I try to be as close to a Tab judge as possible. I will listen and vote on any argument or style of debate as long as it is well developed and given clear voters in your speeches.

Style and Presentation:

Maintaining a collegial atmosphere is very important to me. Try to keep hyperbolic and sarcastic comments to a minimum. Don’t expect me to disregard an argument because a debater says it’s stupid or wrong. Explain why it’s wrong and engage the warrant and evidence.

Speed is fine as long as it’s clear and consistent. The tags and analytical arguments NEED to be slower so they are easy to differentiate. I will say “CLEAR” if it gets too muddled.

Impact Calculus and Weighing will be a key factor in my decision-making. Debaters should state what they think the most important thing in the round is, why they think it’s important and why they think I should vote for it. I would also like debaters to include analysis of what the role of the ballot should be.

While overviews are sometimes useful, they are often overwrought and I ask that they be short and sweet. I would prefer most of the debate to occur on the line-by-line next to the evidence that makes the arguments to keep the flow tight and encourage clash.

I don’t like judge kicks. Debaters should have a clear and firm defense of the arguments they wish to the present in the rebuttals.

I don’t count flashing or e-mailing as prep but don’t steal prep please! If you’re talking, writing or typing, prep should be running. I do request to be on the e-mail chain if there is one. ( ben.achtsam@gmail.com ).

Tech vs. Truth – I would say that I am more for Tech over Truth. I try to allow the flow and the debaters to shape and lead the round in order to intervene as little as possible. Make sure to extend arguments to keep them on the flow. I don’t like whole advantages just showing back up in the 2AR after being absent since the 1AC. I will vote on weaker arguments if they were not properly answered in the constructive speeches but debaters should do extra work to build them up and explode on them in order to make them reasonable voting issues.

K – I am familiar with most common critical debate arguments and will vote on them. I greatly prefer specific links and love it when you take the time out to pick out in the evidence where it specifically talks about the opponents’ position. Debate is ultimately about education therefore don’t try to be squirrely when explaining the philosophical underpinning of your K. You should strive to give a straightforward and intellectually honest explanation that will help your opponents understand what your arguments mean. Explain what the alt does and tell me what the world of the alt looks like in comparison to the world of the aff and the status quo. I don’t like alts that are tagged simply as “Reject” because it doesn’t tell me anything about your advocacy.

Topicality & Theory – While I will vote on these arguments in a vacuum if they are properly argued and given independent voters, pointing out specific abuse in the round that relates to your violation is the best way to get me to vote on them. Don’t go crazy with a flurry of Ts or random theory args sprinkled through your speeches as time sucks.

CP – I prefer your counterplans to have an actual CP text that’s written down so it can be reviewed by both teams just as a plan text would be. PICs are fine as long as you can defend the theory and do well explaining why it gets a net-benefit against the aff’s specific plan.

I am a senior and compete in Varsity LD at Westwood.

I am fine with any type of argument - K, CP, DA, T, etc. For speaks, I'll start at 28.5 and go up or down from there.

I would like to be added to the email chain - aarya1agarwal@gmail.com

If you have any additional questions, just ask me before the round.

Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I qualified for nationals three times in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, just gotta win proven or potential abuse. Proven abuse is definitely an easier way to get the ballot than potential for me.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. If you give me another framing argument up top on what my role of the ballot is I will default to whichever side wins framing though.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

Hello, I'm Deborah Banketa, and If you're reading this, I'm assuming I'm your judge. I am currently a student at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and an International Relations-History major. I did debate for my last 2 years in high school and was the captain of the Wylie HS team my senior year. My main debate events were LD and WSD. I was a pretty good LDer and broke pretty consistently at tournaments, although I wasn't the best, and when it comes to WSD, I only did it for a year but I qualed for nats, which must count for something. Although I focused on debate I was a speech kid at heart and did OO and INFO. I triple qualed for NIETOC, TFA State, and NSDA Nationals in Info, but I doubt you care about that since you're a debater. If you have me as a judge, I'm not completely incompetent so don't worry too much, give me a good round, and I'll be the best judge that I can be.

LD

LD is my main event so whatever you run I'll be good with it. Progressive cases are fine and I love me a good DA or CP, hate PICs but I'll vote on them only if I absolutely have to. DO NOT give me frivolous T, I only want to see theory used in the round when necessary but my definition of "necessary" is wider then most, so if you have questions on where I would be okay with it, ask me before round. I am not opposed to a decent traditional LD round, so go as heavy as you want on FW. I'm good with speed, just put me on the email chain and if you're uncomfortable with those, speech drop works for me too. If you don't know how to use speech drop, tell me and I'll help you out. If you are unclear I will say "clear" once and stop flowing. VOTERS, VOTERS, VOTERS. Make this as easy for me as possible and I will most likely vote for you. I'm good with some K's as I ran a lot of anti-blackness but I'm definitely not devoted to understanding the Lit base so if you're running some Deleuze or Baudrillard, dumb it down A LOT, but I'm okay with you running it if you argue it well enough. Be respectful to both me and your opponent, be very careful in CX because I'll drown your speaks if you're too rude or if it gets tense, but I believe in dominating both your and your opponents CX time, so cutting each other off is fine by me. It's a really fine line between the two, so walk it carefully or stay on the safe side. Though I don't flow CX, if your opponent brings it up in the round, I will consider it and it is binding. In summary, run whatever the heck you want and I'll give you bonus speaks if you can make me laugh because I want the round to be fun

CX

bruh good luck.

PF

Look at my LD paradigms but without spreading and FW.

WSD

I qualified for nationals in WSD and I definitely love the event. When it comes down to voting, I'm going to focus mainly on eloquence and argumentation. If you are in an impromptu round and able to give me some unique and distinct arguments, I'm willing to vote for you just on that. Use your POI's wisely, and have a good round.

CONGRESS
Please direct me to the door, because I obviously walked into the wrong room.

SPEECH/INTERP

I qualified for TFA State, Nationals, and NIETOC in INFO and competed in OO in high school and I've cut pieces for my team in DI, HI, Prose and Poetry and all of my events and pieces have done really well so I'd say I'm pretty good on all things interp related. I don't think I've actually ever read an Interp judges paradigm so if you are looking at this, good job! I love interp, so my goal is to enjoy your piece. If I forget to do time signals, you are probably really good (and I'm sorry!). I write a lot of advice on my ballots and tend to forget to compliment things, so if there are a lot of critiques, don't take offense, I probably still really liked it.

I'M EXCITED TO JUDGE YOU AND GOOD LUCK!

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Howard University 23'

Put me on the email chain: jada.debate@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Jada (she/her)! I did LD and competed regularly on the Texas/nat circuit my senior year. I qualified to TFA State twice and broke at some bid tournaments. I've taught at NSD, TDC, and FlexDebate. I also compete in Parli on the collegiate level.

Conflicts:

1. All FlexDebate Participants

2. Valley AM

3. Keller HS

________________

General Stuff:

**Note for Harvard 2022: Full disclosure - I have not judged in a bit and have yet to judge this topic. That being said, paying close attention to my paradigm, sending me docs, and avoiding topic-specific jargon at least for day 1 will be in your favor!

NOTE FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS!!!! : You HAVE to reduce your speed SUBSTANTIALLY! I'm talking by almost half. Send analytics - it helps me out TREMENDOUSLY. I don't want to miss arguments bc the audio cuts out or blends your words together, so please just slow down lol. Locally record your rounds, please!

1. Reading radical arguments that you do not have the agency to read is a really good way to get a L 26 from me.

2. Be nice, don’t run morally offensive args (racism good, sexism good, etc.), respect trigger warnings and pronouns! I naturally will probably default to using general they/them pronouns to refer to you.

3. If you feel unsafe in the round in any way, pls communicate that to me in some way (email me during the round, knock on the table twice, come up to me, whatever it takes) and we will handle it.

4. Don't be rude to novices/inexperienced debaters if you CLEARLY have more experience than them. I will give a low point win and in extreme cases drop you.

_______________

Pref Shortcut

K- 1

Policy/LARP- 2

T- 1-2

Theory- 3-4

Phil- 4 (really low 4 lol)

Tricks/Friv Theory- Strike me pls

_______________

Tricks and Spikes/Friv Theory:

Please don't.

Phil:

Uncomfortable with Phil for the most part if it's in any form except traditional LD. I can follow along and figure it out, but you have to take it slow and over-explain things.

Kritiks:

*I love Kritiks. I'm most comfortable with Identity-based positions but can understand anything with enough explanation. (err on the side of over-explanation for PoMo!!!)

Performance Affs/Non-T Affs:

I love these. I don't care if your aff is topical so long as I know what happened, why it happened, and why it's good/how it can solve for whatever harms you've presented.

K Affs in general:

I love these too. Most comfortable with identity-based K affs, but I'm cool with anything given the right amount of explanation.

Plans/DA's/CP's:

Sure. If you rely heavily on tech just do some good crystallization for me at the end of speeches and keep the flow clean. GOOD WEIGHING IN THESE DEBATES IS IMPORTANT.

Topicality:

I like T, especially creative T-shells. If your strat is just to read like 3+ generic T shells I will be unimpressed lol. Keep the flow clean and slow down.

Theory:

I definitely can understand a theory debate if it happens, but complex, East Coast theory is not what you want to go for in front of me. I prefer theory when there is legitimate abuse. If this flow gets even remotely messy I'll be sad.

Disclosure Theory:

I think disclosure is generally a good norm, but I do not personally care if you disclose or not. If you default to reading a disclosure shell without asking your opponent to disclose differently first, I'm probably not gonna vote you up on disclosure.

