Come to University of Houston for LD camp this summer! UH has a great staff, is reasonably priced, and has an excellent staff to student ratio. If you have questions feel free to email me.

Berkeley update not good for strategies that involve upwards of 7+ off case positions.

blakeandrews55@gmail.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.

Head Coach at McNeil.

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Head Coach at McNeil High School

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

*Fall 2021 Update: I haven't judged since Covid hit so I'm a little rusty. Go a lil slower than normal. I'm also not super familiar with this year's CX topic yet so make sure you slow down on tags and advocacies*

About Me:

Conflicts: Prosper HS, Lovejoy HS

Email: antonakakisas@gmail.com (I'd like to be on the email chain, but I probably won't look at the doc unless evidence and intricate warrants become an issue). I also have a more extensive record of my judging history under another email.

Pronouns: She/Her

Graduated from Prosper High School in 2019 (I did LD for four years, did PF once, and did extemp throughout the four years occasionally.) I debated on the national circuit, TFA, NSDA, and UIL. I was a student at the University of North Texas from fall 2019 to spring 2020 and now I'm attending the University of Texas at Austin since fall 2020.

I mostly went for ks, particularly regarding post-modernism, post-structuralism, anarchism, security/militarism, and reps, but I also really like good case debate and phil/framework.

A few important things:

-If you're familiar with Blake Andrews' paradigm that's probably quite a similar way in which I view debate (given that he was my coach).

-Give me a clear framework to evaluate the round under, the warranted offense you have to leverage under it, and weigh your offense against your opponent.

I'm inclined to err on reasonability. If there isn't any real abuse going on in the round I probably won't vote on theory.

If I think you're being toxic, offensive, or anything related to this then your speaks will drop and you could lose the round for it as well. I've done it before and I'll do it again.

Make clear, WARRANTED extensions, if you dont i wont evaluate it.

I am NOT the judge for intense theory debates. This means if you go for it I'll do my best to give a good adjudication, but don't be surprised if it's not top notch.

I won't vote on arguments I deem offensive, which is like most judges, however, this extends to arguments that cap is good, heg good, Hobbes, and libertarianism (yeah, I dont respect property rights).

Also, I'm not the fastest judge when it comes to flowing, i.e. don't go full speed. If I had to quantify it maybe my speed is a 7.5/10. I'll say clear 3 times if you're too fast or unclear, after that I'll stop flowing your arguments until you decide to clear up. This will affect your speaks.

Preferences:

K: 1

Theory: 4

Topicality: 4

Policy: 2

Framework: 1

Tricks: 3

Performance: 1

Extra Things I Like:

-Impact Turns: I think these are underutilized in debate, but keep in mind I don't mean impact turning racism bad and that sorta thing.

-Creative Strategies

-Concise crystallization and voters

-Kind and wholesome humor that isn't snarky

-Tell me when to clearly flow on a new piece of paper for overviews or counter interps.

-Clear signposting.

Extra Things I Don't Like:

-Recycled strategies and frameworks

-Rudeness or hostility. Here, I reserve the right to drop you or tank speaks as I see fit. This also applies to very rude or overly-critical post-rounding.

-Not a fan of blippy arguments and spikes

-When debaters who are objectively more experienced and skilled slaughter their opponent. You can clearly win a round, but be easy and constructive.

-Frivolous/Time Suck Theory Strats (I won't down you for it. but I'm not gonna be thrilled and your speaks will reflect this.)

For email chains, please use: Judgebechler@gmail.com

A little about me. I have done 3 years of CX, a year of LD, 4 years of Extemp, 3 years of Impromptu, and 1 year of HI. I have made it to UIL State in CX, UIL regionals in LD and Extemp where I have held my own against nationally ranked debaters, and TFA State in Congress. I have judged now for 5 years in a variety of settings and events, from Novice only tournaments to UIL Regions.

Now onto paradigms:

ALL LD/PF: IF YOU TRY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE AFF MUST DEFEND A PLAN TEXT, I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN!!!

