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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

(i just copied and pasted from my judge philosophy wiki) 

I did LD on the Houston circuit all 4 years of high school at Clear Falls ('14), I went to UNT MGW'12 and qualled to TFA state. I coach as well.
University of Houston'18

s/o to pranav for pointing out my poor word economy on the paradigm
s/o to Sean De Stefano for giving me a bad shoutout in his paradigm :(
s/o to Daniel Conrad for an awesome shoutout, totes pref him a 1 if you can.
s/o to Angela Ho for being A. Ho. <3
no s/o to jessica until she gets better at extending.

For policy:
I don't judge policy enough. I think the LD paradigm should probably cover most things but if not feel free to ask. I don't judge policy enough but I'll try my best! Just weigh clearly and make clear voters.
- I don't count flashing as prep
- open CX is fine
- Prompting is fine

For LD:

I welcome unique arguments, as long as they're topical. I ran mostly plans and counterplans in high school, and default util when it comes to decision making, unless you tell me to evaluate otherwise. I'm totally fine with kritikal arguments, just slow down if you're going to read dense philosophy and explain the kritikal terms ("shadowboxing the system", etc). I didnt run too many kritikal things in HS, but I still think K rounds are pretty interesting. Let it be a fun round, just tell me how to evaluate it.
People tend to do better when they run things that they're comfortable with, so have fun!

It's really important that you explain your arguments and tell a good "story". I can keep up well with jargon, but I would rather you explain the implications and the links without having to rely too much on the terminology. I have to understand the argument, or else I won't vote on it OR will vote on the wrong way.

I love good link stories.
I try my best not to intefere (ie, if your link story/arg is weak, I'll let the debater point those out and make them voters. I wont make them voters myself unless I have to.)

Also make sure link chains in extinction impacts are really good. I'll evaluate a poor extinction chain, but I won't be happy. I'm better with link chains that lead to more reasonable impacts.

My prioritization of arguments goes like this: topicality, theory, ROB, substance.
I won't vote on blippy arguments. I feel like things should have a warrant.

TL;DR: do whatever you want, but explain things


Speaker Points
-Rudeness and being unclear will deduct you points. Arguments that I like will add you points. A 30 won't be hard to get as long as you explain well. If you're nice to a newer debater, I'll reward you. Weighing and good voters will bump you up as well.
-I almost always give over 28 points so don't worry about it too much. Generally it means I think you should break. Unless I really dont like something that you did in round.
-If a round ends up being messy or a "bad" round, don't worry. I feel like sometimes that will happen outside of the debater's control. I only penalize bad debaters/bad choices/bad args, so just dont cause a bad round.



Speed
I'm about a 7-9 on speed. I'll yell clear but if it becomes obnoxious I'll give you low speaks or won't flow the argument at all.
-if you're unclear I hope you lose every single round
-loud spreading is better than quiet spreading
-please give me a second to get used to your voice/speaking style, after that have fun.
-slow down on stuff you want me to really catch.

Theory/Topicality
- naturally, theory/topicality comes before ROB, then substance. Unless you tell me otherwise.
- I default reasonability unless you tell me otherwise.
- I actually love a good theory round
- Slow down when reading interp and violation.
- Weigh your theory shell and make it clear that there's consistent abuse in the round. You have to convince me to drop the debater, its easier for me to buy drop the argument. Impact it well.
- layer shells and weigh abuses when there's multiple shells in the round so i know which shell to prioritize
- Please dont make me vote on blippy theory.
- easier to win "drop the debater" with me
- I'll buy an RVI unless theres an untouched spike that says no rvi's. but the spike has to be extended (goes to all args of this nature)
- tbh I'll pretty much vote on any theory shell
- ill vote on presumption but you have to extend it for me as a voter and why theres an absence of offense.
- I'm okay with most theory/t practices in debate, just make sure you flesh it out really well and tell me how different shells interact with other args like ROB, burdens, other shells, spikes, etc etc.
-im okay with paragraph theory

Plans/CP/DA's
- good link stories in extinction impacts
- an uncompetitive cp will just be a second aff.
- really idk what else to say about this
- i prefer more reasonable impacts to large magnitude impacts but im okay with voting off extinction

Kritiks
- im slowly starting to get more kritikal, and im starting to like these positions a lot
- I'm better with low level theory than high level
- i can understand a cap k/fem k/ etc etc. When it comes to stuff like hiedegger, DnG, baudrillard, etc, please slow and explain.
- I'm pretty comfy with nietzsche, friere, zizek, marx, foucalt etc. Im also pretty comfy with general framework authors like rawls, kant etc etc. (ill try to update this as i learn)
- slow down and clarify if youre going to read dense philosophy. I won't vote on arguments that I dont understand
- some K's i noticed tend to be super nuanced in the link. I think it would be a better strat to use specific ac texts/cards to support the link.
- slow down on the link
- skep is fine, just dont use it to answer a structural oppression case.

