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.

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

POLICY

I will listen to any argument presented, but I think it is up to the debaters to explain why I should vote on it. As long as you are winning that it is an argument that I should be listening to, then I will evaluate it. This also means that the debaters are responsible for articulating how I evaluate each position. I need to know how my ballot functions.
Topicality - My default position is that there needs to be an abuse story. I am open to arguments otherwise, but be aware if you expect to win on potential abuse you need to spend a lot of time arguing why I should vote on potential abuse.

Disads - Whatever is probably fine. I think your internal link story should make sense.
Counterplans - Whatever is probably fine without any theoretical objections won by the aff.
Theory - Make sure you tell me how my ballot functions. I tend to think I should reject the argument, not the team. If you think I should reject the team you are going to have to do a lot of work to convince me that that is the best remedy.
Kritiks - I'm not as well versed in the literature as I would like to be. I do not have a problem with Ks (aff or neg), but don't expect me to know what <insert your author> says about the topic. As such, without reading me the evidence, just telling me what the author says does not resonate with me. I want to know how my ballot functions in the world of the alternative and on what scale (am I taking a stance in the debate community, is it just an affirmation of the discussion we had, etc).

WHEN JUDGING AT UIL TOURNAMENTS...

I think you should adhere to the norms for the organization in which you are competing. I intend to respect UIL rules by reducing your speaker points if you choose to spread. I am able to flow your arguments and will make a decision based on the arguments in the round.

When judging CX I prefer a stock issue style debate but I am open to any argument. As long as you make your case I will flow it and make my decision on which team makes the better case and arguments overall. I do vote on Topicality but it's got to be a clear violation and you must win the "better definition" debate. I will also listen to K's and CP's that are ran correctly. At the end of the day which case makes the greatest REAL WORLD impact should win.

LD I prefer a Value debate over framework. Neg side should clash with Aff so if you are trying to argue a different format than aff it is like two ships passing in the night. LD by design is a debate over morals and philosophy (what is better for society) but again I will listen to any well structured argument.

Extemp Make me laugh, use crediable sources and only walk if you know how to do it. Don't let the walk mess up your speech. I want the sources but I am more intersted in your analsis of the topic.

Spreading: If you spread and it is clear good for you but I will always believe in quality over quanity. If we can not understand your arguments are you really getting to the essence of SPEECH and debate? In person if i visablly drop my pen I am no longer flowing your speech, online I will simply say clear, please adjust.

Hi!

For background, I debated the UIL and TFA circuit in high school (small school debater with experience on the nats circuit). I'm ok with spreading but be clear/emphasize main points. I'm comfortable with non-traditional cases/arguments (Theory, multi-level frameworks, etc.) but i'm iffy with Kritiks. If you run them, you'll need to weigh them big-picture wise if you want me to buy them over topical arguments. Make sure to be clear on your voters and weigh impacts.

Overall:

Speed (Spreading): Don't spread if you can't do it properly! Speak quickly but if I can't understand you...I'm out.

Flow (Prep Time): USE YOUR PREP TIME! It is there for a reason. If you drop something or your argument isn't well rounded and you didn't use your prep time....hmmm...see the problem here?

Style (Interaction): I prefer the debaters to not get nasty towards each other but I also want you to stand your ground. There is a style to doing this without sounding like a teenager who isn't getting their way.

Arguments: You have your case...present it. Ask the questions that are needed.

I am a fairly quick thinker so if you miss some of the lingo that's okay but be sure I can pick out what is what in your argument. It should be well developed and structured so that both the judge and opponent(s) can flow your case.

LD: I prefer a round that is both debaters giving their cases at their best. Don't look for what I "prefer" or care about seeing; just give me what you've got and leave it all in the room.

Policy: I think my policy paradigm is the same as my LD. I love a good cross; it's there to ask as many questions as you can and get as much info as you can...be aggressive here if you have to.

sarah.gonzales@rcisd.org

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.

VCX: I want to see good debating. I appreciate strong cases and find merit to traditional approaches to debate, but I appreciate more progressive forms of debate as well. As long as there is a strong understanding between you and your opponent, I'm fine with most anything. I do expect good signposting and appreciate a roadmap before the speech. I vote for the better argument, which usually comes down to strong cost-benefit analysis, impact calculus, timeframe, etc.