Overall: For Novice events, keep speed to a minimum. I do not tolerate sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. (I really shouldn't have to say that) and those will cause me to vote you down.

I will NOT even consider disclosure theory in any event under any circumstance as an argument you can use to win.

For PF: Generally prefer clash and clear and present voters, speed is fine but keep in mind that I may lose arguments if you go too fast or don't effectively read tag-lines. Go heavy on the Framework, net benefit, and impact calculus debate, keep note I'm primarily a CX/LD judge.

Novice CX: At the beginning of the year I am more lenient on mistakes. That being said, don't be afraid to try arguments out in round, if you make mistakes, I will make sure to put the fixes in your comments. I also will not punish speaker points as hard in the beginning of the year unless you are clearly trying to go above what you can do. Spreading is discouraged for me right now as it is so early, but if you can clearly spread, that's ok. I am mostly a stock issues judge, but give me the cleanest, clearest, and easiest way to vote for you (usually with a good impact calculus), and I will vote off that. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Varsity CX: Speed is fine, just make sure to slow down on tag lines and authors so that I can guarantee that I catch them. I am tab in varsity, and love impact calculus and other voters. I defer to reasonability as my standard for T. In addition, if you do decide to run T, make sure that I understand why T is a necessity in this specific round! Make my job easier and I will be more in your favor. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Novice LD: I am a traditional judge, and I value FW debate highly, but if you make the case for impact calculus debate, I will vote on that. Again, make my job the easiest. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Varsity LD: I prefer traditional, but am okay with progressive if done properly. I prefer you not to spread as to increase the level and depth of debate, and not the breadth. I do defer to reasonability in regards to T violations, so if you run one, keep that in mind. I really need voters or else everyone is subject to judge interpretation of the round, and I don't think anyone wants that. I do not flow cross-x normally, if it's important in the round, tell me in a speech!

Always feel free to ask clarifying questions about my paradigms or for more explanation!

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.

Affiliation - North Crowley High School

-I debated at North Crowley High School for three years, where I graduated in 2014. I debated LD my Sophomore year, followed by CX (from lay UIL to TFA and NFL). I currently work as a long-term substitute / student teacher at NCHS as well as assisting coaching the debate team.

In short

-I typically like to see a good impact calculus in the round. I usually vote for the team that would solve for the most impacts, unless I’m given a really good theory argument. Honestly though, I’ll vote on whatever framework is best presented to me in the round, so long as I see some good debate on that topic / if someone drops said framework.

Theory

-I love theory debate. In policy, I frequently ran not only T but other theory arguments. Debate theory well, and you will have impressed me.

Policy

-This is my bread and butter. If you can present pragmatic solutions and solvency, I am far more likely to vote for you.

Kritik

-Don’t just run Ks for the sake of running a K. I prefer topical Ks, not recycled generic Ks like Cap unless you’ve provided me some really good links.

Speed/Speaks

-I’m fine with speed. Slow down for tags and analytics. I rarely give 30 speaks, but 28 is common from me. I will give a 30 if you are able to spread with a lot of clarity, answer CX questions with confidence/in stride, and provide good analytic arguments and/or analysis of the round. Your speaker points will lower if you are visibly condescending to your opponents. I was a pretty argumentative/combative/rude student as a debater and I would like to do my part not to encourage a toxic debate community, because I saw the harms it can cause.

Ethics

-I may drop you for misrepresenting evidence (powertagging, shifting words around) if the opponent can prove it. My biggest debate pet peeve is the sheer amount of evidence out there that is cut in such a way it misrepresents the argument the original author was making.

Email me at t.davies951@gmail.com if you have more questions

Please go ahead and include me on the email chain: mdonaldson@connally.org. Quick note on prep time - please have your files SAVED to the flash drive or the email SENT prior to ending your prep. Be purposeful - don't waste anyone's time.

I debated at Waco: Connally HS from 2011 to 2013. We were a successful UIL team, but I understand that debate has changed since then.

