to your opponent and thank them for a good round.

I would love to give you instant feedback, but I like to make sure and review your case and performance before I render a decision. I will leave my comments for you on the ballot.

Thank you for competing, I appreciate your time and effort.

For speech:

Clear expression of your characters and ideas, Show your emotions and help me to feel your connection to your selection.

Thank you for competing, I appreciate your time and effort.

I am a lay Chinese parent judge and I work in the petroleum industry.

I have judged both IEs and PF/LD debate at a total of around 15 tournaments for the past few years.

Delivery

- I like a slower speech, with eye contact and one that is presented towards an audience like an intellectual conversation. I like a speech that engages the audience and is clear and concise.

- Although slow speaking is a must, do not speak to me like I am a child.

- DO NOT use jargon (i.e. link, turn, extend, etc.)

Arguments

- Quality over quantity. DO NOT spam cards in rebuttal.

- Make sure your ideas flow through and follow a narrative.

- Do not refer to evidence using author names. Instead, explain each argument when extending them throughout the round.

- If you believe an argument is hard to understand for a lay judge, please use analogies.

- Environmental arguments are okay but as a petroleum engineer, you have to convince me that I will not be losing my job.

PF Summary and Final Focus

- Address, collapse and condense the key arguments in the round.

- I will not be able to catch everything so please debate big picture.

- I will not be flowing but I will be taking notes.

- WEIGH! Why do you win? Do not just list mechanisms at me, explain each one thoroughly.

I am a Tab Rosa judge. I will not make arguments for you, and if it is stated in the round it needs to be substantiated. Don't just make a wild claim and consider it as truth. If you can provide back up on each claim, I will value it in the round. I'm perfectly fine with all arguments, as long as they are run properly. If you speak fast and unclear, it makes it harder to value the arguments in the round. Please speak clearly.

Speech I look for who gives the best speech with 6 or more sources. What I am looking for is clarity as well as if it is a good speech. If you have great points, but the speech is just fact after fact and monotone, I will have a hard time ranking you up. That being said, I also don't want TOO much style. If you've got a funny, entertaining speech, but the analysis is lacking I will have a hard time ranking you up. I am looking for a perfect blend of the two.

I am a flow judge who prefers to evaluate debaters on their ability to think on their feet, use of argument construction and for generating good clash. For speaker points, I value debates who respect the craft, showing professionalism, speaking in a way that I can understand and who know and understand their evidence.

Spreading is NO-NO! Avoid if possible.

The crux of your speech shouldn't be littered with using buzz words like "he conceded to XYZ" several times as a way for why you should win.

Be nice during CX - no one wants to see high schools kids yelling at each other , it's not cute!

Give voters in your last speech only!

Can you show me why your argument outweights instead of assuming it ?

I am a parent judge.

I prefer slower, narrative debate compared to more technical styles.

Hi! My name is Chandler Scott and I am a 4 year high school debater who attends the University of Houston now. I competed on the local, regional, state, and national level in Congress, Extemp, LD, Original Oratory and Policy.

ABOVE ALL, I value politeness in round. I think that the debate space has become immensely competitive and, in that competitiveness, people have not been as polite. Please don't speak over one another and just be polite.

I believe that the Debate space has become muddled in a lot of jargon and surface-level argumentation. I need clear cut, well-defined argumentation and a clear line across the flow on arguments. If an argument is dropped, I will see and wonder why you dropped it (and maybe even vote off of it if it is crucial enough in my mind.)

Lincoln-Douglas: I am what you'd call "trad" in LD. I am against any unwelcome elements from Policy debate being introduced to LD. That means no CPs, Plan texts, PICs, Theory, Ks, etc. in round. I need a debate which follows argumentation and value-criterion, which is what LD is about. I need arguments clearly brought across the flow and a clear card by card analysis. If I hear you say that this type of case is your “lay” case, I see that as extremely disrespectful and you will at least suffer in speaks if that is the case. Overall, stick to traditional form in LD.