VLD: I want to see value/criterion clash. I want to see clash in general. I have seen debates with little to no clash, and in doing so it makes the job harder for me because I have to extend arguments for debaters. I should not have to extend crucial arguments for you. I usually vote on what is said, not what could have been said and wasn't. Please make sure to go through the flow and point out arguments in your favor. I find that I can be a very stock stock issues judge, but that doesn't mean anything not stock is not something I will vote for. If you give me a good argument with a valid basis and explain the significance of the argument, I will vote on it.

NLD/NCX: I was a novice debater once. I know if you get confused or don't have a complete grasp of debating yet, especially in the first couple of tournaments. Make sure you have a good foundational knowledge of your case. I want to see you do your best in coming up with arguments on the fly during rebuttals. Make sure you try your best to go through the flow and really do a good impact calc or value clash.

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.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

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.

DEBATE: Competed in LD for the last three years of High School (graduated 2019). I am comfortable with whatever argumentation that you'd like. But if you speed, I prefer that you either slow down on taglines or add me to the email chain (allygperkins@gmail.com). Because it's LD, provide some sort of framework or adapt to your opponent's so I know what to vote on in order for you to be able to access your impacts. I generally tend to go with tech over truth, except in the case of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc...

***Debate was such a fun time in my life when in high school, but I know how stressful it can be. That said, enjoy yourself and have fun. One way we can do that is to make sure that we are inclusive and accessible to all. I find that some debaters believe that cross-x is a time to "flex" and assert dominance/privilege. Condescending mansplaining, consistent interruptions of your opponent, or otherwise aggressive behavior will not be accepted, either resulting in a loss (at a maximum) or a decimation of speaks (at a minimum). Debate is cool, but it's not important enough to do anything that makes people feel unsafe/uncomfortable.***

SPEECH: I competed in poetry, prose, OO, and info off and on for four years of high school (again, graduated in 2019)

In interp events, I look for a compelling story line, well developed characterization, clear and concise teaser/intro, and ultimately dedication to the story telling

In platform and limited prep, I look for confidence, time allocation, speech structure, and enjoy humour in the right context.

Ultimately, speech events are all about what you make of them and I am just here to watch you use your platform to discuss subjects that are important to you!

I'm a college debater so you can consider me a tab judge. I'm cool with any arguments and speed is fine as long as you signpost

T- i don’t usually vote on topicality or theory unless it is something obviously something unfair to the debaters. but make sure to somehow impact out your t if you are going to make it a voter

CP- Cp’s are fine. pic cps are cool but not a fan of conditions cp. if you choose to run one make sure you do it right. biggest thing is that people do them wrong.

also you have to win on every part of the counterplan for me to vote on it net benefit’s solvency etc

K- Kritiks are fine but don’t let them distract you from the debate world to where it becomes a theory debate rather than it being a “policy debate” K aff are cool too just make the framework clear

DA/OC- easiest way to get my vote is to prove case outweighs or solvency issues.

dont be afraid to ask any other questions and good luck!

anthonypreciadoxc@gmail.com

Quick look - I want you to tell me how to vote, why to vote that way as opposed to how your opponent says how I should vote, and how you won that way. I default to policy maker I'm fine with any arguments however I expect you to break it down and give me all the information I need for that round. I leave theory arguments up to the debaters. I'm fine with speed but I want you to differentiate tag lines and evidence. Also signpost and if I cannot understand you I will say clear. debate above the flow and tell me what the ballot means.

Bio - I did debate for 4 years at Mt. Pleasant High School. I graduated 2018 and made it to quarter finals in UIL state. I was more policy orientated but did run kritiks and kritikal affs. I now am a debate assistant coach for Mt. Pleasant but I haven't taken a full deep dive to the topic so make sure to explain the events of the topic as needed in the round. Any additional information I know but it is not said in the round won't factor into my decision.

Theory/framework - I leave theory arguments up to the debaters and If you're trying get me to vote on it, tell me what the ballot means. Tell me how the debate should be and why that's good, how your opponent doesn't do that and why that's bad, and why it's important to vote for you. Simply winning the interpretation and violation is not enough for me to vote for you. Tell me what the ballot means.

