I did do debate for 4 years. I mainly did LD and PF so I'm quite traditional when it comes to both as well. I want you to use everything in your power and knowledge to win. I do not allow spreading to the point I don't understand. I will raise my hand when I can not understand you and if ignored then I simple will not evaluate you on that speech because I could not simply understand you. Good luck and have fun!

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

Restrictive paradigms are problematic for good debate... hear me out:

Debate, to me at least, has always been more about the round than the ballot. The round should determine how the ballot is written: a good judge should adapt to the debaters in the room and not the other way around. I'm willing to vote on anything you read in front of me insofar as you're able to defend your position as net-better than the alternative. There is an avenue available to the debaters to explain why certain positions/styles shouldn't be considered in my decision, but I'm not here to do that work for you.

I check myself as a "tab" judge when I'm forced to, though I believe people too often abuse that term. I'm not "tab with the exception of x or y." I'm just as likely to vote on a standard STOCK debate as I am on a more kritikal approach. You do you in the debate and you shouldn't have to worry about me.

I'm more than willing to clarify or discuss my paradigm before a debate should there be any questions/comments/concerns.

email chain cody.gustafson@dallasurbandebate.org

tl;dr: do what you do best, at whatever rate of delivery you can be clear at. My paradigm was previously much longer for no reason at all, so i shortened it. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have, but I kept what I thought were the quick hitters:

- Read whatever set or style of arguments you would like, my job is to evaluate the round through an offense/defense lens and vote for the team that makes the world a better place (i.e. won the debate, ya know). I frequently judge all types of debates (from policy v policy, k v k, and k v policy to world schools, parli, policy, LD, and college debate to middle school debate, etc) and am more interested in seeing good debate rather than any particular style of debate.

- Warrant & evidence comparison, impact terminalization, historical examples, global context, and 'telling the story' of the round late in rebuttals are typically the content choices that help sway my decision when a clear winner is not decided by the flow.

- I don’t have any predispositions regrading the content, structure, or style of your arguments. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm absent a team winning an argument for me to evaluate it another way. Clear impact weighing in the rebuttals and evidence/warrant comparison are typically what I notice in teams I enjoy judging.

- I attempt to be a ’technical’ judge in every round I watch. I try to keep a detailed flow, and use my flow to evaluate the round that happened. If the flow doesn’t decide a clear winner, I will then look to the quality of evidence/warrants provided. I tend to find I’m less interested in where an argument in presented than others. While clear line-by-line is always appreciated, some of my favorite debaters to watch were overview-heavy debaters who made and answered arguments in the debate while telling a persuasive story of the debate. I would rather you sound organized and clear than following a template throughout each flow.

- Instead of framing debates through ‘body counts’, I am much more persuaded by framing as ‘who saves the most lives’, or who has the best advocacy for change. Sometimes debaters talk about claims of very real violence and problems for various communities with little regard to the real world implications of their political advocacies.

- I tend to prefer specific plan texts over vague plan texts. I also like specific internal link claims and impact scenarios. Specific instances of war are more persuasive to me than ‘goat power war’ claims.

- In reformism v revolution debates, I prefer explanations that pinpoint why the conditions of the status quo are the way they are, and can best explain casualty for violence. This is where historical examples become especially important, and where warrant comparison becomes paramount.

TLDR: This is your round so debate the way you feel most comfortable, my only recommendation is to explain why you should win the round instead of why they should lose. I have experience with most forms of argumentation including the K and performance. I competed in NPDA for Texas Tech so speed and technical debate are something I consider tools. My only serious rule is to respect your opponents and avoid arguments we would all consider unethical. As a general rule, I will almost always default to tech over truth, if you concede a sheet of paper, pathological appeals won't win you my ballet.

LONG VERSION:

Yo, excited to judge your round. I have over 7 years of debate experience from all levels from novice to national finals for 2018 in NPDA. In HS, I did policy and a very small amount of LD. I have freelanced coached and judged almost every debate event, and don't have an argument preference. I have been out of the game for nearly a year so my flowing isn't as a fast as it once was. Clarity is a huge issue for me, but if you label and signpost arguments clearly I should be able to keep up with most speeds.

traditional paradigm: NA win offense, win round

AFF:

K affs and performative affs are fine so long as you are able to justify why you should be able to read them when challenged on things like framework and T. Preferably explain why your performance is UQ and K2 solving for (X), absent that explanation for the solvency mechanism I tend to be more lenient towards generic link scenarios.