_______________

Speaks

Speaks are subjective and I will disclose them if asked. I'll start at a 28 and move from there. Some rules I try to stick to:

1. Say/do anything mean or problematic >:( : lowest speaks possible

2. The speeches were good but had avoidable messy spots or missed obvious strategic routes: 28ish

2. Give REALLY clean, concise, strategic, and interesting speeches: 29+

_______________

Other misc. things

1. I can't vote on something I don't understand by the end of the round.

2. I always take the path of least resistance, i.e. the first place on the flow I do not have to do any work for you.

3. Please don't call me judge lol, you can call me by my first name :)

4. I will not vote on extensions/arguments without a warrant.

5. Unless you're entertaining or I'm confused, I'm probably only half listening to cx.

Updated 4/11/24 for Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8.5-9/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where the students I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, got to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Athenian EY, Barrington AC, Heritage WT, University Irvine/Southern California Debate Union RN, and Vestavia Hills EP.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speecj times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judgign debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 602 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 188 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.77% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, i think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

I did LD debate for 4 year so I expect much from non novices. To be unbias, I will flow progressive arguments, but I do not prefer them in this debate. Talking fast usually isn't a problem for me but since this is all online it would be better if everyone talked in a conversation style.

***In the interest of fairness, I'm going to be detailed and include some examples, so read the bold text if you're short on time.***

-

Hello!

My name is Alexander Chase, and I might be judging your round. I graduated from Royse City High School in 2013 and then from UT-Austin in 2017, where I studied economics and worked for The Daily Texan. I previously taught high school math and currently teach the SAT and LSAT. As a debate judge, I believe this is an educational exercise where I vote on a question, not for a person. I can handle a spread — please don't mumble — and I expect to receive what you read in some form before you start.

-

-

How I Vote

I have three rules for myself.

-

1. I only buy valid arguments.

Check up on your classic logical fallacies here. If your argument is not valid, I will not mark down your opponent for failing to address it, but I will still "flow" it so that I can explain to you later why it doesn't work. I don't extend this to forcing you to explain the justifications for utilitarianism-ish things in a constructive, and I do tend to trust publications in reporting facts. More than anything, I am very skeptical of appeals to authority, and I won't buy a card that's a statement of opinion without any warrants unless you give me a good reason to do otherwise. I'm also very wary of equivocation — abusing that two different authors used the same word but with very different meanings and contexts — as a means of linking arguments together.

Ex:

The worst offenders tend to be Žižek cards: everyone cuts out his warrants and data, and then themselves cannot explain them. This turns his source material into an appeal to authority — it's true because he says so — and that's not valid.

Any discussion of "-isms" can be ripe for equivocation: one writer's usage of capitalism will not necessarily be the same as another's. I don't automatically discard these, but when the evidence is there, I'm looking for it.

-

-

2. I don't pretend to be ignorant of the real world.

If you introduce information that is blatantly factually incorrect, I believe that I have the right to reject it. For very minor cases I might just dismiss your point. But if you're building your approach to the round on a lie in a way that is fundamentally unfair to your opponent, I will not hesitate to stop the round and vote you down. This means no cards discussing a brink that has already occurred, no fabricated evidence, and no misrepresenting others' views. If you cite a source, I'm not afraid to follow up on it. On the other hand, I'm also willing to buy off-the-cuff evidence after some fact-checking (e.g. if you want to cite the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers or the most recent electoral college odds from The Economist in a rebuttal but don't have them on hand, I'm willing to accept a ballpark number and verify it myself).

Ex:

The worst and most important example of this came in a round where the negative built their case around using an upcoming court case working as the "brink" card in a disadvantage. The only issue was that the case had already been decided, rendering their entire case moot. I voted for the affirmative even though the facts that were presented very, very clearly pointed toward a negative ballot. Don't lie.

-

-

3. I'm open to anything (in theory).

Interpret this as you will. I'm open to unconventional structure, but I want you to let me know where you're going. I'm also very open to you taking morally sticky positions or taking up unconventional value systems. You can argue an alternate theory of the ballot. But I always place the burden on the students to follow my first two rules. If I get no instructions otherwise, I'll default to a generic impact calculus with the greatest weight to probability and magnitude, and to vote to affirm when there is a preponderance of evidence that doing so is preferable to not voting affirmative.

Ex:

On the good side of things, I've voted many times for negatives that concede the framework and just run disadvantages. This works really well. I've also voted against debaters who run truly terrible theory shells that just declare new terms without any justifications. Debate is an exercise in argumentation, not in being weirder than your opponent know how to deal with.

-

-

Speaker Points

Besides how clear of a speaker you are, I tend to give speaker points largely in terms of how well you structure your rebuttals. And in the interest of fairness, here are a few things that I tend to like:

Tell me where you and your opponent disagree.

If there's one thing I dislike, it's when the round proceeds as two students see the round as a checklist of points to win by being right about the value, and then the criterion, and then all the contentions. It's not that. Our job is to answer a question; tell me where you disagree, and then tell me why your side is the correct one.

Tell me which boxes you need to check off to win.

I like a good framework. Winning framework means telling me why yours is preferable and then telling me how it affects how I make my decision. If util wins, tell me that the impact calc tells me which side to vote for. If something that isn't util is the best framework, tell me how to weigh the round.

Don't give me voters.

If you're correct, you're correct! There's no reason to list off five reasons why you've won! I'm not voting for you, I'm voting for your side.

The less work I have to do the more energy I can devote to listening to the round so make things easy on your boy. Tell me why I should care about something, why is something bad/worse, why does ______ matter to me, how should I weigh the round, etc.

I'll vote on theory, Ks, CPs, DAs, stock cases, traditional or progressive stuff. If there's logic to the argument presented, then I'll gladly listen to it. I have at least a basic to moderate understanding on what could be presented. Plus hearing the same five points round after round gets boring. Making it interesting gets extra speaker points (if anyone still cares about those).

I want there to be engagement between arguments. It's debate so...debate each other. Don't just read your points over and over again without any clash. What am I as a judge supposed to do with that? Make the two worlds smash into each other, follow the logical conclusions, get everyone thinking.

I'm a pretty happy guy so lets keep things light in round. Assertiveness and maintaining your ground is highly encouraged, but don't cross the line into being mean or disrespectful. Rounds aren't worth your character.

tldr:Keep me entertained with some logic and we're Gucci.

pkchildress9143@gmail.com

Westwood CC 

joonyoungchoo@gmail.com 

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".

Top Level Thoughts -- Stolen from Het Desai 

-- The first 20 seconds of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words that you hope I repeat back to you at the beginning of my decision. Holding my hand will be rewarded with higher speaker points, a quicker decision time, and a more favorable RFD.

-- I will rarely instantly decide the debate on a single dropped argument alone and will only consider that dropped argument in the broader scheme of what occurred. I will follow something resembling the following structure to make my decision:

A. List the­ arguments extended into the 2NR and the 2AR

B. Ask myself what, as per the 2NR and 2AR, winning these arguments will get for either the affirmative or the negative. The answer to this question will sometimes be “absolutely nothing” at which point I will cross these arguments off my flow.

C. Trace whether these points of disagreement were present previously in the debate. This will only include substantive argumentation, but will not include framing devices introduced in the 2NR and the 2AR.

D. Compare the negative and affirmative’s central issues by asking myself if losing a certain argument for a certain team will still allow for that team to win the debate.

-- Tech > truth in most instances. Unless I’m offered an alternative framework to judge debates, I will default to assuming that dropped arguments are true arguments. That being said, technical debating does not warrant an auto-win and the assumption that certain arguments are auto round winners when dropped leads to disastrous decisions. For instance, judges seem to automatically assume that “realism good” is an impact turn to every IR critical argument come 2020. While it would certainly be nice if the negative explained which portions of realism they agree/disagree with (e.g. rational actor model, the model of the nation state, etc.), it is not the burden of the 2NR to answer “realism good” in this hypothetical situation if the 1AC, 2AC, and 1AR choose not to explain why winning realism is good/true implicates the negative’s arguments.

-- Numbering, labeling, and compartmentalization are very important for me. Whenever possible, each argument in the 2AC should be numbered / labeled and those numbers / labels should be referenced for the rest of the debate. The 2NC and the 2NR’s responses to affirmative arguments should always be numbered.

-- Sound like you want to be here.

-- Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will be ready to defend my decision. Thus, “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or judge your personality because of your reaction to my decision. I was/am always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest form of respect.”– Vikas Burugu.

Sreyas Rajgopal: "actual arguments > ad homs" I will not evaluate any arguments about anything that occurred outside of the round outside of disclosure etc. or render a decision about the ethicality of any person I am judging. I don’t know you and this is incredibly uncomfortable.

Framework

1. I feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides. “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen. I went for mainly procedural-based impacts centered around clash and argumentative refinement when I was negative. This strategy requires greater defense to the aff’s impact turns, but makes it less difficult for you to indict the aff counter-interp.

2. Switch side debate is massively underutilized in HS debate. Most 2NRs assert TVA and SSD with no connection to the rest of the arguments. The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best.

3. “TVA: who cares. If the 1AC says "reduce FMS to Saudi - we must discuss the Yemen War now!" on the water topic, it is not the negative's burden to describe how the aff team could have made their 1AC topical. TVA could be useful as defense (especially if conceded) but tends to factor little in my decisions” – Shree Awsare.

4. Most Framework approaches can be filtered into one of two categories:

A) Finding a middle ground

While this approach will be significantly harder to assemble / formulate, it gives affirmative teams the ability to impact turn both the content of debates that would occur under the negative’s interpretation AND the reading of framework with significantly less drawbacks than the impact turn approach. It will, however, require affirmative’s to wade through the traditional components of a topicality debate and will be subject to good negative teams closely scrutinizing affirmative counterinterpretations. An important question that not enough negative teams ask is how the aff’s counter-interpretation solves their impact turns. “Aff odds of winning are substantially higher if you persuade me that the negative can debate the aff over the course of a season with a relatively even win-percentage. Advance impact-turns boldly, but do not forget defense” – Rafael Pierry.

B) Impact turning topicality

This argument is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable. Aff offense here should focus on why the 1NC’s reading of framework is violent.

5. Neg teams should extend presumption and contest aff solvency throughout the debate. This will make it much more difficult for the aff to shift to more persuasive impact turns that are likely not resolved by their counter-interpretation/the ballot.

6. The 2AR should center 1-2 pieces of central offense through which to explain their strategy. “Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere” – Joshua Michael.

7. Fairness is an "impact" vs. "internal link". Who cares?! This is a distinction without a difference. We've mutually agreed how this works in all other contexts, so why is this any different? A "nuclear war" is an impact until the other team reads nuclear war good. No one would ever continue to argue "nuclear war" is their impact. They would refer to the negative effects of that nuclear war (mass death) as their impact. Fairness is no different, so it should be debated as such.