Public Forum: PF is what it sound like, public forum style debate. PF ought to be intelligible to anyone who watches it, so I need a clear explanation of all arguments in round. Please explain your case well and don’t muddle things. If you see an argument falling behind, you can drop it, but don’t just randomly bring it up during FF. Speak to me and not at me in Summary and FF. Overall, just be clear and stay true to form.

Policy Debate: As long as I can hear the words you are saying, spreading is fine. Slow down on tags and put a definite "and" when moving to a new card. Otherwise, I am fine with anything. Theory is okay. It is not my favorite argument, however. There is good and bad theory. If you have to think hard about whether to run it or not, listen to that intuition. If you read T, extend T. I have seen too many teams reading T and not upholding it throughout the round. To me, T is an accusation, and to drop something that is an accusation is reason to default aff. I am fine with counterplans. Please make sure that they are specific. A single card will not flow as a CP on my flow. I will vote on Ks. Please make them topical. I want to be on the Speechdrop (and you should use Speechdrop, email chains are annoying).

2023-2024 Season

Howdy! I've been actively judging every year since I graduated in 2018, so this will be year 6 of judging for me.

PF/LD General:

- NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL. If you ask me to be on the email chain, this indicates you have not read my paradigms.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to pre-flow or take forever to get set up, I WILL doc your speaks to 27 max. Pre-flows, bathroom, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will usually use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to make sure you're not lying about how much time you have left. When someone asks for cards, please be quick about this because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

-I will NOT disclose decisions unless I say I will. After round is done, do not just sit there and just stare at me. I will let you know if everything is going to be on the ballot or if I will be giving some general comments.

-Please be respectful in round and have fun!

PF: Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.

Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.

LD: Old school traditional, I like framework debates. NO SPREADING AT ALL, moderate speed is good. I don't understand progressive debates like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.

Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.

PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.

Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.

I am what you would consider as a lay judge.

As a parent judge, I will judge on 3 things.

1. Content

2. Enunciation/ Clarity

3. Civility

Go slow, make your arguments clear, and tell me why you want me to vote for your side at the end of the round. I will choose the side who makes it the easiest for me to vote for them.

If you speak extremely well you can get high level speaker points from me (29 or 30).

At the end of the day, make sure you have fun and be respectful to each other.

I am sometimes asked prior to the beginning of a round if I might offer any additional insight into my paradigm or I might be asked a question pertaining to what I might identify as key voting issues. I do hope all of you take the time to read through all of the paradigms posted as they are for your benefit. I might argue that if you do that in advance it should help you determine what each of us is looking for. For the record, I do have an extensive background in the forensic world of debate at both the high school and college level. I debated for Bellaire High School from 1973 to 1976 where I learned to win quite often and for four plus years on a full debate scholarship at Houston Baptist University. I competed in high school and in college in policy debate (CX) and competed at a national level during my college years. Although it's been awhile since those days filled with stress and with competition, I have been judging off and on the past 12 years and I certainly have a few opinions to share with you perhaps best referred to as some friendly advice.

Like any good judge ought to insist upon during any round, my decision is based upon what the contestants themselves argue during the round, based upon extensions advanced to the flow and of course based upon what does persuade me or does appear most compelling at the end of the round. I do actively take down cites on most evidence read during a round and respectfully, I will not need a road map from you. That's probably helpful though for you guys to share between you. By now surely we all know that there should be no new arguments presented during rebuttals. I would also hope that debaters at all levels understand and fully embrace the notion that competition during a debate as a battle of wits ought to come down to winning arguments that can be proven and are linked quite reasonably. In my own mind, it ought to be fairly clear for me to see by the end of a round what the important voting issues are and why. I suggest trying to limit repeating what you have already said and instead focus upon extending your own case and or arguments as your key arguments. Any success during the round should be sought through purposeful and thoughtful clash with your opponents on the flow. I tend to look for and typically best follow teams that extend effectively in ways in which I can still flow where it belongs. I tend to defer to the team who best persuasively convinces me that their intended plan of action is much better than the other based upon evidence, reasoning and logic.