Policy affs: Whatever aff you read is fine, but I find it nearly impossible to vote for a plan meets needs aff due to the lack of embedded offense. Beyond that, I don't believe it is my role as a judge to control what advocacies you're reading.

All theoretical objections to the negative strat must be read in the 2ac or as round framing at the bottom of the aff. This obviously changes in something incredibly abusive happens in the block, but those cases are few and far between, e.g. they read a new K in the 1nr or refuse to provide block evidence. I need a reason to drop the team if you want this argument to win you the round. I strongly dislike the current trend in policy that collapses theory into a single block of text on the offending sheet, so please put it on its own sheet.

In the end, to vote affirmative I want a clearly defined change in the squo and reasons that change is preferable in cost-benefit analysis.

NEG:

Thesis: I don't like all off in the 1nc and all on in the 2nc, it's sloppy and leads to less interesting debates. It also hurts you strategically because you don't actually start to develop ideas from the 1nc until the 1nr. I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying I will have a much more difficult time voting for it.

T/Theory: I will vote for this type of argument when it is deployed and argued like a win condition. If you want to win my ballet on T, you will need impacts on fairness and education and not just a blip in the voter section. (AFF: please meet your counter interps) Consider T a disad and argue it as such. I default to competing interps unless instructed differently, and will not do standard weighing for either team.

Disad: Read them? I don't need to go in-depth here, I hope.

CP: The role of a counter plan is to either prove an opportunity cost to the aff or function as an advantage take out. Topical counter plans are fine, but definitely a fun theory debate to have. Absent external offense or a solvency deficit for the aff I probably won't vote on a floating advocacy.

K: I was a K hack when I debated. This has two main implications for your round, I hate hearing bad Ks and I am familiar with most critical lit. If you feel confident in your ability to run a critique effectively, then please read them because they open up a level of topic discussion that can't be accessed by reading a simple disad. If you don't understand how a K works or what your author is defending, I am not the judge to read a K in front of. In terms of lit, I am most familiar with Foucault, and D&G, but have at least surface-level knowledge on most arguments. I tend to vote on arguments that result in either a material or epistemological change to the status quo so yeah explain that.

On-case: Solvency take-outs aren't a voter unless they are paired with either an advocacy that solves the aff or external offense. Solvency turns are a voter. Just reading cards on the aff isn't productive beyond the 1nc; I need a reason it matters for it to change my ballet.

Strategy: Beat your opponents vertically, instead of horizontally. I.E. a lot of explanatory and interactive arguments on a single position is much more likely to win my ballet instead of going for 10 off in the 2nr.

Kicking arguments is fine if you answer all the offense on it.

MISC:

CONDO is good, but that is up for debate in the round. That being said, I will drop a team on condo bad if the opp wins the arg.

Floating Pics are generally bad, but if the aff doesn't notice...

ROB debates are generally a waste of your time, the role of the ballet is to say who wins the round. Instead, tell me the role of the judge or just tell me what offense to prioritize via weighing (probably faster TBH)

I tend to dislike rejection alts (reject the res, reject the aff, etc), but I will vote on them. It's just going to take more work on your end.

Don't be rude or hateful. I will drop you and the speaks will show it.

Speaker point range: 27-30 Average: 28.7

LD:

I am traditionally a policy judge so my approach to LD tends to fall along those lines. The easiest pathway to my ballet is warrant comparison and impact analysis. I dislike arguments like "my value supersedes theirs" unless they include a specific reason why that's a voter.

Beyond that, a clearly defined weighing mechanism for the round is critical. Am I an educator, a policymaker, or a Nihilist? All three of these fundamentally shape how I view the round, so tell me what kind of judge you want me to be. Absent this, I will default to cost-benefit analysis to evaluate your claims and determine my ballet.

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

I have done policy and LD for 3 years. I currently do parliamentary debate and IPDA debate.

What I like: I really enjoy line by line argumentation. Structure is key for a good debate. I enjoy critical arguments or anything fem

What I don't like: I really enjoy critical arguments but I rarely vote on K. I don't like cases that have no impacts or structures. As a female debate, I understand the sexism that some female debaters may face. So in no circumstance would I listen to an argument that is inherently racist or sexist.

Debate Experience: Highschool: 4 years Public Forum, National Speech & Debate Association. College: 4 yrs Individual Parliamentary Debate (IPDA), National Circuit Parliamentary Debate, NPDA & NFA Lincoln Douglas Debate (LD).

CX Paradigm: Overall- Have fun! Debate is a great, educational activity. I vote on the flow. I am looking for clash and clear argumentation. Read whatever you want in front of me.