Kritiks v Plan

1. I’m comfortable in these debates as well. I have at least a decent grasp on most of the common Ks in debate and have likely went for them a number of times.

2. How you frame your arguments will likely have a significant impact on my evaluation of them. “All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so” – Anirudh Prabhu. Not enough preparation is spent on how you will package your arguments, cross-examination, and/or general round vision.

3. Framework means a lot more to me than it does to some judges. A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR. It will likely be the first argument I evaluate, unless the affirmative has decided not to prioritize it.

“How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense” – Anirudh Prabhu. Negative defense to the aff’s standards are usually insufficient and should be prioritized more, while aff teams should borrow more from their negative framework arsenal against planless affirmatives and explain why a model of debate where the affirmative gets to weigh the plan is most reflective of the resolution and why debate over that predictable stasis point is the best model.

4. High link specificity will be rewarded. Although I will still evaluate the debate as presented, demonstrating you’ve thought about how your K interacts with the affirmative will be rewarded in speaker points and in the decision. Unlike many other judges, I will certainly be willing to vote on turns case arguments when your link arguments are well-explained in the context of the affirmative.

5. The permutation is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy because of debate’s reliance on offense/defense evaluation. Winning on the permutation often requires winning independent of the permutation as well. Instead, Affirmatives should prioritize developing their aff as offense more.

6. Extinction outweighs is a devastating argument against most neg Ks. I have a difficult time understanding neg responses as they are reliant on Framework and/or do not contest the specific scenario for extinction in the 1AC. “If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs” – DKP.

Kritiks/Other Strategies v No Plan

If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in.

1. It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation.

2. I am not persuaded by “no perms in method debates”. Although permutations tend to get out of control in these debates, I do not believe entirely abandoning competition is the solution. The negative needs links that disprove the aff. However, the threshold for a no link argument if one is forwarded by the affirmative will be higher. The neg is best served explicitly establishing a higher threshold which I will be receptive to.

3. Go for presumption. Press the aff on its ability to solve. Vague assertions about your aff will not be rewarded with either the ballot or speaker points and I will not be lenient to new aff extrapolation.

4. Go for Topic DAs and Impact Turns if the affirmative links. Or better yet, link them to it. Usually, aff responses are woefully insufficient.

5. This might sound terrible for the aff, but if the neg does not refute aff shifts with specific link explanation, I’m likely quite a good judge for the aff. Kritikal affirmatives have easy angles to exploit vs substantive negative strategies. Neg teams are often awful at contesting the aff, so applying your theory and solvency explanation to different pages effectively should be an easy route to victory.

Topicality

1. “A decent amount of evidence with intent to define considerably improves your offense.

2. Caselists on both sides help.

3. I tend to care most about predictability” – Ruby Klein.

4. “The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu.

5. In most circumstances, affs should utilize reasonability, functional limits, and arbitrariness as their 2AR strategy.

Counterplans

1. Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way.

2. I will default to judge-kick unless told otherwise. Generally, I believe no judge-kick arguments should start in the 1AR at least if you want to win them.

3. I will default to the model that counterplans must compete functionally and textually, but I am willing to hear alternative models for competition.

4. Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus.

5. Presumption goes to least change.

Disads

1. “Turns the case” is important in some debates, but not others. It’s important to recognize when to prioritize it. The argument that war causes structural violence is intuitive and should not require too much explanation aside from explaining how it implicates framing. Turns case arguments at higher levels of the DA are more persuasive when applied to the aff’s internal links.

2. I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor.

3. Smart analytic arguments are significantly under-utilized. Most politics scenarios, for example, can be logically disproven by a series of analytic arguments. But, the better the other team’s evidence is the more you’ll need of your own.

Case

1. Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.

2. I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.

3. Everything from the DA section apply just as much here.

Theory

1. I’m likely better for theory arguments than most because I evaluate them similarly to every other argument. But, if left to my own devices, I’m neg leaning on most questions.

2. “A creative perm debate is likely better and less life-denying, but I understand that theory is necessary to beat process CPs that steal the aff and cheat" - Ruby Klein.

3. I'm far better than the average judge for aff-specific PIKs. I think they're heavily underutilized and a personal favorite of mine. Defeating a strong aff theory argument is still difficult given significant aff pushback especially if the PIK was not explicitly one in the 1NC. However, I find these strategies are often most true to nuanced disagreements in the literature, so there is a strong pedagogical benefit to pursuing them.

I’ve coached LD Debate for 15 years. Policy debate for nine. PF Debate for seven. Other speaking events for 25 years.

I like a good old fashioned philosophy debate. With that said, I understand those are few and far between. I am not progressive. But I won’t vote you down for it, either.

In light of this new virtual format, please pay attention to your speed and articulation, especially in the 1AR and the 1NR. Both of those speeches can make or break your round if you aren’t paying attention to your speed in a virtual setting. It is also imperative that you include me on your email chain. tlclaeso@garlandisd.net Many tournaments have issues with file sharing software. Email is easy and quick.

Lincoln Douglas Points ~

Speed - Don’t spread. There’s no fire. Debate is about communication, not seeing how many points you can get your opponent to skip because they didn’t hear them correctly.

Value - Choose a value other than morality. One that actually matches the resolution. I like to see a good value clash. If you don't know the purpose of a criterion don't just throw it in there to look pretty.

Theory - Make sure you understand it yourself before you try to run it in a round. Don’t throw everything at your opponent and hope something sticks. I coach theory. I know theory. If you don’t, don’t bother.

Framework - Should be clear and labeled. If you can both agree on a mutual framework, I will judge based on which debater upheld it better.

Offcase arguments- Have fun. I can follow whatever here. Just give me a heads up as to how many you have.

Topicality - I'm fine, if it's well structured.

Case/Plan - If the topic lends itself to one, that's fine. I prefer not to hear a counterplan unless you can show me the value of it. This isn't Policy. But if you want to run it, go for it.

DA's - I will vote you down for non-uniqueness. Make sure your link is clear.

At the end of the round, make sure you give me clear voters. Don’t make me pick my own. I will go for the value I like better. If you didn’t give me an overview, I expect an underview.

Last but not least, include me on the email chain. tlclaeso@garlandisd.net

PF - Crystalize your arguments. Be civil. Give me voters. Make sure your arguments can be understood by the average person. PF is constantly evolving. As it evolves, you as a debater should evolve.

IE's ~ I'm a fan of character development, building the story arc, and clear understanding. Your piece needs to have levels. It shouldn't be the same tone throughout.

OOs and Info ~ Teach me something. Make me think. Leave me wanting to make a change in my world or the world at large. In Info, your visual aid needs to be unique, eye catching, but not distracting.

Extemp ~ I'm looking for reliable sources that are appropriate and relevant to your topic. Cite those sources. I'm looking for a solid organizational structure. Use your time wisely.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.

Debate:

I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.

Speech:

Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.

Interp:

I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.

Clarity:

If you have questions, please feel free to ask.

I competed in LD, PF, Congress, and Extemp, although LD was my primary event. I came from a traditional debate background but competed on the local, state, and national level -- so I am familiar with more progressive styles/tactics for debate like Ks and etc. I'll vote on anything as long as it clearly articulated, and that being said, I am somewhat comfortable with speed but only vote on what I can hear/understand. Feel free to ask any other questions before the round. Treat me more as a lay judge if that helps, it's been some time since I last debated.

he/him

ONLINE DEBATE: start off at 70-80% top speed and go from there. I'll speak up for you to slow down if needed.

BERKELEY UPDATE: I realized I'm dogshit at flowing so please please please slow down if you like to blitz non-sent analytics and signpost if u extemp anything

CHURCHILL UPDATE:I don't really know anything about the topic lol extend a lil more

add me to the email chain: ericgao123@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Eric! I am a parent judge so please adapt well to me. Speaking persuasively and professional dress are very important to me in round. I believe that these LD debates should be similar to the debates between the OGs Abraham Lincoln and Michael Douglas (I got a 4 in my APUSH AP tests so I know what I'm talking about). All debates should have a clear value/criterion and good weighing under that said framework!

Here is a quote that sums up how I feel about this Lincoln-Douglas activity:

"They conceded the sand paradox which triggers skep" - Abraham Lincoln

---

have fun ill vote off literally anything (except if it's oppressive IE racism good, sexism good, etc)

---

LD:

quick prefs:

LARP: 1

Tricks: 1

Phil: 1-2

Theory/T/Friv: 1

Ks: 2-3

---

general:

tech > truth, truth > tech when it's idpol Ks and stuff that's about violence

FUN CASE > SERIOUS CASE

epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty

debate is a game that has educational value

novices should learn by fire. read whatever against them

don't read stuff just cause you think I'd like it - a clean LARP debate is a lot better than a tricks debate that I have to intervene in

don't be a fascist

Kritiks:

Explain the K thesis well - I don't know the thesis level claims of most kritiks past cap, set col, baudy, security and identity Ks.

Friv/Spikes:

I have a lower threshold for responses for these and I'll buy RVIs good more easily for these args - funny if done right tho - the more frivolous it is, the more i'll enjoy judging it

LARP:

ngl, i really used to like LARP vs LARP debates, but now they get stale. I think they are good if you are creative with it.

Framework:
Go for it. I am more inclined to believe that FW is a procedural issue that has an issue on how the 1AC debatability, so "T is policing" args usually can be beat back super quickly.

nonT aff:

Go for it. I assume you have FW blocked out so respond to it properly not just "iTs gOoD tO dEbAtE aBoUt _____ IsSuE"

Phil:

I'm reasonably versed in Kant, Hobbes, and Butler with some Deluezean understanding so I'm alright on that. Skep triggers for phil takeouts are super underutilized (IE the Moen devolves to skep bc of pleasure/pain robots arg)

Speed:

slow down for analytics that aren't pre-sent

---

what to do to get good speaks:

collapsing to my favorite arguments and win: spark, evaluate after 1ac/nc/ar, a prioris, paradoxes, friv theory = + whatever I feel like at the time - 99% of the time super high

crack some jokes don't be so stiff

give me food (preferably like soda) = +1

sit down really early and still win = +2

---

what to do to get bad speaks:

be racist, invalidate someone's identity, not following a trigger warning request = L25 :)

clipping/lying about evidence - if me or ur opponent catches u thats an L25 :(

---

at the end of the day, debate is a game. we should all be vibing w each other yk? I think we should all strive for new ways to understand the world around us and find solutions for stuff we need solutions to. just try to have some fun in debate while ur at it.