Things you should do
- Slow down on card names,tags & claims, speeding up on warrants is fine.
- Slow down on plan texts, ROB, alts, theory interps/violations, or anything you want me to hear etc.
- Give clear voting issues and weigh, or else I will need to intervene. I'll try to make a fair decision every single round, but I can't always do that if you don't do the work for me. If I have to intervene expect low speaks.
-be consistent and clean on the flow.
-make impacts explicitly clear. I need to know exactly how you want this to interact with the ballot and other arguments
-actually follow the paradigm
-Extend correctly.
-explain.


Things you shouldn't do
- Debate the decision after round. it will just make me more mad, and less likely to change my mind and like you in future rounds. Questions are fine.
- Run morally repulsive things like "racism/homophobia/sexism good." I will actually drop you as a debater on face if you run that. If you need to clarify what I deem as unacceptable you can ask before round.
- Make me vote of stuff I don't want to, or go for arguments that I don't like.
- Be rude in round.
- Tricky stuff.
- If you're rude to your opponents during round (sarcasm, making fun of them, saying offensive stuff, overkilling on a novice, etc) I will tank your speaker points or may even drop you depending on the situation.
- if you're unlcear or being messy on the flow don't get mad at me for not flowing. I shouldn't have to work that hard to type an argument.
-Sketchy positions.
-run things are that are bad for debate.
-miscut evidence. I didnt run that much philosophy to be able to tell if a certain author actually concluded the claims youre running in round, with that being said, if you get called out in round I will call evidence. But please don't miscut evidence to begin with.



~some rounds I sign the ballot early, bc normally after the 2ar it wont take me long to put together who wins.However, I can still change my mind during the round. But after the round there's nothing you can do.
~I like to eat during rounds
~ignore my typing, I type comments during prep to help me sometimes.
~I update this a lot during tournaments.
~be nicer and louder during early rounds. I'm sleepy and I'm probably suffering.

Conflict: Clear Falls and Lamar Consolidated, anyone that I might be coaching


Please let me know if you have any questions. You're totally welcome to find me after round for questions about the ballot, or ask about my paradigm before round.

If you have questions, my email is Dar.Balybina@gmail.com, or you can add me on facebook to ask questions.
Have fun, and good luck

Email: Cameronallinbarrett@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paradigm - I believe more in a judge conforming to the debaters than the debaters conforming to the judge. In this regard I have experience considering all forms of debate in one regard or another. I would never tell a debater to change a strat simple because I am a judge and most people should feel free to run any arguments that they are comfortable with. That being said, I do hope for a great deal of clash in the round and I normally default to a policy maker stance if no ROB is given or if no other criteria is up for consideration. The most important thing I could say is just to be yourself, if you are a traditional debater go with it and if you want to run a critical narrative then lets do this. 
On a scale of 1 (Traditional) and 11 (Kritikal) - 6
Favorite Debate Argument: I love very squirrely arguments, things that seem utterly bonkers but that work. This doesn't mean that just because you have the coolest idea I will vote for it though, the ability to execute an idea is very important. A little more specifically I have a fondness for kritiks such as security but I find that they are often underutilized. 
Least Favorite Argument: I have never had a particular fondness for theory arguments, I understand them and will consider them but I just find them a bit duller than other arguments. 
Won't vote on: I will vote on anything if it is presented in the round. 


Other broad preferences: 


Specifics - 
Likely to vote on (1 is low, 5 is high)
Topicality 3
Theory 3
Disads 3
Counterplans 3
Kritiks 3


A good debate about Topicality A good debate about topicality should firstly have some legitimacy in my mind by being able to show some sort of in round abuse, potential abuse is a lot trickier to consider and is just not as convincing or as strong of a position. 


The standards debate should become rather clear cut by the end of the round, focused around just one or at most two standards that not only have implications within round but also outside of round. Fairness has a bit of an edge over education in my mind. 
A good debate about Theory:


A good debate about disads: 

A good debate about counterplans:
A CP should have some sort of mutual exclusivity to it, and having something build into the actual CP goes a long way with me since you don't have to depend on turns or a DA.  Additionally the application of turns on case can generate some exclusivity but you need to be making it clear that is what is happening if you go that route. 