I coached at Hillsboro HS from Fall 2014 to Spring 2016 before serving as the coach of China Spring HS from Fall 2016 to Spring 2020. From Fall 2020 to Spring 2023, I was the coach at Grandview HS. I currently serve as the Director of Communications and Director of UIL Academics for Connally ISD in Waco. I have had students medal at UIL State in interp, extemp, LD and CX. I have also coached TFA state and NSDA national qualifiers in policy debate and extemp.

Admittedly, I have transitioned to more of a tournament director/tab staff role in recent years as opposed to that of a judge. I still believe myself to be a capable adjudicator, but you might want to slow down some for me.

POLICY DEBATE:

I am a tab judge who will default to a policy-maker outlook if I am not given any other weighing mechanism or framework to view the round through. I am fine with any argument that you might want to run, just make sure that you are explicit with it and stay organized throughout the round. I like rounds that have a lot of DIRECT clash and have arguments that actually do something in the round as a whole. I don't particularly care for teams to throw out everything in an attempt to see what sticks. Try to be strategic. I will do my best to adapt to whatever strategy you want to use. I am fine with speed, but need clear taglines. I don't like it when debaters just read evidence nonstop - take the time to USE the evidence as a tool to persuade me of something. I understand the necessity of choosing to avoid underviews, but I'd like to see some sort of analysis at least at the somewhere in the speech - whether it be at the top or the bottom. I recognize that your authors are well-versed on the topics that they are writing on, but I really want to see that you recognize how those texts operate in the context of the arguments that you are making.

On a personal level, I really enjoy K debate, but I just ask that you do the work to really make the literature/overarching concepts accessible to everyone in the round (particularly coming out of the first speech). I also really like T debate, but I cannot STAND watching a messy T-focused round. At the end of the day, please don't feel pressured to run a certain type of argument or debate using a certain strategy based around my paradigm. I really do try my hardest to just adapt to what is happening in front of me.

I really don't have a preference about a "type" of round that I would like to see, but I enjoy seeing arguments be contextualized in terms of the greater scheme of the round at hand. I like for debaters to make explicit connections between arguments in addition to making strategic choices when it comes to condensing down near the end of the round. I think there is a pretty big importance in both having strong communication skills/persuasive ability AND making it a priority to resolve all issues in the round, but there is definitely greater importance in handling all of the arguments - be practical: spending 5 minutes on 1 of 8 arguments and dropping the other 7 won't win you the round in most cases. To clarify - this doesn't mean that you shouldn't condense down. I would far prefer it if you did. I just mean that you shouldn't go for the "more is more" approach from the beginning. I want substance and quality over quantity for the entirety of a round...if at all possible.

To sum it all up: do what you do best and do it well. I am just as likely to vote for you in a round that deals with super focused, small scale impacts as one that deals with the most stereotypical terminal impacts that you can imagine. I am just as likely to enjoy the round that is as wrapped up in the stock issues as I am to enjoy one that is super progressive.

Have fun. Be safe. Make good choices!

LD DEBATE:

I don't judge LD as often as Policy, but I like to think that I can handle my way around a round. I was raised around traditional LD rounds but thoroughly enjoy the more policy-oriented approach that has started to worm its way into the event. My biggest suggestion is for debaters to use whatever style they are most comfortable with - I can adapt to whatever you do.

I am completely fine with speed as long as I can understand your tags. I like to see a lot of evidence in LD rounds, but analysis is definitely welcomed. I'm going to be honest: I LOVE a good framework debate in LD, but I am often left unimpressed with them. Basically - if you're gonna go for it....GO FOR IT.

I think that LD-ers tend to struggle with time management between the different positions that they are arguing. Work hard to stay on top of each of the arguments of the flow and try not to waste time by overextending yourself. Please be sure to highlight clear links in each of you arguments and try to sell a believable impact story. Perhaps most importantly, try to remember that your advocacy does not exist in a vacuum. Please give a detailed impact calculus throughout the round that highlights the differences between the world of the aff vs the world of the neg. Show me why you are winning!