POLICY (if i'm forced to judge it):

I'm gonna be fully honest - I'm not too well versed in K lit or whatever so if ur reading some wack stuff please err on the side of over-explaining on extensions

I'll also evaluate tricks, phil, and friv theory because I think that it would be funny in policy if u wanna fw ur opponents

I'll give you a 20-30% chance that I WILLjudge screw you - I get tired quickly so I'll boost yall's speaks if you sit down early :)

IEs

I don't care what you wear. Be comfortable in round that would probably make you speak better too tbh

Contact Information:

smgreen@conroeisd.net

DEBATE

Speed:

I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.

LD

I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.

Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?

Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.

K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.

Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.

My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:

1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?

2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?

3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Extemp Speaking

Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.

I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.

AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!

Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.

Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

Congress

Policy

I'm a stock issues judge. However, in general, the affirmative should have a robust plan text. Just repeating the resolution is NOT a plan. It may be included in the solvency, but I'm looking for a legitimate plan. I'm not looking for a vague semblance of what we should do, but what exactly we need to do to solve the problem.

Negatives I don't take a card dump as good refutation/proving their case is flawed. Show me the cards uniquely link. Generic arguments are awful.

PF

Extemp Debate

BQ

Most of my LD paradigm applies except for the LD-specific ideas like value and criterion. In general, I do not believe in the burden of rejoinder/“silence is compliance” in this debate, but I’m going to weigh the arguments that, in totality, support each side. Each side does have an affirmative burden of proof for their respective side. In general, convince me. Make me feel the arguments and reasons I should believe you. I’m looking for people to debate the resolution, not just each other.

INTERP

It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:

Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.

Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.

Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.

Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.

Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.

Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.

Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.

I judge LD, PFD, Congress, I.E.'s. Coached for 14 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.

I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at the max and deduct from there, but because of their arbitrary nature, I don't have huge variances or decimals.

Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA tournaments, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting for their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job. Direct questioning should be concise and meaningful, not just an attempt to throw your own 2 cents in. Presiding officers don't auto-break from prelims; you need to be outstanding and any flubs or parliamentary procedure errors will result in lower hourly scores.

World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.

Public Speaking: Conversational delivery necessary. I'm more of an "appeal to logos" guy than "appeal to pathos" in Extemp, so save the emotional pleas for things like Oratory instead. I will rank down if you're trying to push the grace period as part of the speech in general. I don't mind canned intros in Extemp, but at least connect to the prompt. Oratory should follow a clear format like "problem, effects, solutions" and not be a personal venting session. Informative speeches MUST have visual aids; considering it's the only real event that showcases one's ability to inform in this manner, I think you should prioritize all types of measures to inform the audience.

Interp: Teasers and/or cold opens are necessary and the prepared intro should follow a format that gets the audience to understand WHY you chose the piece. Characterizations must be consistent. Be cautious and selective about how you employ accents around me (i.e. not everyone is southern or from Long Island). I frustrate during thematic pieces like poetry or POI if I can't tell which selection you're on. Build upon the theme in the prepared intro and fully list the authors and selections instead of just saying "a program."

Traditional.

Please do not spread.

Whoever persuades me overall on their position will get my vote.

Blaine High School '14 / Ripon College '18 / Assistant Coach New Trier '18-'20 / Chicago Debates UDL '20-

She/Her/Hers

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

About Me:

I'm a former debater from the Minnesota Circuit and have experience debating/judging PF, LD, and Congressional debate. I now work for Chicago Debates recruiting judges for their policy program (don't assume this means I am a "policy" type judge). Since I don't cut cards or coach for a living, I won't come with deep knowledge on every topic. In fact, most of my time will be spent in the policy world so whatever topic I am judging may be my first exposure for the season. I say this so you don't assume anything when making arguments. I come into rounds with a pretty blank slate and that's how I will evaluate your arguments.

***NOTE FOR ONLINE: Typically I'm ok with speed but with online tournaments audio can be choppy and hard to understand. You will need to slow down and adjust for this new reality we are dealing with. I'm going to get annoyed if you're running at top speed and I can't understand you because you didn't adapt to zoom.

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

Judging LD:

When I competed in LD I was mainly on the local circuit and thus had a lot of VC debates. I understand that LD has changed a lot since I competed. I am open to alternative structures and off case positions but understand that I won't be technically versed on all of the nuances within these positions. Keep that in mind when making your selection. I'm not a circuit hack so if you're going to run theory, Ks, etc. just make sure you're crystallizing and being clear. DAs, Plans, and CPs are what I'm most familiar with and as an old school LDer Phil debate can even be a fun a time. Other than that I'm open to listening.

****When it comes to email chains I will only reference them if absolutely necessary such as evidence check. As a judge it is not my burden to read your docs. As the debater it is your burden to be clear and easy to follow so I don't have to reference the docs.

Speaking of being easy to follow, the flow is very important to me and thus so is organization and clear signposting. My biggest pet peeve is the abandonment of a clear signpost. Also if you're going to be throwing multiple arguments against one particular card/argument make sure to number your responses. This may seem super trivial but makes a huge difference in the quantity of arguments I'm able to evaluate at the end of the round. My rule of thumb is if I don't flow it I don't vote on it. If you're unclear or messy I won't flow it. Deductive reasoning should tell you that I'd prefer quality over quantity of arguments/positions.

In addition to signposting, weighing is huge for me! If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

More common questions that come up: Yes I will accept disclosure theory and believe it is a good norm but I don't personally care if you disclose or not. That's up for your opponent to decide how they strategically want to handle it. Cool with speed but please see my note if this is a virtual tournament.

Speaks start at a 27.5 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

tl;dr: I try to approach every round with a blank slate. The most organized and persuasive debater who takes care of the flow will win my ballot. This is a communication activity after all. Oh, and PLEASE WEIGH. It's that simple.

Judging PF:

My biggest issue with Public Form debate is card clipping and evidence abuse. You need to make sure if you are reading evidence they are full cited cards and not a random sentence you cut for an article and strung together with sentences from other articles.

When it comes to first rebuttal I don't have preference if you go back and frontline/defend your own case. That's a strategic choice you need to make. The summary speech is the most important speech to me and often where I write my ballot. Make sure you are fully extending and weighing your arguments here. This is not just a second rebuttal. The best debaters will make time to boil down the debate and setup their partner for the final focus.

[copied from my LD section] If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

I also look for cohesion between partners. You are working as a team so don't setup key issues in the summary and then ignore these key issues in the final focus. Work together to make a complete and clean extension through the round.

One of my biggest pet peeves in PF is when someone asks before CX "Do you mind if I ask the first question." Uh you just did. Take control and just ask a question.

Speaks start at a 27 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

Judging Congress

If you're competing in congress and reading this, kudos to you for being strategic about your judges. I believe judge adaptation can totally be a thing in congress.

Despite what people may think, congress is still a debate activity. The debaters I rank highest in the chamber are those that show a range in their speaking, create clash, and are actively involved through the entire session. I am not only judging your speech but also the amount of questions you ask, if you're utilizing Robert's Rules, and when you choose to speak. If you are someone that is going to give 3 sponsorship/first neg speeches then you won't rank that high. I'm much more impressed by a debater who can be flexible and join the debate at any point than a well rehearsed speaker. I also look at number of sources and times you reference other senators/reps. Flowing is still a thing that can be utilized in congress and I notice when you do it well.

If you serve as a PO that's already license for a higher rank but I will be watching to see if you take control of the chamber and if you're consistent with calling on questioners without showing preference.

Lastly the speeches you give should still be a well organized and presented speech with intro, 2-3 points, and a conclusion. I love a cheesy intro with a bit of personality so have fun with it.

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

Please Don't Do These (applicable for all formats)

-Forget to signpost (This is #1 for me). I hate disorganized debate

-Argue sexist, racists, or homophobic points

-Card Clipping

-Extend without analysis or impact. It's not enough to tell me to extend a card.

-Ignore the framework debate if it is applicable

-Turn the last speech of the round into a second rebuttal.

-Excessive off-time road maps, especially when there is only an aff/neg flow to worry about.

-Be mean or obnoxious to novice or newer debaters

-Look at me for facial expressions and validity if you think your opponent is being dumb or whatever. I usually have a straight face while judging and won't give any indication to validate you. The best way to tell if I'm getting everything you're saying is if my head is down and flowing.

Speed: I can handle it, but I would prefer not to see it. I think that skills students learn in debate should be transferable to other activities outside of debate.

Arguments: I have experience both participating in and judging PF and LD. If framework is introduced to the round, I prefer to see arguments link to the framework. I also tend to vote for competitors who weigh impacts. In LD, I tend to prefer traditional LD arguments, but I am able to flow other arguments and will vote off what is said in the round.

Email for email chains: vhuggler@trinity.edu

LD/PF: I flow diligently, but I want you to speak pretty, too. I'm okay with speed, but not spreading. Don't make warrantless claims, please. I'll listen to any idea, no matter how bizarre, if you have cards for it. Be polite and sportsmanlike, above all else.

WSD: I'm most often a PF/LD judge. I want you to use lots of examples to illustrate claims you're making. This format of debate is 50% longer than the 40-ish minute attention span that PF and LD have cultivated in me as a judge, so I want you to speak engagingly. Command the room.

CX: I'm a traditional judge all the way. I do not care at all for jargon. This is a speaking activity; go slow and be clear and I'll flow it. Explain it to me like I'm 5.