A good debate about Kritiks: 


Other specific argument prefences: 



Other Things:
Speed: 4
Their flow: 4
Comments on flowing/speed: I am pretty good at understanding people when they spread, that being said. Standard stuff, go as fast as you are able while being clear, don't spread if you don't know how. If I don't hear the argument it doesn't end up on the flow. 


Gives good speaker points (1 is low, 10 is high) - Self rated-
8
Factors for speaker points: 


Other:

Prefer creative/progressive arguments. I'm a little rusty (haven't really had time to judge since the beginning of the season), but can still manage moderate speed (faster than regular talking, but not full-out spreading; somewhere in between). Please be clear. If you're not clear, I will say "clear" once, and then stop writing if it continues. Prefer framework over contentional, but will still weigh both. 

Signpost clearly and give clear voters.

I need everything to explained to me and put out there clearly. If things aren't explained clearly and simply, I might not understand it, and that's only to your detriment.

Tell me what the standard is and how I ought to weigh the round, why you've fulfilled it, and why your opponent hasn't.

Clash is also very important; if y'all pass each other like ships in the night, I'm basically obligated to just go with the argument I like best, and not the one that should win.   Any other questions, please ask!

Background: I was a Lincoln Douglas debater from 8th grade to my senior year in highschool, with some experience in extemporaneous speaking and knowledge in CX debate. I am now a junior at the University of North Texas.

Logistics of the round: I have no problem with how fast you choose to speak as long as you are clear and slow down on tags. I will say clear twice, if I still cannot understand you I will stop flowing. If you go over one minute, flashing evidence does count as prep-time. Flex prep is fine as long as both parties agree to it. Don't be rude to your partner, you will lose speaker points. Part of communicating is how you do it. The real world doesn't lend well to rude, badgering speakers. Also, be sure to extend your arguments! 

Types of Arguments: I enjoy off-beat K debates, well explained logic positions, or the traditional impacts/disadvantages debate. Although, I will not vote against you based on the type of argument you choose to run. If you must utilze theory, be clear as to how the theory should fit into my decision calculus. You have the power to tell me what matters in the round, do not be passive of that. 

How to win the round: FRAME THE DEBATE. Framing is very important. I must have a standard to weigh the arguments. If you do not provide me with such mechanism I am forced to intervene (which I hate to do) and you may not like the way I vote. If you do absolutely nothing else in the debate, tell me why your standard matters, why it's the ultimate standard in the round, and how your advocacy links back to that standard, whereas your opponents does not. 

Any other questions, please ask before we begin. I wish you all the very best in your rounds! 

Former LD debater from Mayde Creek in Houston, TX.

I debated public forum for 2 years and moved onto Lincoln Douglas for my junior and senior years where I debated extensively on the Texas/national circuit. As of right now, I don't plan on judging a ton of rounds, so take that into consideration I guess. If i'm on a panel, I will be as tabula rasa as humanly possible.

Short paradigm for those who don't want to read everything:
I never liked judges that were overly picky or refused to listen to arguments so I don't care what you do, just don't put me in an awkward position and don't be a complete goober to your opponent.

Longer paradigm:

Speaking styles:
I don't care how fast you go, just don't whisper and don't mumble. A lot of debaters think they have to use a higher pitch voice to go faster, that is completely false. If you are a person who has a particularly high pitch voice, I apologize but I might have a hard time hearing you. I will yell clear or slow. I like when debaters are funny but if you're not funny, don't try to be. I average a 28 for speaks and largely base speaks on strategy.

Theory:
Some of my peers thought I read too much theory when I debated (they were probably right) but I don't think there's such thing as "too much" when it comes to any style of debate. Therefore, I don't care how much theory you read, just don't read disclosure theory and don't read poorly written shells. This does not mean you should go out of your way to read theory in front of me however, there's nothing worse than when a debater invites a theory debate that they can't keep up with. If you enjoy reading theory then go for it, if you don't then don't read it. Other notes: I'm perfectly ok with args that say "fairness/education isn't a voter". If there's defense on an argument, there's no such thing as risk of offense on theory. Default no RVIs unless told otherwise. Would prefer you read a counter interpretation. I don't know how to judge "reasonability". Be comparative.

LARP:
There's nothing better than a good old-fashion larp throwdown. I debated this style a lot my junior year and feel comfortable judging this style of debate. You really need to weigh arguments (this goes for everything). I really enjoy when a debater uses the nuances of their framework to outweigh a turn or their opponent's offense. In my experience, the larp debate can get super muddled if one of you isn't sign posting in a loud or obvious way. Seriously, don't say "moving on to the disad" at the same pace as the rest of your speech because I guarantee I won't hear it.