Affirmatives: I like to see a clean plan, advantages, and framing. Please explain how you get to your impacts. I tend not to like "conflict X leads to nuc war" without a unique or detailed scenario explaining how you get there.

Kritiks: Feel free to read your K. Do not assume I know your author or the thesis of your Kritik. They should be explained clearly and have links to the resolution, the aff, or the debate space.

DA's: Please be sure the DA has a clear link to the aff, I will not make one for you.

CP's: I am looking for how it is competitive w/ the aff and CP solvency. Competitiveness can be shown via mutually exclusive argumentation. If the aff is competitive via net benefits, I am looking for a clear link between the counter plan and how it resolves the net benefit. I will not automatically assume because you are reading a net benefit to the CP that the CP automatically resolves it, you have to do that work.

Perms on CP's: Perms are a test of competition. In my debate career, I read many perms. I think having net bens to the perm will work in your advantage. I do not accept perms after the 2AC, so if they are brought up in the rebuttals, I will not flow them.

DA to CP: I think that DA's to the CP should have cards. I also think that DA's to the CP can be run alongside Perms of CP. Negative should be able to collapse to their best argument.

Condo CP's & Theory: Status of your CP should be established when asked or before then. I think that conditional CP's are acceptable. Kicking out of arguments it's a strategic move for negative teams to prioritize arguments they are winning. Additionally, CX has backside rebuttals. So I generally tend to think condo good. However, if the negative loses the Condo theory debate on the flow, I will vote aff.

Perms on Kritik's: I think that Perm's on K's are generally acceptable, but can be an uphill battle. The debater's must be able to explain how the perm can resolve the harms of the K. That being said, perm's are, once again, a test of competition, NOT an advocacy, so if the aff cannot resolve the K w/out advocating for the perm, it will lose my ballot.

Topicality/Spec: T can be fundamentally important w/ abusive aff's. I'm familiar w/ effects T, extra T, and definitions (substantially, etc) T. I need a clear interp, violation, standards, and voters to be able to vote for T. Spec is flowed on a separate page than the aff.

Answering T/Spec: Counter Interps and Counter Standards are offense against the T. I think a we meet is necessary, but defensive. T is apriori & I will vote for or against it as such.

Theory: Theory is a strategy. I view it in a very gamey way. Feel free to read whatever kind of theory you want in front of me. Theory must also be formatted as interp, violation, standards, and voters.

Collapsing: Please collapse. Negatives: By the rebuttals, I should know if you are going for the CP/DA or the T.

Impact Framing: It exists for a reason. Please use it. I don't want to do the work for you. To me- impact calculus makes the difference in close rounds and differentiates the scenario I should be buying over the other.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: Feel free to read whatever you want in front of me.

Value & Criterion: Please ensure that your value, criterion, etc are clear, well defined, apply to the resolution.

Contentions: Looking for clear tag lines that explain the thesis of your contention.

Overall: I will look at value & criterion first to see how I should evaluate your contentions. In order to look here, I need a reason why the aff or neg value/criteria should be preferred over the other. Second, I look for dropped argumentation on the flow & how this impacts the arguments in the round overall. The effects or impacts that come from your contentions matter most of all to my ballot. Why are they more important than your opponents?

Public Forum Paradigm: I like to see as much clash as possible. Please interact with your opponents contentions/ counter contentions. I like arguments with clear tag lines that explain the thesis of your contention. Evidence is crucial, please ensure your arguments are warranted.

Cross-ex: Please do not speak over one another. Allow your opponent to finish their answer before asking another question.

Rebuttals: This is the time to synthesize your arguments and explain why I should be voting for you. Please do not bring up new evidence or simply repeat your contentions.

Speaker Points: Please speak at whatever pace you are most comfortable with. I can keep up with speed, however, please be respectful of your opponent. You will not earn high speaker points on my ballot if there is unnecessary sass given to your opponents and partner.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

Eight Years of Judging Experience

Over a year of Coach/Clinic Experience (Interp)

No collegiate circuit experience

Event Preference(s): LD, Congress, Extemp (Persuasive, Informative, Domestic, Int'l) & Interp

CX Debate: Stock Issues

AFF: I rarely know the topic before I enter a CX round. Be clear and make sure your policy and topic are deeply connected. Cut cards if you plan on spreading through your first speech. I want to know exactly what the plan aims to achieve. Without this clarity, there will be no way I can understand any arguments throughout the round.