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

I hardly ever judge PFD, so I'm not totally up to date with any trends. You can look at my other paradigms to see what I generally look for, but please be mindful of the time constraints of this event.

SPEECH EVENTS:

I prioritize answering the question/providing a clear thesis above all else, but speech structure and style matter a ton to me. I enjoy well crafted attention getting devices and place a lot of emphasis on quality transitions. Please work to contextualize each of your (sub)points in relation to your thesis.

INTERP EVENTS:

I enjoy seeing interpretations that are organic/genuine. Your character(s) should be discovering these words for the first time. Dramatic arc is a MUST - work towards the climax and show me how your character is changed by the journey that they take. Please avoid messy book work/physicality and watch for monotonous vocal patterns.

GENERAL:

I try to write a ton on ballots and work to give pretty detailed notes the moment that something happens, so if I'm not looking at you, don't think too much into it. I like to put things down that I thought were successful as often as I put things down that didn't work for me.

Please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round. It won't hurt my feelings.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

Quick summary (TLDR): I am open to any framework you want to sell me, but be sure you explain to me why I should choose it. Otherwise, I default to stock issues. I am open to all styles of offense, but include specific case links as well as clear impacts/relevance. All things being equal, I will weigh arguments based on clarity and development. Give me reasons why your argumentation should be important to me as the judge.

Coaching history: CX, LD, Speech, Interp (Aubrey HS, 2011-present)

CX philosophy: I am a fairly conservative judge who is open to arguments unfamiliar to me. The debate belongs to you, and you should tell me which lens I should use to frame the round and evaluate argumentation. I prefer a resolution-based debate that hits checkpoints in structure, but I will listen to any debate that contains clear direction and warrants. Please do not rely on me to make assumptions for you or fill-in warrants you have not provided. I will weigh the round based on the evidence and analysis given to me.

I will vote on arguments you tell me are important. I default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but I am flexible on this. Extend arguments throughout the debate, and please engage the opposing side. Please be clear about conditionality of arguments, and, likewise, please be clear if you disagree with conditionality (not just conditionality bad). I am aware of most literature but by no means deep on it. However, I am a rational individual willing to listen to your application of any literature to the round.

LD philosophy: Framework is necessary for me, but I also see it as a launching point for good debate at the contention level. I will listen to a policy-oriented debate on both sides, but I expect both sides to engage each other regardless of the orientation of arguments. Again, I have a rudimentary knowledge base of literature, so be clear about the application of your lit to your arguments and to the round itself. My vote will usually revolve around impacts which have been carried throughout the round.

Speaker Points: I start on 27.5 and move on a sliding scale based on clarity, style, your ability to engage discussion, your ability to maintain composure, and your overall strategy. I will usually keep up with your speed, and I a would prefer to be included on the email chain if all parties agree to do so (ejackson@aubreyisd.net).

For your email chains: jatikohn@gmail.com

Tldr;

NonT & Performance: 1

Kritiks: 1

Phil: 2

LARP: 2-3

Topicality: 2-3

Theory: 3

Hello everyone, I’m Kati (she/they). I am the lead PF coach & curriculum writer for Bergen Debate, and I regularly teach LD at various summer camps (NSD every summer since I graduated high school: 2019, ’20, ’21, ’22 & War Room in 2020). As a debater, I competed primarily in LD, clearing at every nat circ tournament I went to my junior/senior year, reaching the bid round at all but one. I was the first freshman to qualify to TFA State & Nationals at my school, amassing over 60 state points compositely & was top 30 in extemp debate nationally as a fish. Throughout undergrad, I continued coaching LD and Policy, and upon graduation began working in PF. All of this is to say that I’ve been in the activity for a while and really love it, and I very much look forward to judging your round:)

If you have any specific paradigmatic questions for me, feel free to ask before we get started, but I pretty much am a blank slate. What matters to me most is that arguments make sense & I know what I'm voting for and why it matters.