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

email: brianjeon@college.harvard.edu

full disclosure i haven't been in debate for a semester so my ears are not as fast as they used to be meaning clarity is key and do your best to include analytics (especially if they're pre-written) into the 1AC/1NC (bonus speaks if in the 1AR/2NR)

general

hey y'all! i'm brian (he/him), and i debated for westwood hs for 4 years (circuit + toc), x1 bid, x1 toc qual, x3 tfa qual

i will evaluate all arguments (except bigotry) and do my best to understand what you read in front of me

i will disclose speaks if you ask

i do not feel comfortable adjudicating out-of-round actions besides disclosure

flex prep is good

what's below (besides non-negotiables) are my preferences but at the end of the day do what you love, judging debaters who know and care about what they're saying is much more fun than seeing half-baked strategies that over adapt

non-negotiables

cross-ex is binding

i will evaluate all speeches in the round

no 30 speaks theory

no theory that polices what people wear

no floating pik 2nr pivot unless it was very clear in the 1nc

ev ethics

all evidence should follow nsda rules

i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team: if the violation is true, L25 BUT if the violation is false, L25 for the other team

if you mark a card, mark it on your end; if you take time to go back and mark it, take prep

policy

i love impact turns! spark, ddev, warming good, even extinction good BUT absolutely no death good/harm good/suffering good

strong case press with fewer offs makes me happy

good research/specific links to the plan will be rewarded with good speaks

t/theory

nebel t/whole res t is totally fine by me, just explain the upward entailment tests and stuff

my defaults are (and please don't let me decide on defaults): no rvis, dtd, ci

i think disclosure is good but i dislike more marginal shells about round robins, cites, judges, etc

• as long as a good faith reasonable attempt was made to disclose the aff and neg positions, i generally think disclosure is less persuasive

the more plan-inclusive the pic is (process, actor, consult) the more cheaty it feels but this is all debatable

kritik

first question on my mind is: what does my ballot do? top of 2nr/2ar should answer this

the kritiks i have read/though about the most are cap, techno-orientalism, and settler colonialism on the affirmative and negative (context: i read storytelling/scifi affs)

regardless of how familiar i am with the literature, good explanation and judge instruction are important

HEAVILY dense literature (some branches of psychoanalysis and post-modern theory) will retire much more slowing down, good explanation, and a solid 2nr overview

quotes in the 1nc/2nr make me very happy

a sole presumption 2nr is an out but my offense/defense brain prefers either separate offense + presumption or offensively-spun presumption

kaffs should be SOMEWHAT related to the resolution (creativity encouraged!)

phil

i'm familiar with and have read kant, hobbes, and butler before

reading a card or two that justifies part of the framework rather than an entire analytic one will be rewarded with speaks - i think debaters have started to plagiarise from theorists with half baked analytics

for your sanity and mine and to reduce the chances of a judge screw, please include all pre-written case framework indicts in the doc

no outright skep please: skep triggers and skep to justify other normative theories are fine

no value debate please

tricks

i guess? the later in the day this is read, the more confused and annoyed i'll get so read at your own risk

please do not be deliberately avoidant of clash like extemping shells or blippy a prioris or being dodgy in cross

lmk if you have any questions!

Hi! I'm Jhanvi (she/her) and I currently debate for Westwood as a sophomore. Since I usually judge for novices/novice tournaments, this paradigm will mostly be catered towards them. This paradigm might still need some work - I'm still learning :)

IMPORTANT - Please take note:

1. You can call me by either judge or my first name.

2. The NSDA fileshare has not been kind towards me this competitive season. Therefore, add me to the email chain please - it's jhanvikarthik@gmail.com

3. I'll evaluate pretty much anything unless it's morally repugnant (racism good, sexism good, oppression good, etc.) Debate should be a place where everyone can communicate freely and express themselves. This also means that if you are directing bigoted speech (misgendering goes here as well) towards your opponent and making them feel unsafe in the round, I will give you an L25.

4. I know that there have been a lot of technological issues in the world of online debate. NSDA Campus audio software hasn't been great for me, but if you cut out for any reason, I expect you to record a local copy of your speech and email it to both me and your opponent as soon as you finish the speech (this must be timed for the appropriate length). I will NOT let anyone redo speeches.

5. Please disclose trigger warnings if you have them at the top of the case. For any reason, if your opponent is triggered by the topics in your case, I expect you to make accommodations accordingly. On the subject of trigger warnings, I would prefer if you do not read cases that specifically deal with extreme depictions of mental illness or suicide, since those are triggering topics for me.

6. Stolen from Shawkin (cause she's awesome and this is true): Performance anxiety and stress burnouts are real things in debate. I know that has been an issue for me so feel free to reach out if you need a moment to breathe - it's ok to take a moment.

DEBATE PORTION:

Read what you're comfortable with. I'd rather see you go for a unique framework or kritik debate in which you know you can excel rather than a weak policy debate in which you do not know what you are doing.

Quick Pref shortcut:

1 - Policy(Fiat)/T/Theory

2 - Phil(Util, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rawls)/Identity Ks (including cap and security)

3 - K affs/Pomo Ks/High Theory/Other Phil positions

4 - Incredibly frivolous T or theory shells

Strike (5) - Tricks

If you read anything that is considered on the prefs that is a 3 or lower (3-5), then you might need to do a bit of explaining as to what your position entails for me to vote on it. It doesn't mean I won't vote on it, but I need to understand a clear link or impact/alt story in order for me to make it a part of my RFD.

Tricks:

1. If you have a question on whether your argument is a trick, here's that answer: If you think an argument is a trick, then I will consider it as a trick. This includes stuff like aprioris, paradoxes, skep, permissibility, and other arguments in that vein. However, I will vote on tricks that do have a conceded warrant/impact.

2. For goodness sakes, please be NICE when reading tricks and don't hide them in walls of text. It both scares the other debater and confuses the heck out of me when I can't find them. Delineate them (idc how u do this) so at least I will know what I'm looking at.

3. On presumption, I presume negative unless the negative defends an advocacy that deviates further away from the status quo than the affirmative advocacy.

T/Theory:

1. I will NOT evaluate any T or theory shell that has to do with the way debaters present themselves (shoes theory, etc.) Do not abuse T this way. Furthermore, the more frivolous a theory shell happens to be, the higher threshold I will have for abuse.

2. On condo, I consider anywhere from 1-2 condo to be alright. 3+ is a bit too much and I would probably default aff on condo in that situation.

3. I default to competing interpretations, drop the debater, and no RVIs, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Policy Style (Counterplans and Disads):

1. All off case positions in this category should have the appropriate portions associated with them (especially links and impacts). If there are any parts missing for whatever reason, I will not evaluate it as highly.

2. For disads that are tied to warrants that are changing (politics DA, etc.), please ensure that you have correct information. If someone is polling at 40% and you say 20%, it discredits the evidence and I will not evaluate it.

3. Aff plans MUST have a solvency advocate (K affs, not so much)! Counterplans should have a solvency advocate, and I would prefer if they do (I'm more lenient on this for some reason)

4. I do not prefer one style of debate (traditional or progressive) over the other. If someone has a different debate style than you do, adapt.

5. Don't read claims that are obviously false - ex. Global Warming doesn't exist, etc. While I am fine with impact turns and spark, there should not be fabricated information at any point.

6. Multiplank condo counterplans are fine.

Kritiks:

1. Don't assume I know your lit base. I'm pretty comfortable with cap, security, fem, orientalism, imperialism, and set col, but not so much with other bases. Make sure you are prepared to defend your alternative and why it should be preferred over the aff.

2. I would like it if you had topic-specific links. While generics can get you to a certain point, having those specific links makes all the difference and makes it easier on you to explain why I should be voting for the K.

3. Please ensure that your alternative is appropriate. I will not be evaluating "Death Good" or "Suffering Good" Ks. I will also not vote for alternatives that prescribe oppression as a path of action we should take.

4. Explain to me in your rebuttal why you should win the K. This is far more than just reading a long overview - talk about how the links and alt take precedence over the perm, why the perm is bad, etc. Weigh the impact of the K against the aff if you need to. Make sure you are able to explain your K to other novices who are debating you.

5. If you do choose to read an overview in the rebuttal, please go at 70% of your normal speed. I want to ensure that I'm not missing anything.

6. If you are reading an identity kritik from a subject position in which you do not belong against someone who is of that subject position, it will be harder for you to win the debate. Please be respectful of others' experiences in this space.

K Affs vs. T-Framework:

I think that these debates can be very interesting and educational if done correctly. I believe that kritikal affirmatives with some link to the topic are good for debate and slightly lean aff on the T-FW debate, but can be persuaded otherwise. But if you are reading a kritikal affirmative, please note the following:

1. Ensure that your method is compatible with your advocacy (I DON'T want to hear things like intersectional fem is a policy-making strategy or rejecting settler colonial logic is good with fiat -- it's just not true). If your method isn't compatible, I will most likely end up voting neg via presumption.

2. Try to have some link to the topic (if possible). If not, it's easier to persuade me on T-FW. This is not universal by any means, but education is important to debate.

3. Know what you are defending. Explain why your method would be preferable to that of the negative debater regardless of what they read.

4. Get creative! The debate against T-FW can be one of the most interesting if you know how to create specific standards. In this case, don't hesitate to answer the TVA, standards, and voters with specific counters of your own. +1 speaks for someone who can really impress me while doing this.

5. BONUS: +0.5 speaks to anyone who can make a theory shell in the 1AR regarding your kritikal method/discourse and how we need to consider it first in the round. These are very entertaining and educational to hear.

If you're on the negative and reading T-framework, try to note the following:

1. When reading your standards/voters, don't just say "x is a voter because fairness and education." That is in no way persuasive. Instead, attempt to focus on why specifically their method or discourse is bad for debate and how it can harm other debaters.

2. BONUS: +0.5 speaks if you attempt to read a TVA that the aff can actually follow. This is not always possible, but will go a long way in winning you the ballot, especially if the aff method could be done under your TVA.

3. Get creative here! I don't want to keep hearing "the standards are limits and ground, so vote neg." The more creative you are with your standards, the more likely you'll win my ballot.

4. Don't be afraid to cross-apply this position to the case debate and vice versa. Specific examples will get you a long way.

Things that you should be doing ALWAYS:

1. Disclose. You should always be disclosing to each other. If for some reason you decide not to disclose, then I will subtract 0.5 speaks. The only exception to this is if you have zero clue of what disclosure is.