NEG: Keeping with policy debate theory and norms, arguments like CPs and Ks can and should be run by the negative if they're capable, but always with clarity and fairness. Don't deliberately confuse your opponents or judges with spreading or elaborate arguments. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, even if I do. If you can't run off-case arguments with this in mind, stick to on-case.

As always, ask specific paradigm questions before the round; after the decision has been made, there's no way I can clarify paradigm in a useful way.

LD Debate: Tab

1. Framework is King. Make it clear, defined, relatable, and relevant. It is not separate from the criterion.
2. If Framework is King, then Voters are Queen. Please include them.
3. Keep clarity and delivery in mind. Words, words, words.

Congress:

1. POs: you're not the reps' boss; you are leading the session. Be respectful, consistent, and know your stuff if you're going to run.
2. Reps: this is about persuasion, speaking, and education. Have your points prepared, but do not read them from a script. Adapt to the round. If your words are not more beautiful than silence, then be silent.

Interp/Extemp:

1. Clarity: every letter of every word is meant to be heard (Interpers, especially if it's a word in the accent of the character).
2. Variety: give me vocal variety in tone, pitch, pace, tempo, volume, etc.
3. Impact: for extempers, impact is why your prep-time research became a decision or a summary; for interpers, your character(s) is/are not the same at the beginning and end of the piece. Show me that.

Background:

HS competitor at Van High School (TX) from 2010-2014

Attended The University of Texas at Tyler, BA in communication and political science

College competitor (Parli) 2015-2018

Director of Forensics at Lake Travis HS (2018-2019)

Current MA student in communication (UTT)

Assistant Coach at The University of Texas at Tyler (2019-Present)

.

Judging philosophy

TLDR: Be nice and debate the way you feel most comfortable.

If I am not on an email chain PLEASE repeat all important texts (alt, ROB, interpretations, etc.). I want to have them on my flow word for word.

I don't really care what style the debate round takes as long as there are warranted arguments. I want you to weigh arguments for me at the end of the round. I base speaker points mainly on the arguments made in the round rather than actual speaking style bc speaks are ableist, sexist, racist, etc.. Be kind to each other in rounds. The easiest way to get bad speaker points from me is to be rude in CX, make ad hominem attacks, or be offensive. I can keep up with most speed and I am fine with it. I will clear/loud/slow you twice before I stop flowing. Off case in LD is cool with me but if your opponent is running a more "traditional" case don't assume you just win - their args are still valid and will very much be weighed.

T/framework: I don't like voting on unnecessary theory, show me proven abuse. I have a pretty high threshold here. Also, args that theory is problematic are totally valid, make them if they are applicable to the situation.

CP ground: CPs are fine, advantage CPs are my fav. PICs are probably cheating? I don't know, this is probably an instance where a super tight theory debate would persuade me but obviously I'll still flow it and vote there if I need to.

DAs:

Don't assume I will fill in the blanks for you on the typical impact scenarios, you still need to explain it. We have all heard that extinction scenario a million times so one more won't hurt. Make sure the link story makes sense and isn't super far fetched, I'm a sucker for probability.

Ks:

Cool, love them, but don't assume I know every phil argument ever. Be prepared to thoroughly explain it to me and your opponent. If you are unwilling or unable to answer questions about it in cross then I will probably grant your opponents quite a bit of wiggle room here. Ks without an alt operate as a DA in my mind, don't be afraid to kick the alt if that's the right strat. I hate generic links. I also hate generic alts - don't just "alt- reject".

Performance:

I was primarily a performance/ID politics debater in college so I am here for this, speak your truth. Remember to tell me why the ballot is important to you.

Parli specific:

I don't know if this is considered old fashioned now or whatever but first and last minute of the speech is protected time - let her speak!

All points of order should be assumed under consideration. Please don't just sit there and argue. Make the point and the response and move on, I promise I'm flowing.

If you have time to write me a copy of important texts that would be super. If not, repeat them slowly please.

.

Feel free to ask questions before the round. I disclose when I can but not every tournament is cool with that/I respect the schedule.

Email: neelyj8950@gmail.com

I will vote for the competitor with the most offense at the end of the round. Speaker points will be deducted for offensive or rude behavior.

Danielle Starr

Stephen F. Austin State University 22' (family studies & pre-law)

Please add me to your email evidence chain: daniellestarr32@gmail.com

Policy Debate Paradigm:

I am a Tab Judge, so I will vote on anything that is supported and debated well.

I highly encourage structured arguments, offense and defense, and impact debate.