General Prefs:

-Speed is fine/good! But don’t sacrifice your clarity & please don't yell into your mic if we're online.

-Good Extensions clarify warrants. It’s not a real extension if you are just restating the tag; spend time fleshing out why it deserves my ballot.

-Weigh everything, even/especially your weighing! Not referring solely to those mechanisms, you need to be comparing all of the arguments on my flow and telling me what is the most important to vote on & why.

-Overviews are awesome / Final Speeches should be attempting to write my RFD. This means take me through each layer of the debate and tell me how/why you are winning (framework, contentions, link or alt, the RVI, etc.). Go through everything that matters, identifying independent voters for your side.

-Lastly, don’t read radical arguments that you don’t have the agency to. An L 26 is the most likely conclusion of a round like that.

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.

Christopher (“Chris”) LaVigne/Judging Philospophy

Background: My background is in policy debate. I debated 4 years in high school (1988-1992) and 4 years in college at Wayne State (1993-1997). In college, I debated at the highest levels of NDT policy debate, but that was also a while ago, before law school and before a professional career. I have rejoined the ranks of the judging pool after a long absence because my daughter started doing PF debate. 2017 was my first year judging PF. I was surprised how easy it was to pick up again. Most of this paradigm is geared towards PF since that is usually what I am judging these days. I will cover policy rounds when the tabroom needs help, but most of my experience will be on the PF side so you might need to explain more if you have me in a policy debate. If I am judging something else you are probably in trouble because I don’t know what I am doing.

Speed: Not generally a problem; clarity is always the concern. I have not seen a single PF debate that I thought was “fast” by what I generally consider to be fast.

Paradigm: Generally a tabula rosa philosophy. The debate belongs to the debaters. I will endeavor not to intervene in any way in the round. I am open to almost any argument that is supported by evidence or sound reason. The team advancing an argument always has the burden of proof. Making an argument and supporting the argument are two different things. I am fine weighing and considering analytical arguments, but I am not likely to vote on substantive arguments that are unsupported with evidence (i.e., “its just obvious that if Trump does this, then he will react by doing something else that is bad”). Such an argument is a substantive position that requires support. It is different than arguing that the internal link evidence is bad for some reason. Those arguments don’t require support as they are identifying gaps in the other side’s proof. I actually think the burden of proof is an important part of argumentation. Once a team carries its burden, its up to the other team to address the argument. At that point I am not going to intervene.

Footnoting: I am NOT a fan of the practice of footnoting in debates, by which I mean the practice of citing an author or an article and generally describing what the article says as opposed to reading a specific piece of evidence from that article. Too often, when I ask to see a piece of evidence, I get an entire article handed to me because the source was footnoted and specific cards were not read. My primary problem with the practice is that it requires me to do too much work. I need to read the article and find the point being advanced, consider the context of the article, what caveats are in the card that were not read, what impact do those have on other arguments. I just don’t think it is very fair to the other team, especially since they do not have a meaningful opportunity to review the “evidence” in the debate when the only thing available is an entire article. I much prefer “cards” where specific text is read in the debate, although I have no problem with highlighting cards to read only the parts you are advancing.