2. Sending your full speech document. Do not hide any cards in different files because all members need to see the evidence to evaluate it. Furthermore, please cut and cite your evidence properly, especially if it consists of pages from a larger book. Evidence ethics is an actual issue that will be penalized if called for a challenge/called out on it.

3. Be respectful of your opponents. This is a basic courtesy that must be followed. Any rude/intolerant behavior will not be acceptable.

4. Weigh in round! This is more than just giving an overview of the position in your rebuttals - tell me why your impact matters and why I should vote for you!

5. Know your case. It's imperative to debate.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I will start at a 28 and go up or down from there depending on how the round goes and your ability to communicate/leverage offense.

Ways to Boost Speaks (+0.1 for each thing you do here):

1. Knowing your case extremely well

2. Using cross well (asking smart/offensive questions)

3. Weighing and proper explanations (more than just an overview in rebuttal)

4. Signposting without deviation from the order you gave before the speech

5. Creative arguments - especially analytic ones

6. Strategic collapsing

How Speaks will be Dropped (-0.1 for each thing that happens):

1. Drop case in the 1AR/2AR

2. Going for a billion arguments in rebuttal (mainly 2NR/2AR)

3. Being disrespectful towards anyone

4. Speaking faster than you are able to

5. Stealing prep

6. Not having warrants for specific arguments

Good luck and have dun debating!

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

Lay judge. Please don’t call me ma’am. Gabby is fine. If I am confused you will be able to tell.

CX: I'm a policy maker, but I'm open to other arguments as well.

T: I appreciate a good T argument as long as it is run correctly and isn't frivolous.

DAs: DAs are good.

CPs: CPs are good.

Ks: I'll be honest that I don't prefer Ks, but if you really would like to run them, you can. I won't count it against you, and I'll evaluate it. I'm familiar with most of the more generic ones, but if you are running something a little more unique, please be clear on the arguments presented.

Framing is fine.

Case: For case, please extend throughout the round in every speech that goes for any other argument in the round that either side plans on keeping.

Speaking: I am fine with speed, but you need to slow down on taglines, authors, and important/emphasized information (plans, CP text, etc.). Please say "and" or "next" or another appropriate term when moving between cards. I appreciate a good strategy throughout the round, and I would prefer an organized debate.

I would like to be included in the email chain. (savanna.lessley@gmail.com)

I'm a tab judge who defaults to policymaker if you do not give me any other framework in the debate round. I do require debaters to give me voters and impact calculus otherwise the round becomes messy as I judge the debate on the things that happen in the round.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive arguments or behavior in-round, including being disrespectful or condescending to lesser-experienced teams. Additionally, I have no tolerance for male teams who belittle women who are being aggressive. I do not care how far ahead you are on the flow; I will vote you down if you engage in this kind of behavior.

I also need to add this as well: Please remember that this activity is supposed to foster education and a sense of community. There is no reason to be condescending or rude to your opponents, your teammates, your judges, your coaches, or tournament staff. If you do so then your speaks will reflect as such.

Also if you post-round me expect me to edit your speaks for them to be dropped as well.

Questions? Just ask.

Email Chain: kmartin08@gmail.com

Yes, Email Chain: mclelland0@icloud.com

Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.

Public Forum:

My goal is to be as close to a tabula rosa judge as possible in PF. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.

While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am holistically a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, . This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you.

While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters. Please... do not give me an off-time roadmap. The only time this is needed is for Policy/CX debate where I might have 8 million flows... in LD there's two flows - we can follow along.

Congressional Debate:

Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.

I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.

Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.

!! Note on Inclusion !!

Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

I debated policy and then switched to LD on the national circuit as part of GBN's team and have since coached policy at various high schools across the country. I can handle any speed, as long as its clear and you slow down tags. I have a philosophy degree focusing on language, ethics, and political philosophy. This means that I have likely read most of your authors and that if you want to run moralistic based arguments or K's in front of me, make sure to do them well. In my opinion the most important thing in an argument is its warrants. Thus, if you fail to mention the "why" when extending, I'm going to have a hard time evaluating your argument. As long as you do this, I don't care whether you run personal narratives, bring a painting into the room for your K, etc.

If there is a place where it's easy to vote off of, that's where I'll look to. So if one part of the flow has been cleanly extended the entire time while another part has ink from both sides, I will more than likely vote off of the first part.

Hope Moffatt Paradigm (She/Her): Updated 1/07/2020

Email: hopeemoffatt@gmail.com

Hello all! I am so excited that you are involved in an event that I've learned so much from! I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school, was the president of my debate team and involved my self heavily in learning about the different styles of debate. My circuit oscillated pretty frequently between progressive and conservative styles so I am very familiar with how almost all argument strategies should be run. This paradigm is lengthy but don't let that intimidate you, I am so happy you are here and am sure you will do wonderfully. I have only written a lot because I remember appreciating when others did so and want you to know that you deserve the fullest of my efforts.

If you are looking for a quick synopsis of what kind of judge I am here is a summery of what you should know:

I will evaluate any case you read to me and am comfortable with speed (I spread frequently in my time as a competitor). However, I do not think that progressive cases are inherently better than a traditional style and will consider counter arguments that question the traditional ordering of strategies in round. For the most part, I will evaluate the round how I feel that you and your opponent best communicate that I should. I think framework is a really valuable tool if used correctly, but is not essential to my ballot. Even so, if your opponent has a really strong framework that is uncontested you need to give me some sort of weighing mechanism if you don't want me to default to theirs. Weighing is your most valuable tool, and I often find myself wishing debaters would weigh more strategically. In any case, be nice to each other and try your best. Feel free to send me your case to look at during the round to Hopeemoffatt@gmail.com . Be forewarned I read quickly and critically so if your evidence is misleading in a way that I perceive as dishonest that may be reflected in your speaks. That said, I will try my best not to let my own view of what I read impact my evaluation of your case as a whole and will leave it to your opponent to point out the flaws. If there is a major problem with the way you portray your evidence and your opponent does not mention it, I will not fault you (unless it appears blatantly dishonest) but will mention on your ballot so that in the future you can improve!

Note for online debates: You may want to consider speaking slower with more exaggerated pronunciation than normal to reduce the effects of technology on your delivery! If an internet issue occurs in round we will follow tournament policy. I understand this format can be daunting and will try to be gracious where I can be.

For a more detailed view of my paradigm:

Speed:

Go as fast or as slow as you like, I will most likely be able to follow it. If your speaking is unclear or too quick I will say "clear." However, I expect that after saying clear you will make some kind of adjustment and if you do not that may be reflected in your speaker points. If you are skipping words or mumbling I will not be very impressed, nor will my flows for you be a great reflection of what you are trying to get across. Crisp speech can make your spreading much easier to flow and thus give you a better chance at winning your arguments.

In general, I am not of the belief that more arguments mean you are winning unless the round is framed that way or if there is no other weighing mechanism for the round. Thus, even if you have 6 arguments on the flow and your opponent has one or two they may still win if there is sufficient weighing or reasoning as to why that one or two points are critical for the round evaluation. I really love complex analysis so if you need to cut down one or two cards so that you can make ground breaking analysis you should. However, this does not mean you need to re-explain what your cards already have said - your tagline is enough for that.

Layering (what I default vote on first)

When I was on the circuit most rounds were evaluated with theory being the highest level to vote on followed by a ROTB or ROTJ followed by traditional framing and the offence that could be weighed underneath. This typically meant that theory trumped K's which trumped DA's which trumped Stock. As a whole I will probably evaluate the round in a similar manner UNLESS you or your opponent make a convincing argument for why I should otherwise. K's and traditional frameworks (especially the standard) can go head to head super strategically so if you want me to evaluate them on the same level make a case for it and I will probably agree. I also am not sold on the fact that theory has to be the highest. Re-order the round by telling me what is most important based on previous and upcoming arguments and I will do my best to evaluate the round like that.

Example: I ran a specific K in high school that when up against theory could implicate the theory itself thus making the K the highest level in the round. That same K literature I had restructured as traditional framework. As a result, in some rounds I could argue that my value and value criterion (standard) were a higher level than theory.

Make the argument if you think it is necessary. I will weigh the round based on what you and your opponent tell me is logically the highest.

Framework:

I will evaluate any framework you present and have a fairly high threshold for both traditional and progressive frameworks as I did both often and successfully when I debated. As stated above I will weigh the framework however you present it to me.

You do not have to have framework to win but you do need to provide me some tangible way that you can gain offense. Really clearly explain why you have offense and why that gives you voters and you will be making a good step towards winning the round.

A really well thought out and written framework is a dangerous weapon that not many people understand. If you are running a framework I expect to see really clear reasons as to why that framework deserves our attention.

On value / value criterion (standards)

Your value and value criterion need to be linked together pretty strongly, if they are not you are loosing a lot of possible ground. Philosophy is one of my favorite areas of research (especially Kant and Mills) and I have read a lot of primary work for a lot of the authors commonly used for framing. Most of the time debtors use these author's work incredibly incorrectly. If you or your opponent can convince me that the philosophy of the other is misrepresented it will effect how I evaluate the round. Know your philosophy well, understand the philosopher's pitfalls and be ready to defend your case regardless. You do not have to use philosophy for your value and criterion, and it can be really strategic not to, make a case for whatever and If you are convincing I will evaluate it fully. If you do use philosophy consider making a few clear lines of reasoning to explain the application of the philosophy. In your constructive speech there should be authored justifications.

The value criterion is typically an action but it does not have to be. I will also evaluate a value criterion that explains how to approach a philosophy or a specific value. This is the area where I think practical philosophy really shines through.

As a whole, implicate your framework fully. Explain how your framework plays out in both the world of the aff and the neg and how that colors the round as a whole.

ROTB/ ROTJ

Just as I expect that traditional framework is well explained, I expect that you provide clear warrants for the ROTB and ROTJ. It is not enough to just say something is bad (or good), you have to tell me explicitly why what you advocate for is the sole way to win the round. Implicate this out if you want your framework to hold up against a competing framework. I will vote on traditional frameworks over the ROTB if it is not properly understood to be the only viable mechanism in the round. Explain how your framework plays out in both the world of the aff and the neg and how that colors the round as a whole and you will be much closer to convincing me that your ROTB / ROTJ is worthy.