Kritiks - I'm fine with kritiks however I'm not all read up on all k lit which is why I want kritiks to be explained in the round. Don't just use buzzwords and authors' names without telling me what that means. Adequately explain the link and the alt. I also still want the kritik weighed against your opponents impacts or why that it is a prerequisite and highly to important to value your impacts before anything else. On the framing/framework debate I'll vote on any framework however that does not mean you win the round. Tell me why your framework is better than your opponent and why I should vote on yours. Then tell me how you won within that framework. Also tell me what happens post ballot and what the ballot means.

Speed - The argument of whether spreading is good or bad and whether I should vote a team down or not is up to the debaters. However I will say I believe debate should be accessible to everyone. With that said, I'm fine with speed as long as you are articulate. If you're mumbling or slurring words don't spread. Your speech should be loud and articulate. Take a small pause when switching flows. Differentiate between Headers/flow, taglines, evidence. Your analytical arguments should be a little slower to allow me to flow it all. Signposting, numbering, and labeling will also help me follow along. If at some point I cannot understand you I will yell "clear". I will only do this twice and afterwards I will stop flowing.

misc. - speaker points are evaluated on how organized and structured you are as well the quality of your arguments. I would like to be included in the email chain - anthonypreciadoxc@gmail.com . I don't time prep time for flashing or emailing evidence unless it is excessive or you're taking time to compile files. If something happens to your laptop that's on you. I'm fine with open cx and prompting as long as the tournament allows me to. However and should not be abusive. cx shouldn't be taken over by one person and the speech shouldn't be taken over by one person. speaker points will be docked for this. Also if the person speaking didn't say it then i'm not flowing it.

Voters - Do not leave the 1ac in the 1ac or the 1nc in the 1nc. If it's not extended then it won't be flowed to the next speech. A good debate is about directly refuting your opponents answer's answers. Compare ya's answers and tell me why to prefer yours. Look into the warrants and and the quality of the argument. Tell me what winning an argument does for the round. Do impact calc where you tell me how I should view which impact outweighs. Then do impact comparison where you tell me the impacts of both you and your opponent and how yours outweighs. I need you to tell me what happens post ballot if I vote for you and why that's better than the alternative of voting for your opponent. Don't look at all your arguments in a vacuum of one flow. What does each argument do for the round. Debate above the flow and tell me how everything connects at the end. Tell me what my ballot does and why it matters

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Overview:I am a tab judge and will vote on whatever FW you put in front of me. If I need to default in stock situations, I will default to a comparative justification framework, prioritizing offense and defense. Across all events, I tend to remain the same on most issues, particularly theory. I tend to put theory at the top of the flow and view it as a procedural argument. Furthermore, I tend to prefer more abstract phil arguments, so if you want to run Ks, go for performance, or ask me to engage in a particular role as a judge, I am alright with that.

Please use spiesva@gmail.com for email chains and any questions.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.

Other prevalent issues:

Clipping Cards:

I consider clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence as intentionally altering the text or highlights in such a way as to detract meaning from the card. I realize that is a pretty broad definition, so if you would like to run some sort of indict and theory argument, here are the standards I hold the card to. Is the alteration of the text germane? Is the alteration of the next meant to recontextualize the article from a different conclusion? I also consider the effects of the change to determine intent. The smaller the difference and impact of the clipping, the more sympathetic I am to the argument that the debater made a mistake.

If you are paraphrasing instead of cutting cards in LD or PF for a more traditional judge or tournament, I am okay with that. Especially if I am the odd judge out on a panel, please do not feel like you need to adapt away from this more traditional style. I would ask that you have the articles accessible if I need to access them to check evidence indicts.

Troll Theory:I would argue 99% of the time, students know what they are doing when they run a more troll-type theory strategy (League Theory, Shoe Theory, Font Theory, ect.). I understand there is value in running these extreme arguments to draw attention to issues in the debate community or a particular debate circuit. However, I also feel that these arguments are run against unsuspecting competitors as an easy way to the ballot. Unless you have, IN FRONT OF ME, asked both your opponent and me if it is okay to run this type of theory, and we have both consented to it, then the round will be a tough uphill battle for you, and I will most likely give you an auto vote down.