Does the second rebuttal need to answer the arguments advanced by the first rebuttal: It depends. I was asked this question before every PF debate at Plano, so it must be something everyone is thinking about. In policy, this is never really an issue because the “block” is really required to cover all the arguments and arguments not in the block do not get flowed through. The structure of PF is obviously different because there is no block. If the second rebuttal is limited to only rebutting the other side’s case, then responses to the first rebuttal do not come until the second summary, which means new arguments and applications in final focus. I think that makes for a messy debate. I prefer when the second rebuttal covers the critical arguments in the debate, both on the pro and the con. My answer of “it depends” is really case dependent because arguments something relate to one another. Let me just say that if there is a large gulf on the flow where you have not extended arguments or advanced a contention then I am not likely to give it much weight later in the debate. Drops are an important part of the process. Opposing teams should be able to rely on those drops in deciding how to allocate time. If you think an argument is going to be important to the outcome of the debate, I encourage that argument to be advanced in second rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Preferences: It’s your debate, so argue what you want to argue. I try not to let my biases interfere, but inherent bias is certantly present (see comment re footnoting). I prefer arguments with clear link chains, I prefer clash heavy debate, I prefer line-by-line refutation or a general summary of the argument that addresses all the key arguments, I tend to consider flat out drops as admissions (subject only to burden of proof requirements), impacts are always important, but impact fixation is not a panacea (uniqueness, timeframe, link stability, relationship with other advocacy are all important). In policy debate, process disads (politics, political capital, polarization) all make sense, but less so in PF debate where there is no plan and no clear obligation as to “how” any particular advocacy should happen. I will vote on process arguments, but the link needs to be explained and I am probably inclined to listen more to theory arguments that are detriment to the link (if there is no plan, is there still fiat, if there is no plan do we assume action now, later, in the abstract, etc.). I will reward debaters who identify interrelationships between arguments and who can use one part of the flow to answer another part. I really cannot stress this enough. Understanding interrelationships between arguments is very impressive. You should probably be able to explain at the top of final focus or 2NR/2AR why you win the debate and be able to explain it quickly. If you are not extending link chains and impacts in the middle of the debate, don’t bother at the end of the debate. Gulfs on the flow with no ink do not serve your interest.

Don’t be a jerk. Talking loud does not mean talking better. Being confident and assertive is fine.

Questions: Just ask.

Good luck.

EMAIL CHAIN

jonathanhleespeechdocs@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

debate is a game (that means you all are gamers). like any competitive game, the best debates will be one with lots of healthy interaction. this means while reading evidence/pre-written blocks may be important, you should never sacrifice clash by excluding line by line, weighing, spinning args, etc.

The only rules to debate are the speech times. Run whatever you want!

Do not be mean to your competitors or your teammates.

I probably have not done research on the topic so explain topic specific shorthand and jargon.

Tech>Truth.

DEFAULTS

-For LD, I default to Competing interps, no rvis, comparative worlds, epistemic certainty, drop the argument, permissibility flows aff, presumption flows neg until neg abandons squo.

-For PF- "Tab." I have a PF paradigm below for more details.

FLOWING: Slow down on Tags, Authors, Theory, spikes, things you REALLY want to me to know. I also think that analytics that were pre-written should be sent in the doc especially if you like to read them super fast. I flow cx.

DETAILED VERSION

Hi! I'm Jonathan and I did 3 years of LD and dabbled in PFD and Congress every once in awhile.

General rule of thumb: have a strategic game plan going into round and the ability to adjust that game plan accordingly as the debate goes on. while line by line matters, i think that your overall macro strategy to secure the ballot is the most important thing in debate rounds. thus, speaker points will be based on AND ONLY on how optimal, intelligent, creative your strategy is and how well you execute it. The only exception is that if you are extremely mean or rude in round for some reason expect your speaks to drop.

Arguments that been sufficiently explained by one side (i.e good claim, warrant, impact) and are dropped by the opponent are 100% true.

E V I D E N C E: While the debate should be 100% what the debaters say, I will be reading all the evidence read in a round to ensure that there is no misreading of the arguments presented in front of me. Even if you think something says "A", if it undoubtedly says "B and not A" then I will view it as suspect and depending on the situation will give more leeway to negative arguments against the specific misread card or, in egregious cases, disregard it entirely.

(1)Theory/Procedurals/T

non-traditional cases: perfectly valid approaches to the game, although I think that these affs should be grounded in the topic somewhat and have a specific advocacy (does not have to be normal means/state).

Framework: fw interps are the models of debate that determine how to play the game in and out of round. because you are presenting different styles to the game, you should focus on pitching it to me by winning some external impact, weighing, garnering offences from DAs to competing models, etc. negative teams should be careful in explaining why limits is key towards your external impact and explain in detail why that external impact is important in order to play around the impact turn arguments as well as explaining, in context of course, why the affirmative model probably doesn't get any of the benefits provided by limits. Since everyone is probably biased- I'll admit I probably slightly lean towards FW.