I am also asked if I can handle a fast speed or for that matter, the flow. I try never to be rude when I might retort in response that there is simply no way they or anyone else could ever be any faster than he and I were while debating the likes of Harvard, Georgetown etc. in that college setting I mentioned. Nevertheless, speed can still kill a good argument due to a lack of application, lack of explanation or simply because it was unintelligibly spit out. At high speed your killer evidence may indeed just become lost upon the deaf ears of a lay judge or even upon the perky ears of seemingly competent judges doing their very best to follow you. Your successes will be most often determined by you, your style and by your unique ability to fully connect the dots on the flow for all to see. You must be prepared to make your evidence and arguments count with great force in such a way that it sticks with your judge. I do accept most reasonable arguments as presented during a round especially those that are well defended with evidence, with logic and sound reasoning. I believe strongly in a professional courteous exchange at all times during a round, especially during crossfire. Cross fire is certainly not the time to keep on arguing with your opponent thinking they will agree that you are going to win. We all accept that you will probably never agree with the other side on this day of battle (until you must debate the opposite side of the flip), but use your CX time not to help set the record straight for everyone but instead to win. Utilize this precious time to seek out and gain needed clarification providing clarity for your own purposes. Responses given during cross fire are binding unless dropped or explained in context. If properly employed crossfire time can certainly make a difference in the result of the round.

Let me state it more clearly, if you are rude, obnoxious or loud during crossfire exchanges you do rub most judges the wrong way. Lastly, you might be surprised how many debaters do not do a very good job telling me as a judge why I should vote for them. Typically they insist that I must vote their way. Tell me why and keep telling me why. It begins with those first two constructive speeches in which clash is fully expected and undertaken. For the record, I do not give decisions or feedback at the end of a preliminary round, but of course I do during elimination rounds as allowed. My ballot will generally always make it crystal clear to both parties why I voted the way I did, agree or disagree. Debate is and always has been intended to be a fun, exciting activity and of course, highly competitive. Highly competitive though is not defined by talking over someone during cross fire or by being rude to another or by speaking much faster and much louder than others. I view forensic activities as a whole to be in large part preparation for your future endeavors in life with the potential to help one distinguish between what is true in theory and what might actually happen in the real world.

In terms of student Congress and Senate competition, I have judged those events often over the past 12 years and I do enjoy it immensely. It is still all about the numbers if you desire to win at a high level so naturally it does matter how many bills you are prepared to address with substance and it matters what you have to say about the subject. Your ability to effectively and respectfully question your peers effectively when called upon is critical to help garner a judges attention. It might help if you try and visualize Congress being in session and accept that you are literally debating a bill on the floor. Respect for each other, your demeanor and your own ability to participate is vital to making a great impression on your judge. Embrace that role and allow your efforts from the minute you walk into the room be dedicated to collaborating with others alongside representatives you hope might be persuaded to vote for the bill you choose to defend. If you go into a student congress event be prepared to participate, that is why you are in the session itself.

Individual events tend to be speeches or performances where you are on your own for the most part. It's important if you do want to place and compete that you make every effort to most effectively utilize the time you have been given to speak. A short speech is just that, it's short and often way too short. Proper use of mannerisms, natural body movements and practicing a deliberate and confident style used to deliver your piece is critical to success. Judges do tend to remember a genuine smile, a look or feel feel of sincerity and almost always naturally connect to the dynamic use of voice, dialog and diction patterns. It does not matter where you are in the speaking rotation. I can assure you, judges are waiting in earnest looking for you to stand right up their and knock their socks off so just do it.

Hi, I'm Jacob. I was the NPDA national champion in 2022 at Rice. By the end of my career, I mostly went straight up on the aff and went for K or theory on the neg.

---

PARLI PARADIGM

This has a lot of opinions but I think it's worth articulating that I will vote for anything you win in front of me, even if I don't super like it. We'll just both be happier if you go for something I do like!

1. AFF

A. Straight Up Aff

Collapse to as few links and impacts as possible and we will all be happy !!!!