Extreme Arguments:I am not very sympathetic to extreme arguments like spark or wipeout. Running these extreme impact turns seems to be a strategy that is used to make an easy way to the ballot when facing a newer competitor or one that comes from a more traditional circuit. Also, I am uncomfortable with allowing students to advocate for things like nuclear war or genocide, so even if your opponent can handle the argument on a tech level, I will still most likely vote you down.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Theory/ T:Much like in the overview, I tend to put this at the top of the flow; for me, theory has to be procedural as I am resolving a rule to the game to determine who won the game. For example, I can only determine who won a Game of Magic: the Gathering by determining if the goal was to get my opponent's life down to zero or some other win condition.

RVIs:I think RVIs are crucial for getting the theory offense of the flow for your opportunities. When considering the offense of the RVI, I would like to see work done on the voters for the in-round abuse story. I delineate this standard from what I most commonly see: if you give me some unfairness/ abuse story but do not tell me why I vote on it, I am less inclined to provide you with the offense because I feel that point I would be interfering. When answering the RVI, I am not super sympathetic to just kicking the theory argument, especially if the RVI goes for some sort of time-skew argument; I think the much safer strat for me would be to put actual ink on the argument.

The most important part of T and other theory shells:I see many students who focus on the top half of T and do little work when it comes to extending or interacting with the standards (ground, limits, predictability) and voters. For me to even consider T as an issue in the round, I need to see some sort of offense coming from the bottom half of the argument.

Disads:Defenitly okay with you going for disad offense in the round. If you are in front of a more traditional panel and I am the odd duck, do not feel obligated to go beyond this offense into some other argument if the judge will either a) not flow or b) hold it against you in some way. Oftentimes, I see that students will avoid going for straight defense on the D.A. I am assuming that is because I put such an emphasis on offense in my paradigm. If that is the case, feel free to go for defense and indict parts of the D.A. I just ask that you flush it out, or if you are using it as a time suck, avoid making it a huge voter in the back half of the debate.

C.P.'s: As a straight policy argument, I am okay with all C.Ps. What I see students shy away from in the back half of the debate if they choose to go for straight N.B. offense is extrapolating or citing evidence as a reason why I buy the N.B. Be sure to spend some time explaining the evidence. This is not so much because I do not flow; rather, I like to make sure I am not interfering with the net benefit, as that seems easy to do. Of course, I understand that most of you will go for a more theory-oriented argument on the C.P., so here is a summary of my thoughts. Multipleworlds: Yes, I evaluate all C.P.s through a multivariate argumentation lens; however, because these types of arguments create a different space, I buy perms and conditionality as its own space as well. In other words, I am okay with you, waiting to go for the test in the last debate speech.

Kritiks:

These are my favorite arguments to evaluate; however, please do not use them as an easy way to the ballot, which I think can happen in two ways. First, debaters will use the technical nature of the Kritik to overwhelm more trad circuit students or newer debaters. Second, debaters will use identity politics, not their identity, to win the round. Please DO NOT exploit other people's identities and experiences to get my ballot; this will be an auto-vote down if it occurs.

In terms of evaluating links, this is where Kritik debates can get messy for me. I find that most debaters will read literature for the link and focus more on the impact of the K itself. I understand that this is a time choice; however, keep in mind that the more specific the link, the easier it will be to pull the trigger of the K. Often, I think this issue can be solved with a particular FW for the K.

I do put the alt at the top of the flow as a method of framing unless told otherwise. Whether pre-fiat or post-fiat, resolving the impacts of the K requires me to view the round through the alt mechanism of the K.

In terms of authors a literature, I am most comfortable with gender, set. col. and biopower type literature. I am familiar with most other common K lits, but if you are reading someone you want to make sure I know, feel free to ask, and I can give my knowledge of that particular author or literature.

Lincoln Douglass Debate:

Regarding progressive or more circuit-style LD, please see my above paradigm, as I feel this will answer most of your questions.

Trad and UIL Style LD:

I try my best to adapt to students insofar as letting them the types of arguments they would like to run. However, I would discourage you from running highly technical arguments in a traditional LD setting. I totally get that winning on tech is an easy way to the ballot. However, I think especially at smaller tournaments; keep in mind this may be one of the few tournaments your opponent may get to attend within the year.