Kritiks:
Go for it, however I don't like that debaters have stopped being creative with their arguments and just recycle the same old "cap bad" cards that we've all heard before. I think that counter-Ks are super cool if done right. I've seen some alts that advocate violence towards groups of people (be it the oppressed or the oppressor) and I really despise those arguments and feel they have no place in the debate world. K's are dope, just slow down because I probably haven't read whatever new psychoanalysis theory you're reading before.

Tricks/skep:
I focused my entire senior year to this style of debate and I really feel it's a lost art form. 100% go for it, but with some caveats: 1.) Don't lie to your opponent in CX and say "there is no skep triggers in my case" and in your next speech say "jk skep triggered". You already dedicated yourself to the sketch, don't back out now. 2.) Don't do it wrong aka don't read presumption triggers with no presumption args, don't read skep/permissibility triggers in your AC if you don't say "skep/permis flows aff". 3.) Be ready to defend your practices if your opponent calls you out on the issue.

Topicality:
Yeah sure, does anyone ever actually say "no i hate T"? Shells need a carded definition and counter-interps don't necessarily need one (but a carded interp probably outweighs an uncarded one, depending on the standards/reasons to prefer).

10/30/15 UPDATE: 
I really hate the direction debate is going. It feels like every single round is the same rehashed K debate over and over again. Yes, Giroux is a good card. No, you don't have to slap it on at the end of every case you read. If you structure your cases with overused critical arguments, you probably shouldn't pref me very high. This doesn't mean don't read critical arguments in front of me, it just means be a little more creative. 

If you have any questions, email me at alecconlay96@gmail.com or message me on facebook.

PARADIGM SHORT

1. Be nice and respectful. If you are highly offensive or disrespectful, I reserve the right to vote you down.

2. Speed is fine, but be clear and slow down in rebuttals. If you go top speed in rebuttals, I will miss arguments.

3. I prefer interesting and creative arguments. I will usually prefer truth over tech and decide on the most cohesive weighed argument. If I don't clearly understand, I don't vote. Tell me how to vote please.

4. If you do what makes you comfortable and throw a voter on it, you'll be fine.

MORE STUFF

I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.

My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments.

I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny, nice, and/or like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often than not I'll decide your way.

I don't believe in speaker points. I will either give you the max (99.99999999999% of rounds) or you will get the minimum (reserved for doing something abhorent)

If you are oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.

Please keep me entertained(two invested debaters is enough). I have severe ADHD.

Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

I'll listen to anything but am generally not a great judge. Especially bad with philosophy and kritiks. 

Good luck and don't be late for rounds. 

I debated LD for 4 years at Clements High School (2011-15), qualifying to TOC my junior and senior year.

As a debater, I mainly read Policy styled arguments and T/theory. I’m not deeply familiar with any particular body of literature, but I will likely have enough exposure to understand your argument and it’s implication for the round with clear explanations. So I’ll vote on pretty much anything that doesn’t make me doubt the activity’s value (e.g. racism good).

As a notice, I am no longer actively involved in debate, so be considerate. The last time I judged was at the Penn LBC tournament and the Penn LD Round robin. Speed should not be a problem - I am not afraid to call clear and slow - but I might not catch onto or be receptive to any new strategy antics that debaters love to pull.

I give speaker points based on a) general clarity and ethos, b) how well you understand and use your arguments (smart strategy)

Affiliations: Clements High School, Northland Christian School

I am A traditonal judge.  When it comes to LD debate I look at the key aruguments in the round but ultimately look at the Value Critertion as the key weigh mechnism of the round. I want all debaters to stand during speeched and I am not a fan of spreading. When it comes to other speech events I look at prsentation and delivery.  

Debated 4 years at Stratford High School (Houston)
Competing for University of Houston in Policy

Questions? Email me at gravesbila@gmail.com

Speaks:
I heard from someone once, can't remember their name: "You have a 30 until you start speaking," and I believe that to be the case. In all seriousness though I'll likely start at a 28.5 and go up and down from there. Sometimes I won't start at the 28.5 and whoever finishes speaking first I will try and rank them and rank the other person based off of that. It depends on the round. But I will try and stay within the 28-29 range if at all possible.

LD:
I did LD for most of high school and I feel like I'm one of the few that likes the direction that it is taking. But with that in mind I feel like I have to say this before anything else: IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENTS, DON'T JUST READ THEM. That is a huge pet peeve of mine, if you can't explain what your argument is saying in CX or you read a Counter-Plan and can't tell your opponent if it's conditional or not, these are instances where you shouldn't be reading these arguments. Pretty self-explanatory but it happens all too often. I'll try and go through all the concerns one may have, starting from what is asked the most.