I am most amenable to small, probable, and violence mitigating/reducing affirmatives. Also, econ. Please, econ? I think that impacts happening right now are more probable and more resolvable. I also think that status quo violence gives you very good sequencing and net benefits to the perm.

I think I'm pretty forgiving of on-case shadow extensions in the PMR but this is mostly at the warrant level. Tags should be extended in the MG.

B. Kritical Aff

I read a fair degree of these in my career and I understand both their strategic and personal value. Some of the best positions I've ever seen in parli have been K affs. That said, some of the worst and most vapid positions have also been K affs.

Personally, I think too many K Affs spend too long on why the resolution is bad and not enough explaining what they actually advocate for or what framework they operate under. Let the "res bad" args chill until the neg reads a viable TVA.

In terms of T, I think that the limited prep and non-disclosure elements of parli make T incredibly convincing in parli. I also think that many K Affs approach truisms which is problematic from a debate standpoint. On the other hand, I think T often does a poor job of exposing brightlines for things like truth testing, procedural fairness, and limits. This is where good K Affs can win. I am less amenable to general impact turns to T (unless the T is honest to god policing) but will vote on them if the Aff wins them.

I think the meat of this debate happens at the TVA, followed by the voters, and then by the standards. Usually, whoever is winning the TVA and method testing will likely win my ballot.

FWIW, in a world where every perfect argument is made by both sides, I think I go 60-40 for T.

C. MG Theory

MG theory is simultaneously highly abusive and totally necessary. I think it works best the stronger the actual abuse it's checking is. This begs the question of what I think "actual abuse" is. I think that PICs, delay CPs, and object fiat are abusive. I think that un-specced alts, actor CPs, and reading a negative framework are not abusive. I'm okay with Condo, especially if it's just one condo advocacy.

In general, I think a really clear MG shell with two or three standards is the best strategy for my ballot. The PMR should collapse to one voter and justify its existence. For the neg, I think you should go hard for one voter and weigh it in the LOR. I also am far more amenable to RVIs on MG theory than anything else since I think MG theory does require some chilling.

To this note, I am actually much more supportive of PMC theory. Read AFC or No Neg Fiat or any insane theory arg in the PMC and you get a better debate--I'll also give you more leeway on the PMR since the neg had two speeches to answer it.

D. Misc Aff

I think affirmatives can be conditional but I don't think it's fair for the PMR to kick the aff if prior aff speeches haven't established aff conditionality. Basically, the MG should say "we're condo" or don't kick the aff in front of me.

Aff tricks are funny, go for it.

2. NEG

A. Straight Up Neg

I did not go for this a ton. But I like to think I'm well informed and capable of evaluating it. I'm particularly fond of Econ DAs. I just love Econ tbh and believe it can be weighed supper convincingly. Outside of that, I think hyper-specific, small DAs are more convincing than general big stick ones. Like, yes, give me South African Agriculture DA or Space Junk DA.

Not super hot on general Tix but if you're listing specific senators and bills, I get a lot more compelled.

B. Kritik

I loved kritiks as a debater. I like them as a judge. In my time in debate, I read Edelman, Cap, Lacan, Deleuze, and Baudrillard. I consider myself familiar with most lit bases but that doesn't mean I'll backfill whatever the hell a microtexture is for you. "This makes no sense" is a voting issue.

I find "do both" perms very convincing. This is why a good kritik either needs to win that it has substantial, specific links to the affirmative (material or rhetorical, depends on what framing you use) which are DAs to the perm or that the kritik can solve the aff (not just the root cause of the aff).

However - and I think this might be controversial - I do not find sequencing perms convincing at all. I'm not even sure if they're really perms! I think they have little to no K solvency and might be abusive at a meta-debate level.

I think that framework is necessary but often a wash in rounds. Most generalized "ontology first" or "serial policy failure" warrants won't get you a frameout. However, frameworks can either spike the aff framework or the perm or weigh the impacts of the K higher.