Value Framing:

I have four standards when considering values as a functional for framework:

1)It's an end in itself and necessarily apropos to another value. This generally means the value should have more terminal impacts (not necessarily existential) coming out of the 1AC.

2) I am generally sympathetic to intrinsic links to the resolution as a form of offense for the debate. I think debaters ought to qualify this offense by telling me what they are bringing to the debate and using that value to meet the intrinsic part of the resolution.

3) Values should impact a world generator, meaning I should have a clear idea of the world I will live in when I sign my ballot.

4) Values should have some inherent competitiveness towards other frameworks unless you go for some permutation or link turn on framing.

Furthermore, values are inherently abstract as they seek to generate space or a world. However, unless you want me to go straight off/def for the round or plan to collapse, I think providing some sort of phil framing for a lens to your impacts is a good idea.

Criteria

Opposite to the value, I think the criterion for one particular framework should be specific. Generally speaking, I would argue this revolves around the brightline of the criterion. Totally understand that bright lines are controversial, and some would even say that criteria do not produce a specific brightline, or if they do, interps and definitions vary. With that being said, here is how I evaluate a brightline:

1) Brightlines should be active as they either decrease or increase sunstance. In other words, criteria should have a verb to describe the action of the framework to achieve the value.

2) The brightline ought to be measurable, even if abstract. Using terms like increase, decrease, and maintain is totally fine; however, I need a metric to determine if the ball moved. The less work I have to do, the more inclined I am to pull the trigger and avoid interference.

3) The criterion should be intrinsic to the value. I think if you do not go for an intrinsic link, I am much more sympathetic toward link turns as a method for gaining access to the framework.

Standard:I am okay with standards; just be sure you give me a way to pref your offense under the standard.

Stock Issues

– Topicality

– Significance of Harm

– Inherency

– Solvency

– Advantage Over Disadvantage

I am realtivly new to judging debates, so I can not understand spreading. The faster you talk the less I will be able to judge you.

I like a breif off time roadmaps just to make sure that I am on the same page as you.

I am an old school judge. I like framework and do not enjoy listing to spread. I will take some speed as long as I can understand. I do not like theory. Debate the resolution.

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

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 tend to be a more traditional judge, but that does not mean I oppose different styles of LD Debate. While I am not fully accustomed to CX-style debate in LD, I am comfortable with CX arguments. If you feel more comfortable running policy arguments, go for it. It won’t impact your ballot simply because it is policy.

Spreading: I’m pretty comfortable with spreading, but if I can’t understand you, I will put my pen down and stop flowing your arguments.

Impacts/voters: Please weigh your impacts in your final rebuttal! Give voters! If you don’t tell me why I should vote for you based on the arguments in the round, I will default to your opponent's voters.

Overall, keep it classy. I will dock major speaker points if I feel a competitor is deliberately attacking their opponent.

OO/INFO/Extemp:

As long as the speech is organized and easy to follow, how you organize it is up to you. I know there are different standards everywhere. Make sure you back up your points and arguments with sufficient evidence!

INTERP:

I have no preference for how you put together your piece as long as it helps the plot structure overall. I love good character work! While pops and tricks are nice, what really wins me over is getting lost in the character's story when it is genuine.

Overall Notes- I don't really like speed or spreading. If you choose to spread then you will need to make your taglines clear. If I cannot understand your tags then I cannot flow the argument. Also do not expect me to be able to understand all the analysis from your arguments if you do not slow down for it.

LD- I tend to consider myself to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to LD. I enjoy a solid framework debate. I tend to vote for the debater that impacts out their arguments the best. I tend to judge based off the quality of arguments not the quantity of arguments. I think that one good argument can win the round for either side. I am not as comfortable with policy arguments in LD, but I was a CXer, so if you are in a panel situation I won't automatically vote you down for running them.

CX- I am a policymaker judge. I tend to judge based from a util mindset unless you give me another framework to work through. I really like to hear debate that focuses on the balance between terminal and real-world impacts. I tend to like cohesive negative strategies that work together. Personally I am okay with conditionality, but if you want to get into the theory debate and impact it out in the round go for it. I am fine with any sort of theory debate. On T I default to reasonability. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.