Speed:
I am totally fine with it, if you aren't clear or loud enough I won't be worried to say either of them. However I won't say them a total of more than twice, after that I'll drop speaks. I'm pretty good with understanding you even if you aren't the most clear but that doesn't mean that I won't have issues. On that same point, I don't think being fast for the sake of being fast is worth it. If your opponent isn't comfortable with it, don't do it just to get an advantage. Debate is an educational activity, if both sides are fine with it, speed will be fine with me. If it makes it completely one sided then I don't necessarily think anyone will be learning things from the round.

Theory:
Legitimate abuse is needed for me to vote on theory. Don't just read shells because you think you can get away with it and opponents can't answer. As I said, debate is about education. While theory can sometimes be educational, more often then not theory really just seems to be a time suck. The next question normally asked about theory is what do I default to? I tell everyone that asks me this that there really isn't a default. Both are good things for debate but be sure to implicate why I should prefer one or the others. One line in theory shell that says: "prefer competing interpretations" then moves on doesn't give me a reason why I should buy it. You're just saying the words. Give me a theoretical reason WHY I should buy competing interpretations or reasonability. Both have reasons why they're good, I've heard them tons of why. But debate about those reasons. Theory should be debated well and if it isn't implicated why do I vote? What role does theory play? How should I evaluate it? All of these questions should be answered. I'm a bit more lenient on Topicality shells as opposed to any theory violations, but there still has to be actual abuse. All of the above still applies.

Kritiks:
I'm fine with you reading them but I'm not super versed in the lit. I have a basic understanding of most but don't expect me to know the tiny distinctions between the arguments that you're reading. I feel that a lot of the time the alt needs to be pointed out much more which doesn't happen all too often. Try and be sure to explain this and contextualize it, weighing it against the world of the Aff. If I don't get how the alt works by the end of the round, then it's very doubtful that I'll vote on your K. Impact analysis is still important and you have to engage arguments made by the aff. Just saying K outweighs or making generic claims isn't enough. Do work just like any other argument.

CPs:
If you spend a minute and a half in CX trying to answer if your CP is conditional or not, you probably shouldn't be running it. With that being said, I'm fine with them as long as you understand how it functions in regards to the aff. You don't have to read a competition section that's longer than whatever your net benefit is, but it should be competitive in some form or another. Overall I'm fine with them, but most of these are arguments that I like, so I will hold you to a high standard and your ethos will tank with me if you do them badly.

Policy:
A lot of what I said above applies here but I'm not going to hold you to as high of standards on things like theory. How it's evolved in the two are completely different, and they can be debated as such. The biggest thing for me is that you have to read case arguments in the 1NC, starting case in the block isn't fair, and especially as a 2A I feel very strongly about this. The main thing however I think I have to say here that wouldn't have been addressed above is that I will buy pretty much any argument. Obviously there are thresholds with blatantly offensive arguments (racism good is really the only one that comes to mind) but for most anything I can be persuaded. Debate well and you'll do fine.

PF:
I don't really know what paradigm questions you'd have for this, but the biggest one I can think of is big picture v line-by-line. And I'd prefer line-by-line for sure. That's really the only thing. Make the debate interesting educational and all will be good.

Hello,

As so far as debate experience, I did LD for four years. I am very well equip to judge rounds of multiple levels. For those of you that are new to debate, don't do something you are not sure how to do. In other words, DO NOT READ BACK FILES OR RANDOM Ks, CPs, Theory, etc. just to impress or intimidate especially if you're not fully aware of what the argument actually is. For more advanced debaters, don't assume that your lack of seeing me judge indicates that I can't judge your round. Understanding theory and the structure of argumentation is not an issue for me. Trust that you do not have dumb down theory for me but what you can expect is for me to correct you when you're utilizing theory wrong. Will not vote on theory that is being used wrong. (here when i say theory I do not mean theory in terms of making a rule or norm for the round but rather what is traditionally thought of as Framework. I mean critical theory: feminism, intersectionality, whiteness, capitalism, marxism, etc. If you don't know it, don't use it. Simple.)

In general, I would love to see rounds that truly engage in critical theory and social justice issues. I think it's one of the most beneficial things about debate. Engaging in arguments that truly challenge power structures truly begin to disrupt the power structures that exist in this white, rich, cis activity. The resolution allows for enough room for you to always be thinking critically about the way you exist in the world so let the round be a space where you teach me something. With that being said, I enjoy a good K or Theory (in the traditional sense) debate. I'm open to you making the debate round what you want it to be as long as you tell me why. Certain rules are made to reinforce systems of power so if you want the round to exist differently than the rules established, tell me why and we will do it. But know that if you are doing something radically different, be ready to still give me a way of determining who will win. The ballot medal for who is the most "woke". There has to be a rational way of getting my ballot.