Your ROTB / ROTJ does not necessarily need an author to justify it as long as it is clearly linked to your case and has some sort of warrant.

Plan texts and CP text:

A good plan and counter plan are really fun in the debate space and I am all for it. The more specific a plan text the better. If your plan or CP plan text is not specific enough it may create problems for me when I evaluate the round. Structure accordingly.

K Literature:

I loved to run K's as a debater and would love if you do too. I am most familiar with Biopower (I know Foucault extremely well and his work is much more powerful than most think. Pros of running Foucault in front of me: I know his theories very well so it takes less explaining for me to understand, I will see links fairly easy, I just think its super cool. Cons of running Foucault in front of me: I know his philosophy well and can you do not, I evaluate counters highly, I won't buy a not implicated case). I ran into a wide variety of cases and authors when I was in high school and can understand them fairly well.

I do not know the complexities of every author (even some of the more popular ones). It is your job as the competitor to explain the complex theories in a way that is both accurate and effective. I will vote off of how I perceive the round and not off of my preconceived ideas on the literature. I ran a lot of authors not well known and did fantastically with them, you can to. Don't be afraid of Kritical literature that is not mainstream in the debate world, if you believe the discourse matters it matters. Read it, and I will evaluate it.

In general I have a much higher threshold for topical K's (I loved running a topical K aff), but am okay with non-topical K's as well as long as you have strong linkage.

Links:

I really do not care if you link to your opponent and kritik them or if your links are to an idea in the case, as long as you have a link standing at the end of the round you should be good. More links at the beginning are strong but it just takes one to implicate the case. However, make sure your link is secure and specific enough to your opponent or whatever it is you are kritiking. K's that are general enough to be read every round are fine, but I will vote on non-uniqueness if there is not a substantial reason why the world of your opponent entrenches the implications.

Impacts:

Have many of them and weigh them well.

Alts:

I will evaluate any alternative. Discourse alts are cool, more specific alts are cool, just make sure you actually know what they are and clearly communicate what they do.

Here is a list of K's I am most familiar with: Affro-pessimism, Ableism, Biopower, Cap, Feminism

These are broad categories of K's I either ran or studied a lot. However, I was familiar with many K's and read kritikal literature often so don't be afraid.

Performance

I have very little experience with performance, and may not evaluate it how you wish. In general, I prefer empirical evidence to back up claims so I would prefer performance only takes up part of the speaking time and is supported by evidence heavily. However, make an argument for how I should weigh performance and I will consider that in my evaluations.

Theory

I have a pretty high threshold for theory in that I understand how it works and will vote on it as a strategy. However I do get disillusioned with theories that are run by a competitor just to win the round. Frivolous theory takes away from the purpose of theory as an argument and although I will evaluate whatever you read to me, if a counter theory calls out your frivolous theory well, I may be moved to vote on it. Theory is an interesting strategy and has its place, I will vote according to how it was portrayed in round.

A note on disclosure:

Rarely have I found that lack of disclosure is more harmful than the way disclosure theory can be read in round. I will vote on disclosure theory if I am forced to by the way the round progresses. However, run disclosure theory at your own risk. If your opponent answers it well you could be in trouble. That said, I will evaluate disclosure theory like any other argument- it all depends on you and your opponent.

Be KIND!

I do not look kindly upon creating a space that is unsafe for other people. Show incredible kindness to others in everything you do. I will not vote you down for being rude but your speaks will suffer. Be kind. If your opponent is not comfortable with speed adapt. If your case is possibly triggering, warn others. If you are a champion against a novice be patient and understanding. I value debate and debaters and care that we create a community that is safe and enriching.

A Final Note

I can not wait to see what you can do. If this paradigm has left you with doubts let me reassure you, I am the judge you can run your most loved but weirdly progressive case against and at the same time the judge who would love a deep phil heavy traditional round. Run whatever plays to your strengths!

Howdy I'm Jayme (or Jam :^)) & my pronouns are she/they

jaymelynnem@gmail.com

Blanco HS (TX) 2014-2019

Texas Tech University 2019-2020

I debated UIL Lincoln Douglas for 5 years before debating parliamentary (specifically NPDA) for Texas Tech.

Tall Cotton 2024:

My preferences haven't changed much, I still want you to be kind and patient. I still want to see line by line clash (w/ signposting!!!) and voters.

include me on the speech doc PLEASE

Tall Cotton 2023:

be cool, be kind, be smart. those are my big things.

Mean debate is punishable by low speaks, show mercy and patience. We want to send our best representatives to Nats, and I'd like to see West Texas Charm on the main stage lol

I love framework, but I won't vote on it alone. Winning the value and criterion debate (unless you're very explicit in your voters) is not an instant ballot. I need impacts to be weighed USING the established framework. That is to say, if the Neg destroys the Aff FW, but the Aff can show how their impacts are more important under the Neg VC, they've got me.

Love hearing impacts, love hearing line by line. LOVE hearing voters. It is always very cool when you tell me exactly how i should vote and what my RFD ought to be. Makes my job super easy, and your job (win) also easy.

I DO NOT flow CX. if you are setting up arguments in CX, if I don't hear them in the speech, they don't exist. CX is for you, not for me.

(But everyone is a winner when we all have fun, right?)

TLDR:

> not huge on T, will vote on it if i HAVE to

> If you know you're fast, I'm too slow for you. Other than that, I'm decent at keeping up

> I get lost sometimes, I don't want to have to signpost for you, and if I do I'll be upset. make it super clear

> i DONT know your K, but i love to learn

I still don't know how to write these so here's an update as of 9/26/21:

> im much slower than i remember being, but if you send me the speech doc i'll be happy to follow

> pls read what you want, but if it's complicated simplify it for me.

> I still don't really like T, but if you read it PLEASE slow down for the shell lmao. it's hard for me to vote on standards I couldn't flow

> top speed isn't impressive if I can't understand you (fluency mostly)

I don't know how to write one of these if im being honest so here are some bullets that might help:

> im not a huge fan of T. I get it, I appreciate it when necessary, but overall its not my thing.

> I have only started learning Ks in the last year, but I have a decent handle on how they function.

> the way I did LD was Value/Criterion but I appreciate the way it has evolved to be single person policy

> parli is policy without cards so I know a thing or two about policy args

> I'm generally decent at speed but I have trouble keeping up online sometimes.

Competed in LD and WS at Plano East for four years mainly in TFA but also at some NatCircuit tournaments.

harinamdhari1@gmail.com put me on chains

LD:

These are all just preferences, TL;DR debate how you want to I might give the wrong rfd if I'm in the back of a tricks or phil round.

I should be able to make a decision looking only at your 2nr/2ar flows.

Be CIVIL and strategic and you will get high speaks -- online debate especially makes it difficult to differentiate between being funny and rude so please be respectful.

DA/CP/T:

Read them.

Shouldn't have to explain much here. Just do good weighing explaining how the DA turns case or case turns DA.

CP Theory is cool.

Give me some pen time between flows -- 1-2 seconds is enough if I have sheets in order.

Nebel is a meme but sure.

Theory:

I'm good for this. I tended to go for 1ar theory a lot when I debated and I tend to think it's a good thing but that doesn't mean you don't have to answer the hedge if the 1nc has one.

Theory is not just a tool for norm-setting and can be used strategically

Friv theory doesn't exist b/c it forces intervention -- if you win an abuse story it obviously isn't 'frivolous'

No defaults

Paragraph Theory:

Hate it and love it. Almost every 1ar I gave had a few of these arguments in it and I understand why it's needed especially considering how skewed the 1ar is. If you plan on going for it, it should still have a warrant and impact (i.e: condo is a voting issue vs it splits the 1ar destroying engagement key to fairness.)

Policy AFF vs K:

1. AFFs should make arguments as to why they get to weigh the case.

2. Alt solvency needs to be explained in the 2nr unless you are going for the K as a disad to the 1ac. Explain very clearly why they don't get the perm.

3. Assume I don't know the K lit, this is most likely a safe assumption as I've never gone further than reading Harney, and a little bit of Wilderson. I probably will be able to understand debates over more common arguments like afropess, setcol, cap, Puar, etc. But you need to err towards over-explaining anything complicated. (edit: sorta hate pomo)

K AFF vs T-FW:

I've been on both sides of this debate, very rarely read big-stick extinction AFFs alternated between egregiously non-t affs and soft-left affs. However, I went for framework a lot and think it is correct on a truth level, often find myself voting for it because very few teams have a good defense against framework.

AFF:

1. Explain why voting AFF is a good idea non-contextual to FW. Having a nuanced defense against presumption can also be leveraged against

2. Impact Turns don't need a CI but it's strategic to have a competing model of debate that sets some limit or new stasis point for debate that is able to resolve some (if not all) of the offense coming off of T.

FW:

1. Don't spend much time on individual standards (Limits, prep, clash, etc) because let's be honest most K teams will just impact turn.

2. Spend more on explaining the terminal impact of your model. You should approach the round as a question "Why does fairness matter in a world of the affirmative? How do more fair debates solve the AFF?"

3. I don't think the TVA is a CP but it can be good to frame the TVA as advocacy that solves all their offense with the net benefit of clash/testing/engagement/fairness, etc. Think of it as a CP+DA 2NR, makes the offense you have to win so much less when you win the TVA.

4. Turning framework into a state good/bad debate on the case and leveraging that state good offense on T is a very good strategy and will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Phil:

I read almost exclusively Util and a Kant NC once or twice every topic. I find Phil debate very fun and engaging but I hate how they have died. Kant in the 1nc too often ends up as condo logic or skep in the 2nr which makes me sad but I end up having to vote on it.

Having a strong defense for your framing mechanism is much more useful than extending 6-7 blips to their method, just use the blip storm as a time suck so that you can spend more time on your own flow.

Tricks:

Welp. I will vote for these but I am kinda awful at flowing through them.

PF Specific:

This covers exclusively substance or LARP debates, anything else will be in the LD section of my paradigm. Here is a short version if you don't have much time to read through everything before the round: (all the LD paradigm applies here too)

ill evaluate anything and evaluate arguments however you tell me to in round. These are just my preferences/defaults as to what I believe is good for debate.