Alts should be explained through solvency. I think that affs currently fail to contest alt solvency for the K and Ks get away with inane or nonexistent solvency. It seems that teams read DAs that are external offense but not actual solvency presses which allows the K to weigh its impacts against the DAs.

C. Topicality/Theory

I love topicality and theory on the neg. In my time, I wrote bidirectional interps, I ran spec, I ran must pass texts. I think that theory is nuanced, complicated, and really a question of what we want debate to be.

I think collapsing to a couple standards as outweighing or internal linking every other standard is the best path for the block. The same goes for collapsing to a single voter and weighing it against everything. I think MGs often read a bunch of standards but don't link them to voters so negatives can leverage that.

I paradigmatically evaluate We Meets as terminal defense. I think they functionally probably aren't but I think it's bad for debate if I don't treat them as terminal defense. That said, I don't know how I evaluate standards level offense against a We Meet. I think I err towards having to a-priori resolve the violation.

I think textuality always comes first on interpretations. If we are creating a norm, that text is our only stasis point. Poorly written interpretations should lose.

I have no idea what reasonability means. I think it's an upward battle to win anything other than counter-interpretations in front of me. When interpreations are "noncompetitive," I think the negative needs to be winning why an interp perm resolves for the standards of the counterinterpretations because I think it often doesn't. Absent this, I grant the aff implicit competition through the inclusion of the aff.

I'll vote for an RVI if it's warranted but I'm not sympathetic to narratives of "this theory is frivolous."

I have always been open to the idea of weighing a topical aff against theory or topicality but I'm not sure what this would require.

3. MISC

A. Auto-Drops

If you are non-black, you should not read afropess. And if you read this and think "aw damn, now I can't run pess," reevaluate please.

I think I am less afraid to drop people for actively being dicks to novices. I'll tank speaks first but don't test me.

B. Norms and Behaviors

Be nice. Operate in good faith and assume others are too, it makes life better.

Passing texts ASAP even when not asked is a good norm for everyone involved.

I will likely not vote on out-of-round behavior, especially if it is non-verifiable. This applies to "call out" Ks but also arguments like disclosure theory.

Cowardice is not a voting issue.

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.

hey what's poppinnn. i debated PF for colleyville on the yeehaw and ~national~ circuit.

what i think matters:

- tech > truth: if an argument is conceded/lack of responsive defense it manifests with 100% probability.

- second rebuttal should respond to offense from first rebuttal. only giving the first speaking team final focus to frontline is not a bro move

- summary: i don't really have a preference if you go line by line or big picture but make sure to sign post bc i can't draw arrows on my laptop :(

- final focus: just in general new in the 2 not cool. FF should mirror summary so if an argument isn't in summary i won't evaluate it in ff

- defense is sticky

- quality > quantity: i cannot stress how much more effective fleshing out one good argument is vs blippily extending subpoints A-H. this means collapsing and extending your offense (not just frontlining defense) in summary with a clear link story that is well warranted and impacted! (too often forgotten :c)

- theory: i will be straight up, i have like no experience with running/evaluating theory so if you do decide to run it there is a very high chance it won't go too well with me (high barrier for theory). if you wanna run theory just to trip a team up - don't. please.

- weighing: ok. weighing is great when it is done STRATEGICALLY and not just to get the words probability and magnitude on the flow. telling me you outweigh on magnitude bc 900 million people go into poverty is not weighing, it takes two (impacts) to tango. if you have the same impacts....LINK WEIGH!

- evidence: if you're trying to indict/have conflicting evidence please ᵖˡᵉᵃˢᵉ do the evidence comparison and analysis during the round, or else ur leaving it up to me and you may not like the outcome :( oh and if you call for evidence in round pls be speedy

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=anisha&search_last=navendra

^this is my partners paradigm, it’s way better than mine. i agree with 99% of it. if you see her tell her i said thanks (not tall brown girl) and feel free to ask questions

I am a lay judge.

I like a slower speech, with eye contact and one that is presented towards an audience. I like a speech that engages the audience, and is clear and concise. It should meet the criteria of the presentation.