I love learning new perspectives and being part of critical discussions.

If you have questions about my position on certain types of arguments, you are welcome to contact me or look for me before a round.

Clements High School '15

UT Austin '19

GENERAL:

I vote on the flow, so don't drop anything that might be significant. Give me a way to evaluate the round; tell me why you win. Run your best arguments but don't assume that I have prior knowledge of them.

SPEED:

I'm okay with speed as long as you're clear. Slow down on taglines if you want me to flow better.

FRAMEWORK: 

Justify your framework. I can accept a wide array of arguments as long as they are clearly linked to the resolution. 

THEORY: 

Theory is okay in my book, but I prefer to not have it run.

ARGUMENTATION: 

Use evidence as evidence, don't just say a card and an impact: show me you understand the argument. In rebuttals, more specifically weighing, tell me what factor you are outweighing (and also just signpost, no need to repeat opponents' arguments). Clear extensions: looking for you to say "extend" and restate claim, warrant, and impact etc.

Updated March 2023(note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

I debated for Northland and graduated in 2014. Mostly competed in LD, but also did a bunch of other events and worlds schools debate for Team USA. Coached Northland for a bit, then Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, then I was the director of the MS speech and debate program at Harker for 3 years. Now, I'm in law school and an assistant coach for Harker.

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

I competed in LD for 3 years on the TFA, TOC, and NFL circuits at the The Kinkaid School in Houston, Texas and graduated in 2015.

I’m comfortable/familiar with whatever style of debate you prefer.

Short version: Read well developed, not offensive, resolutionally grounded arguments and weigh your offense/provide me a clear ballot story, and I will vote for you. I’m open to most arguments; given you explain to me how they operate in the round.

Speed is fine, but I’ve never been awesome at flowing so don’t start out at top speed. On a scale from 1-10, 1 being the slowest and 10 the fastest, I’d rate myself a 6…I’d appreciate some time to adjust to your speaking style before you speed up. Please slow down for important parts of your case---spikes, plans, counterplans, interps (any advocacy texts really) as well as author names/tags.
Theory/topicality: I default to reasonability and drop the argument, and am very inclined to give aff RVIs, but if you win reasons why I should believe otherwise, that’s fine too. You probably have to be topical. I do not like paragraph theory. I think theory has its place in debate and if you read a well-warranted, creative theory shell when there is real abuse happening in round, I will gladly evaluate it. Theory as a strategic layer in the debate is a legitimate choice and you should not be discouraged from utilizing it. At the end of the round, WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. If neither debater is weighing offense under their interp you can bet that I’m going to intervene and that intervention will be going to SUBSTANCE instead. I WILL NOT ARBITRARILY ADJUDICATE THE THEORY DEBATE---if you want me to buy your interp COMPARATIVE WEIGHING IS KEY.
Policy Arguments: I believe these are the debates I am best at evaluating. That being said, ---do what you feel most comfortable/best doing and I will reward you for that. Plans, CPs, disads are all great given they have all of their necessary parts. WEIGHING EVIDENCE/IMPACTS IS SO IMPORTANT IN THESE DEBATES.
Critical Arguments: I think critical arguments/debates can be really fun to judge given you know what you’re talking about and I know what you’re talking about. I haven’t read much of the common critical literature, but am perfectly willing to vote on anything you read as long as you take the time to clearly explain your argument. I will not vote on Ks that are missing necessary components (framework, alternatives, etc). Don’t be shifty about whether your offense functions pre or post fiat. If your opponent can’t discern how the K functions, chances are I can’t either. I don’t have any predispositions to certain types of Ks and open to any argument as long as you have a specific link to the aff. I don’t like generic Ks or Ks of the resolution, but will vote on any argument that is won in the round.
Speaker Points: My main concern is courtesy and respect to your opponent, judge, and the debate space. After that, I will reward strategic choices made in round, WEIGHING, and humor/perceptual dominance. Literally any weighing will probably jump you up. Your speaks will be negatively affected if you create a hostile space for me or other debaters, but especially for less-experienced or clearly new debaters.
Other stuff/tricks: I’m not the most familiar with “tricks” in debate, whether that’s in the forms of spikes, skep, permissibility, presumption, etc. If you choose to go this route, don’t expect me to vote for you because “they dropped spike number 5 under subpoint a so you vote aff.” Arguments consist of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If you give me those three things, you shouldn’t have any problems.