Defense has to be extended through speeches

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline everything you want to go for, this doesn't mean you can't kick out of arguments, you just need to

Weighing is never new

New offense past rebuttal is kinda sus.

I have done PF as a middle schooler and occasionally at some locals. I didn't go for the K much when I did LD and almost exclusively LARPed so I feel pretty comfortable judging this event. However, there are definitely a lot of 'procedurals' that PF messes up pretty badly and you need to be mindful of if I'm in the back:

a. Sticky arguments are stupid. You can not make arguments in the last two speeches that weren't extended the speech prior. There is no logical justification for this except that it forces you to extend a bunch of different conceded arguments in which case you can just extend one of them quickly and since it's conceded and explained it is true.

b. Second Rebuttal should frontline everything. Obviously you can concede defense to answer turns on arguments you aren't going for but if you want me to vote on an argument later on, you need to answer everything.

c. Link turns aren't offense w/o UQS. Obviously, this isn't the case for Linear DA's without uniqueness but just keep in mind that if you don't straight turn an argument then your opponents can just say UQS overwhelms the link (insert explanation) and kick the argument which makes your link turn a glorified piece of defense. If you are going for an impact turn this isn't a problem.

d. Weigh. PF'ers spend too much time weighing in the wrong ways. "my impact is bigger" and "My impact has a fast timeframe" isn't weighing. Weighing should be comparative, and not just at the impact level because from what I have seen most PF rounds will end up with the same impact level and no external impact like extinction. Internal link arguments (i.e: CC = crop shortage = ag industry collapses = recession) and x turns y arguments are much better allocations of your time and will be rewarded with high speaks. Remember you only need one good weighing argument, not seven bad ones.

I did LD in highschool and did serve as an assistant coach for a year and then have judged in person at various tournaments. I am familiar with TP and LD but I have the ability to judge other debates.

First, with speech I would like to say slow down and make sure you are articulate. I can only flow and follow so fast. If you speak rapidly that might lead me to not being able to follow a argument.

Second, in debate what I look for above all else is evidence. Show me substantively why I should vote for your side with examples, statistics and application. If you are trying to win based on procedure I will listen to your contention but it must be convincing.

My email address for the email chain is samotto@unclesamsaccounting.com

I prefer quality of arguments over quantity, however I will note if something is dropped. I am open to hearing anything, but I will vote on topicality if dropped or answered inadequately. I like to see good clash. I am also fine with speed as long as I can still understand you! Not a fan of Ks.

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!

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

I have been coaching all debate events for the past 9 years.

LD:

I'm a stock issues judge. I prefer traditional formatting and style of debate. I love to see a lot of framework debate in LD. I do understand at TFA tournaments a more progressive style is the norm. I will judge progressive rounds fairly and will not vote against someone because they are more progressive. I just prefer traditional.

I will not vote on Ks. I do not like to see them in round.

I'm not a fan of spreading. I have found that in a virtual format it is next to impossible to understand you when you are spreading. I don't mind if you are speaking fast and clearly.

Respect and professionalism are important to me. There is no reason to be disrespectful to your opponent. Professional language is important for you to be credible in a round. I don't like to hear ums, uhs, likes in rounds. This is a speaking event as well as a debate event and I want to hear excellent speaking.

Congress:

I've been coaching congress for 9 years. I have coached UIL, TFA, and NSDA state/national qualifiers.

Clash is what I look for the most.

I hate re hash. I do not rank people who do not bring new information into the round. I think 45min is a great time cap for debate on each piece of legislation. That helps prevent rehash and allows for better debate.

I appreciate representatives moving to previous question when the debate turns into only re hash. I very rarely rank representatives who break the aff neg cycle.

Quality of speeches is more important than the quantity. I do want representatives to be really active in the chamber. I want to see great content and great presentation. Content and presentation are equally important to me. Keep content organized and clear. Speed should be slow and clear. I do not like yelling in a congress speech.

Remember to have fun and enjoy the round! As a judge I'm always rooting for you to do your best and enjoy the debate. :)

CX:

I am a stock issues judge but I will happily listen to counterplans. I do not like new arguments in the neg block, as it is unfair to the affirmative team. I will not listen or flow K-Affs, it gives the neg every disadvantage since they are just supposed to prep for the resolution. I will not normally listen to Ks (I will not flow Ks in UIL tournaments). I will listen to topicalities as long as they're warranted. If a team drops an argument, put it on the top of your order of arguments. I do not time road maps, but do not take advantage of that. This is a speaking event, so I expect to be able to understand you. If we are doing an online tournament, please do not spread. I am alright with speaking fast; however, if I cannot hear or understand your arguments, I cannot flow them. Give me Impact/Calc during your rebuttals. I will listen to warranted theories. I usually do not tolerate neg multi-world if the arguments conflict too much, but if the arguments still link to the affs plan I am more lenient. If you decide to do neg multi-world, kick the arguments that contradict each other by the rebuttals.

Follow the resolution. I will dock speaker points and will not flow any derogative, racist, xenophobic, or homophobic arguments/statements. Use proper decorum when you debate.

ask me if you have any specific questions!

LD: I am not a fan of spreading in LD, so please speak at a normal pace. I expect proper decorum and no profane or harmful language. I want to hear drops, otherwise it wont be flowed as a drop. This is a sensitive topic that impacts many people, please try to remember that if you are on the negative. I think value and criteria are big voters, but you have to back it up with the rest of your speech.

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes two framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I'm up for about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me I will vote almost exclusively on framework and impacts. Not a big fan of speed at all. If you are spreading then you aren't trying to win my ballot. If I can't follow you then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

Hi, first I want to say thank you for allowing me the pleasure of watching your round/s and I hope what critiques I give you help you in future rounds. A little background on me first. I did debate in high school and debated in college for Texas Tech University. I think that debate is always flowing and always changing so that leaves me open to any type of arguments. I am good at a understanding the straight up policy debate and I can understand the theoretical/philosophical debate. With that being said I do not understand every theoretical/philosophical argument so I do ask like in any debate to explain the argument and tell me why you should win. I am also not going to tell you what arguments you should run and which ones you should not. I would say almost every argument has some sort of utility and you should deploy that as you see fit. Debate is all about deploying the best strategy and educating your peers but that does not mean you should not try to win. If you need to kick an argument then kick it. I am not going to penalize you for it. Also I am also okay with not debating the topic as well. If you think there is a more pressing issue that we should be talking about rather than the topic then go for it. I am not going to vote you down for that. I think that debate facilitates a space where we can have these types of discussions and it would be wrong of me to silence your voice when debate is suppose to teach you to have a voice and why YOUR voice is important. So if we want to talk about race, feminism, heteronormativity, queer theory then go for it. I will not stop you from having the debate that you want to have. Remember have fun and be heard because your voice has meaning.

Hi! Add me to the email chain: anushkarsaini@gmail.com

Background-

I did basically all events in high school and am comfortable and experienced judging everything. In college I debated parli for 4 years at Texas Tech University and was very nationally competitive by the end of my career. I have been coaching for 15ish years and judging for even longer than that.

Here are specifics for debate:

What I vote on-

I default Netben unless told otherwise. Impacts and solvency are the best things to convince me to give you my ballot. Be civil or be tanked on speaks.

LD-

I don't mind hearing policy style or critical arguments, but you still need to engage with opponents that use Value and Criterion. You can't just format your opponents out of the round. For me, it is all about the line by line and how you structure your framework. The easiest thing for me to vote on are solvency and impacts. I will listen to theory, but there needs to be clear abuse. I am probably not the guy to run super experimental or out there arguments with. I don't mind hear critical stuff, but it is very easy for me to attach myself to arguments that simply say your K has no impact, perm do both, or just reading theory. I would say K's are not my strong suit, but I'll listen to them.

CX-

I'm good with everything. Don't name/card drop at me assuming I have heard the card you are talking about. (Cause I probably don't remember it lol)

Speed-

I'm ok with it as long as your opponent is ok with it. I refuse to let someone just spread a newer and/or traditional debater out and not allow them to engage in the debate. I will tell you to slow down if I need you to. Particularly so on online tournaments, speed needs to be accessible. I'll be honest, my ears are not as fast as they used to be. You probably just need to plan on going a little slower for me and give me access to evidence.

K-

Don't name drop and assume I know what your talking about. I expect links and impacts just like any other argument.

T-

Need to prove abuse, don't just say it is unfair.

CP/DA-

Absolutely my favorite thing to listen to in debate.

I'll follow whatever kind of case strategy being run based on the established framework.

Claims should have warrants, I put a lot of weight in evidence (either hard or philosophical) to support well developed arguments. There needs to be a clear link in value/value crit and evidence should be topical. I lean slightly pragmatic.

Quality of arguments are valued over quantity, but there should be sufficient evidence regardless of which strategy.

Opponents should always remain respectful to each other.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

I am a high school  debate coach. I have been judging debate for ten years, and am experienced in judging both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate.

The distinction between the approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate and Policy debate is important to me. Spreading, voluminous evidence, and complexity as competitive tactics make sense to me in Policy debate and are inherent to the nature and style of the activity. In contrast to that, Lincoln Douglas in both style and content should in my opinion emphasis values driven debate, logic, and articulate delivery that emphasizes eloquence and effective speaking. I do not think that spreading makes sense in Lincoln Douglas - it is not consonant with the nature of the activity in my opinion.

I am a tabula rasa judge in the sense that I do not enter a round with a predisposition to emphasize one side's burdens over another's. I flow the constructive arguments and rebuttal looking for which side most effectively addresses the resolution, creates the most coherent and relevant case, and effectively clashes most thoroughly and effectively with the elements of the case presented by their opponent. Speaking and poise help to convey the logic and clash that are the substance of debate, but it is the rhetoric itself that matters most to me.

I am a parent judge from Westwood High School. I used to be a litigator. Here is what I would be comfortably focused on:

1. Be organized with your key points, clear and crisp, from the very beginning;

2. Be respectful to your opponents, and challenge each other To The Point;

3. Prioritize your arguments and evidence;

4. Persuade me with your prioritization.

Medium speed is good for me.