Theory: I default competing interps. In-round abuse will always make your theory arguments better, but I understand that's not always possible. In this case a well-written story of potential abuse might be enough for me to vote on the shell. Impact something to Fairness, education, advocacy skills, or something. Having the theory shell be DTD because X W/O an impact makes it hard for me to vote for the shell.

Topicality: Pretty standard here, go for it because it's an aff obligation that must be met. I don't think T should be an RVI generally and here contextual extrapolation on how a particular interpretation of words of the resolution changes models of debate for better or for worse. So in other words, give me impact comparison like you would in regular theory debates in general. If you go for T in the 2NR though be ready to spend a LOT of time on it.

(2) LD Stuff

LD Framework/Value&VC debate: PLEASE don't get into debates that resemble "Justice is a prereq to morality/morality is a prereq to justice." In my opinion, the value/value criterion structure isn't really the best way to understand/present ethical theories and you should just focus on giving me a standard to weigh on rather than extending single word that in 99% of LD rounds will never be important. To clarify you dont HAVE to present a normative ethical theory in front of me (your weighing mechanism can draw from other philosophical/academic disciplines other than ethics), just dont be surprised if you lose the framework debate when you extended a value without it being contextualized by some actual philosophy that youre reading. In other words, focus on your WHOLE FRAMEWORK position and its weighing mechanism instead of extending a word that by itself means nothing to me.

LD "Tricks": Go for them. Triggers should be in the 1AR, dont try to cheat out a new impact in the 2AR. If you want to blow up a blip in the 1AR you better hope i see it (send it in the doc or slow down).

LD Epistemic Modesty/Epistemic certainty (Model Hedging/Moral Confidence): I default to Epistemic certainty/Moral Confidence. This basically means that fw is super important to determine which impacts are largest in the round. FOR EXAMPLE, even if a util case is winning risk of offence of some huge impact, if the opposing debater wins that Kantian ethics is true and is only MARGINALLY losing the case debate, i disregard the util offence and vote for kant. However, db8rs must still win that a course of action or squo is supporting their fw meaning that if an aff wins fw but concedes/loses sufficient case defense, i will vote negative as they lose their impact despite it being the biggest in round. mind you this is just a default, if you want me to prioritize case more- just say epistemic modesty good.

LD Truth-testing: Truth-Testing does NOT mean that implementation of the plan is excluded when weighing the aff. That being said, Truth-testing can and, let's be real here, usually sets up an affirmative burden that excludes fiating a plan (thats why it's strategic lol). When this happens, opposing debaters should read and defend "comparative worlds good" as a framing issue before reading DAs,CPs, or any arg with post-fiat implications. Or they can read truth-testing flows their side/read a kritik/theory. The reason why i'm explaining this here is that i've seen too many debates where people just read typical off case positions against affs that clearly do not defend aff post-fiat. do not make this mistake.

(3)(LARP debate)

DAs/CPs/Case debate: Case debate is important no matter what kind of strategy you are going for so please do not forget it. Remember you can always generate offence from the aff case or weaken their offence to make your arguments more compelling to vote on. For those going for the more plan oriented approach to their strategy, having arguments that are as specific to the aff is obviously important and you should be able to ready to explain your link chain story and how the argument, assuming you win it (which you should try to), changes the round in your favor.

cp theory defaults

-neg gets PICs

-condo is good

-multiple worlds good

-int fiat, 50 state fiat, some random condition cp, consult, delay cps all without solvency advocates are probably bad.

(4) Kritiks

K: While explaining the theory of power is important via long overviews, always remember that contextual line by line analysis and interaction with the K with the plan or K aff will make your argument stronger. By default, I think that the aff should get to weigh the 1AC vs the K, so negative teams should try and pitch a FW that precludes that if possible but also I think that well executed K teams can win the K despite having the Aff being able to have the aff.