Most importantly, be kind and have fun! Debate should be a fun activity. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at ninakalluri1@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

I understand LD debate to be centered around the idea of deliberating conflicting ideologies and having it link into your substance debate. That being said, I opt for a framework level debate. I like to see all arguments linking back to some sort of framework that works on a higher level. However, if it becomes apparent in the round that framework isn't a large issue as decided organically within the round, then I will adapt. 

Ex: I dont care about a death toll unless you explain why its bad. IF your opponent makes it out to be a good thing, and you neglect to refute the claim, in that moment in the round I will understand death to be a good thing. 

Progressive debate is accepted, completely. My only rule with this being that it must be done correctly. This means, for example, if you run a plan with no plan text, or solvency advocate, then I dont see it as even remotely valid and you will have wasted approx 3-4 minutes of your time. I will not flow any arguments made incorrectly. Progessive debate can be a risk, it becomes even riskier when done incorrectly, some judges will draw conclusions for you, I will not. 

Clear extentions must be made, as stated earlier, I will not do any legwork for you.

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

Short Version:

I’m ok with anything you choose to run (outside of sexist, racist, homophobic stuff, everything is morally permissible, etc.) and I will evaluate every arg as long as it is well-run (clear link, warrant, and impact). That being said, I do have different thresholds for different arguments (more on that later). I’m OK with speed, but not the greatest. I will yell clear if necessary. If I need to say clear more than twice then I’m tanking your speaks and you will probably lose bc I won’t know anything you’re saying anyway.

Long Version:

Speed – I’m fine with it but I’m admittedly not great. I will try to keep up with you and I will yell clear up to 2 times before I start docking speaks. Read advocacy texts/taglines/authors SLOWLY. Do not read dense K or FW literature at top speed. It is worth cutting out a card or two to elaborate on your position in your own words rather than leaving me completely in the dark.

Traditional/Case – Good

Policy (Ads, Disads, Plans, CPs) – Good

Kritikal stuff – Good. I think Kritikal debates can be interesting and meaningful. However, I’m not well-versed in a lot of K literature so please slow down if you are reading something dense and explain it well. Pulling a K out of a random backfile and trying to spread through it is not going to work. You need to understand your own K if you want me to understand it.  You’ll also need specific links to the 1AC, a clear weighing mechanism/ROB, and a clear alt. Aff Ks are fine but don’t exempt you from having strong links (obviously you can’t link into 1NC but the squo is good).

Framework/Top-heavy – Good. I’m not well-versed in this type of literature either, so please explain it well. Unique and interesting frameworks are highly encouraged, but I need to be able to understand it to vote on it. Weighing is always important, but especially key here.

Theory – Ok. Obviously I'd rather adjudicate substance than theory. I’d appreciate if you ran theory only if there is real abuse in the round, but that can be hard to define sometimes. Use your best discretion – it’s pretty obvious when theory is being used to call out abuse vs as a time suck. I default to competing interps and drop the arg but if you give me warrants for other things (I think reasonability is very underutilized) then I will gladly evaluate them.

Topicality – Good. I think T is very important and I enjoy evaluating good T debates.

Tricky Stuff (Presumption, Triggers, Spikes, etc.) – Meh. I will evaluate them if they are well-warranted. If you can make good arguments you won’t need these types of tricks. If your opponent identifies your plan and calls you out, I will sympathize with them.

Skep/Permissibility - No. Saying that everything is permissible is just not OK to me, and minimizes the horrible things that have happened/are happening in the world.

Anything else – Ask before round; it should probably be fine.

Speaks – I’m pretty generous. Speaks are primarily based on argumentation. I will also factor in clarity and presentation. Humor is also nice.

Please give me CLEAR voters in the 2NR/2AR. There is an easy way to win each round. FIRST, tell me what arguments come first. SECOND, tell me how you link into these arguments best and how you outweigh versus your opponent. Crystallize this for me and it will be very easy to evaluate the round.

If there is no weighing mechanism presented or it is a wash, I will default to T>theory>ROB>everything else.

Lastly, please disclose cases and cards to your opponent. Debate is a learning activity – help others learn about your position and about different types of arguments and authors that you utilize.

LD: 

Generally, I prefer traditional debates over progressive argumentation. I vote on the flow so extensions are very important. I would say that I evaluate framework more than contention level arguments. 

Spreading is fine but be sure to slow down on card names, taglines, and anything that you think is extremely important. However, keep in mind that my tolerance for speed is limited. I would say that fast talking or normal paced delivery is how much speed I would like to see in round. If I do not understand what you are saying I will say clear up to three times. If you are still unclear then expect to get 25 speaks. 

I'm okay with CPs, theory, DAs, etc. but I greatly dislike Ks. If you plan on running a K, please be really clear on the links throughout the round (I really prefer you do not run them though). 