Speed of Delivery

· - I am a parent judge, so please don’t go too fast. I would rather you develop a narrative in the round so that I am able to follow you.

· -That is not to say that you have to speak as if I was a child, but rather you speak at a moderate rate (similar to that of a conversation)

· -I prefer the quality of the argument over the substance of material you present.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

· -Summary should be slow, but address and condense the arguments in the round. I prefer big picture arguments over line by line. Drop arguments you aren't going to go for

Role of the Final Focus

· -This speech I find to be most important. Please tell me what your final arguments are AND why they are important in the context of the round

-Go big picture. Tell me exactly how I should decide my ballot.

-Please WEIGH.

Flowing/note-taking

· -I don't flow like a professional debater. I will take notes to the best of my ability. I may not catch everything.

· -In order to compensate for my inability to flow like other debate and/or coaches, speak slowly and explain your argument and why they outweigh your opponents.

-On that note, don't spam cards during rebuttal. I much prefer two flushed out responses that are carded and warranted over ten responses I won't understand.

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

I graduated from Plano West in 2019.

Preflow before the round please!

Speed is fine insofar as you are articulate and clear

I also don't like teams that speak quickly to card dump - card dumping doesn't make you a better debater, and I will drop every card you read without a warrant

Important things:

1. Second rebuttal does not need to respond to first rebuttal, but I highly advise for you to do so strategy-wise

2. No independent unrelated contentions in rebuttal - DAs that are related to your opponent's contentions are fine

3. First summary does not need to extend defense if it not responded to by second rebuttal

4. Hierarchy of arguments: carded warrants > uncarded warrant > carded but unwarranted empirics/statistics. If there's no warrant (carded or not), I won't vote for it

5. Always extend warrants. Saying the name of the card's author does not count as extending the warrant. I'd prefer you repeat the warrant and leave out the card name (I'll extend the card on the flow for you) than you saying "extend [card name]" and moving on

6. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Please use the extra minute in summary to do weighing/in-depth analysis. Weighing mechanisms should be set up in summary at the latest (feel free to start weighing in rebuttal!). If it's not in summary, I won't evaluate it in final focus. I also won't vote on new weighing mechanisms introduced in final focus unless I absolutely need to. If you don't weigh I'll just weigh on whatever I feel like

7. Collapse in summary. Frontlining =/= extending a contention. You must frontline AND extend the claim, warrant, impacts of your contention. "This argument is unwarranted" is an acceptable frontline

8. Terminalize your impacts - tell me why your impacts matter to me and to the round

9. Misconstrued evidence is my worst pet peeve. I'd prefer for case cards to not be paraphrased. Paraphrasing is fine in rebuttals, etc, but don't misconstrue. If you have statistics for your impact and they end up 100x larger or the scope suddenly changes by the time it's final focus, I won't evaluate it and I'll dock speaks

10. I won't evaluate new arguments in 2nd final focus. If your delink suddenly becomes a turn, or your impact suddenly becomes a million times bigger, or your link suddenly has a new "nuance" in 2nd final focus, I will drop the entire argument, so you might as well just keep the original argument

11. I won't vote for disclosure theory

12. Speaks: 28-30 unless you're condescending, sexist, racist, rude, misconstrue evidence etc. Please don't extend rounds by 20 mins by pulling up cards; if it takes unnecessarily long to pull up cards you will see docks in speaks

Evidence: I will call for evidence if it’s important in the round and either 1) anyone tells me to call for it or 2) I think it might be misconstrued based on previous knowledge. I know that as the round progresses sometimes cards get power tagged accidentally, and that’s fine, but if you straight up clip your cards or misconstrue them heavily I’ll dock your speaks and also possibly drop you

Theory: Don’t really know the tech side of theory and also really REALLY hate the trend of some teams running theory to confuse opponents instead of actually checking back abuse. If you want to check back abuse just explain the abuse and why I should drop the arg/debater intuitively.

If you have any questions, ask before round.