-If you can generate Uniqueness you can kick the alt

-Permutations to K should be detailed in explanation. This means just saying "perm do both net benefit is the aff" is ok but not quite the best way to pitch it to a judge. Permutations should be accompanied by explanations regarding what will happen in the world of the aff if the alternative is incorporated by the permutation. Basically, you should extrapolate how the permutation will work in real time with the plan while simultaneously addressing concerns of potential DA's to the perm by the negative team's K. reminder that permutations are usually defensive arguments even in their best form, and you REALLY NEED to weigh the case and have the AFF in order to win the entire round with the perm.

(5)PF Debate Paradigm

Most rounds dont have FW and, while I don't really have a say in the PF World, I really think debaters should state and defend a weighing mechanism. Otherwise, I just default to which ever world (pro or con) produces the best consequences (so basically utilitarianism) and if thats not applicable, whoever wins their arguments under an offence/defense paradigm.

Run literally whatever, i'll vote on the flow. THAT BEING SAID, don't feel pressured to run policy/LD positions because that's what I am familiar with. Don't overadapt to me if you aren't comfortable running these positions. I honestly do not mind a normal PF debate. If it helps, just treat me like your average lay judge.

Theory: Theory should be done in the same manner it is done in policy/LD and I will evaluate like I do when judging those debate events. Look at my theory defaults for above or email me if you have any questions on how I feel about debate theory. If you can, try to refrain from using theory against people who clearly don't know what it is. Unlike CX or LD theory is not expected and some people will never have to learn it so using it for a cheap win may not be very interesting for you or myself.

I won't auto down plans/CPs: I feel like a lot of times PFers run plans/CPs anyways and just frame them without using debate terminology (ex: voting pro means you dont do an alternative or there is an opportunity cost with a better alternative) so I think running them is perfectly fine. Also I am unsure of how to evaluate arguments along the lines of "vote them down because NSDA rules said so." It's hard for me to evaluate a pure appeal to authority by itself under an offence/defense paradigm so if you want to make this argument just go for a plans bad theory shell. What this means is that you can run plans and counterplans and if you want to say thats cheating, run a theory shell on why plans/counterplans are cheating.

Paraphrasing is almost always silly and bad for any technical debate. Since this is just my opinion, I wont auto-down you or give you lower speaker points solely because you read a case with paraphrased text but I think it would be better if you just cut cards and read them- save the paraphrased cases for lay rounds. if you are reading this like 10 minutes before round and you only have paraphrased evidence don't sweat it, but against judges that do not mind speed, I would prefer if you read evidence in carded format.

No RVIs by default. I will admit I think getting one will be easier in PFD than in other debate formats given time constraints.

My paradigm is mostly tab, if you tell me why I'm voting for you in a persuasive way I will listen.

I really enjoy narrative and kritikal cases that have in-round impacts and question the realm of debate as long as the language is understandable.

When it comes to policy cases I place a lot of emphasis on impact calculus. If there is any chance of a link, I will typically refer to the impact debate for my decision.

I have a pretty high threshold for T and framework, if you go for it I want it to be solid and I want you to really go for it otherwise I won't usually put much stock into it.

Please Include me on the email chain

Notnaphtali@gmail.com

In your round, you need to explain to me why you deserve the victory, and how you accomplished your goal of winning the round

I am all for any kritiks, but you must be able to explain how you are able to challenge the status quo through it and how the opposite team isn't able to solve any of the issues brought upon by the K, and in actuality enhances the issues, and if you're gonna use impact turns to make sure your case for why they are is strong

I don't like voting on T, but if it comes down to it, I will, it is a basic thing that if you don't answer, I will go for

I'm all cool with policy cases

When looking at what will give your team my vote, I do understand creating a theory that leads to a solution but I need some type of factual gain that shows me what you are aiming for.

I've debated for six years in both college and high school, so if there are any questions about my paradigm, shoot me an email