Notes: If spreading then please pop tag lines, and respectful decorum is a must.

Good luck!

Stock Issues

– Topicality

– Significance of Harm

– Inherency

– Solvency

– Advantage Over Disadvantage

Sincerity is key to a successful performance. Characterization, introductions, and pace follow. 

Be Civil and polite, not condescending.
No excessive spreading where it can’t be understood. Speak Clearly.

Email: Aryn.mf.walker@gmail.com

In a nutshell: Run whatever you want to, but tell me how to evaluate it and make sure I can understand it. Generally, I'm psyched to see a team run just about anything that they're particularly good at running (with the exception of overtly prejudiced arguments Please make your arguments clear. You’re supposed to do the heavy lifting here – I should not have to decode what you’re saying. I’ll ignore name dropping, philosopher drive-bys, and argumentation shorthand. If someone reading your speech had to read a sentence twice to understand it, then it won’t be convincing when I hear it. Rebuttals are key for me. Don’t just shuffle around and regurgitate what’s been said in the constructives – provide analysis, re-argumentation, and clarity. And remember, we're not weighing whose evidence is better, rather whose arguments are better.

T- I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise specified. The only real standard on T is limits and I, therefore, will filter much of the 2ac offense as well as 2nc explanations of the violation through that lens. When going for this argument it would help to treat T very much like a disad and having clear articulations of the distinctions you make between the definitions you have read and framing arguments to tell me how to evaluate them. I think that T is underutilized and if done well is cool. When debating T having reasons to justify modest forms of unpredictability, why extra T is good etc as ways generate offense on the limits debate. Similarly, specific examples of ground lost and smart distinctions between good and bad ground will help section of this debate for me. Nuance is key.

DA'S
Good Disad debates are good. I am of the opinion the politics disad are maybe suspect in the conjunction of link and internal link chains, that said framing arguements on this flow are important for me. Justifications for probability, magnitude, and time frame can really make or break alot of these close debates and I think spinning link and uniqueness questions is good.

CPs
I really like a good CP debate. These are fun arguments all counter-plans are theoretically suspect but that's on you to explain. Explain why the counterplan solves at least some or all of the aff, that is important. Slow down on the text of the counterplan so I can catch it. Have a clearly articulated net benefit. Theory alone is insufficient to beat the counterplan, I think it should be paired with some sort of solvency deficit.

The K—I have no problem with the K, if your framework is couched fairly. I do, however, think that they ought to be topic specific with a link explanation that assumes the action of the plan. Statism probably should not be a round winner for me, unless the other team screwed up fairly badly. On this topic, a sophisticated Marxism criticism would be a good choice. A good way to summarize my views of the kritik is that ideally it ought to function as an internal link turn to the affirmative. For example, an affirmative with 3 advantages which all terminalize in nuclear war would be easily susceptible to criticisms which indicate why the methodology deployed by the affirmative makes the international system more chaotic and unstable—because the implicit internal link turn is that the aff method makes nuclear war more likely. You should theoretically be able to beat the aff without cheap shot frameworks that prevent the aff from accessing the 1AC. This perspective should exclude most generic criticisms which don’t adequately deliberate the outcome of the affirmative, but encourages k’s to be as well researched as any other argument and to authentically respond to the aff. I feel the same way about critical affirmatives. Ideally, the aff would still defend the resolution, unless coupled with a good defense of why that perspective is bad. Good critical affirmatives defend the topic and use the veins of critical literature available to them from research on the topic to essentially control every internal link argument. Critical affirmatives should include at a bare minimum some sort of statement of advocacy coupled with a framework. Please don’t hold out on 100% of your framework evidence for the 2AC/1AR. Give me some concept of how your positions operate in terms of the role of the ballot early and often.

Theory
I really enjoy good theory debates. Bad theory debates are at the other end of the spectrum. I also really like non-conventional theory shells. Nuance, specificity, and clarity are key for any shell. When reading theory, make sure to slow down for your interp so I know exactly what the shell is. An RVI is fine if you justify it well.

Speed
Speed is fine.
- Try not to read at top speed if you're hitting a novice. You can still go fast, just make it bearable.
- I won’t vote off of things not on my flow. If I can’t flow you I will shout “clear” as many times as necessary for me to flow you. Be-aware though that if I'm calling clear, I am missing arguments that I won't vote on, no matter how clearly they are articulated in the next speech.
- Give me a sec when switching offs so i can find it on my computer.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

NSDA update:

I love judging here. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Athens in East Texas. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.