Speaks are given based on presentation. I'm very generous with speaks unless I can't understand you. Lastly, please be sure to give me clear roadmaps.

LD:

I did LD in high school. I do policy at UH. I am open to pretty much whatever you'd like to run, and below I will talk about some specific preferences 

- flow>truth 

- I will not vote you up on any morally rephrehensible arguments--you know what I mean (impact turns on racism, rape) and your speaks will be pitiful 

K: 

I preface this by saying that kritiks are my favorite argument to hear and it's because of this that I have a lot of k specific paradigms (it's not because I'm anti-k!! My little brother told me it sounded this way)

- you need to clearly articulate a link SPECIFIC TO THE AFF. Generic ks are fine, but please--do a little analysis of how it interacts with the particular AC in question

- do enough work on the alt-- don't wait until you have a few seconds left in the NR and then scramble to make an extension 

- I will get ANNOYED if you try to run Ks you clearly don't understand. It's very obvious (I will be able to tell), and if you try this you're pretty unlikley to win because you probably won't be able to do a good job

- k affs are fine

CP/DISAD:

- they're fine. Run them well or don't run them at all

THEORY:

- fine, whether there is in round abuse or not. I default to reasonability

TRADITIONAL: 

- I prefer progressive, but will totally listen to traditional. Do whatever you're best at. 

SPEAKS:

- Usually, the problem with clarity is not that the debater is too fast, it's that the debater thinks they can spread clearly at a fast pace when in reality they can't . I will say clear two times and then start deducting speaks. I will never put down my pen because you're unclear, and will try to get down what you're saying, but what I don't write down I can't vote on...remember that 

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Metelitsa%2C+Eddie

I am a former high school policy debater and coached speech and debate at Ruston High School for four years. I am not currently coaching at any program.

Section 1: Policy & LD

General Philosophy

In general, my philosophy is to evaluate the arguments as presented to me and make my decision based upon the arguments made in the round without letting personal biases influence my decision. I do have preferences for what I would like to see, but I try not to let those preferences influence my decision making. That said, I do not believe any of us are truly "tabula rasa" and so I will lay out some of my preferences below.

I come from a more traditional policy background, and that is definitely where I feel most comfortable evaluating rounds. I have judged and voted for plenty of critical positions, but I am probably not the judge you want to test out your most cutting edge K stuff with.

Speed

I am fine with speed, but I don't have a TOC-level flow pen. Please slow down if you are reading theory or making several analytic points you want me to write down. I will say "clear" if you are being unclear, but if I say it several times with no improvement, I will stop reminding you.

Framework/Role of the Ballot/Etc.

My belief is that the role of the ballot is to determine who won or lost a debate round. Most role of the ballot arguments function as framework for me. If no framework is given to me, I will evaluate the round as a policymaker. If framework arguments are made, the winning framework becomes the lens through which I evaluate the round.

Theory

I consider myself to have a fairly high threshold for theory. I do not believe you must always prove in-round abuse (though it definitely helps), but I do believe you must show what the other side did is objectively wrong and bad for debate. I don't like it when theory seems to be something tacked on in the hopes that the other side will drop it and give you an "automatic win." I am not automatically pulling the trigger on a theory argument just because it was dropped. You need to prove the other side did something seriously wrong.

Debate Round Practices

-I do not take flash time as prep as long as it is not abused.

-I do not want you to flash me your evidence. I believe it is your burden to read it clearly in the round. If I need to see a card after the round, I will call for it.

-I am okay with flex prep, but I do not believe the other team has any obligation to respond to your questions during this time. If they choose not to answer questions during this time, I will not hold it against them.

-I do not care where you sit, but I prefer that you speak facing me.

-I expect you to be respectful to the other people in the round (judges, teammates, competitors, spectators, etc.). Being disrespectful can cost you speaker points.

-I do not like profanity in the round. Excessive use of profanity may cost you speaker points.

Section 2: Policy

Affirmatives

I do believe affirmatives have a burden to be topical. This may manifest itself in different forms, but I will not have a lot of sympathy for an affirmative who outright denies this burden.

I am most familiar with affirmatives who run plans. If you are running some kind of alternative advocacy, I will need you to be very clear about what you are advocating.

Negatives

I prefer negative strategies based around DAs, CPs, and case.

If you are running critical arguments, please understand that I may not be familiar with all of the jargon. Therefore, you will need to do a good bit of explanatory work in order to get me to understand your position. If I don't understand your kritik, I am not going to vote for it.

I believe is it important for kritiks to show how the alternative address the problem posed and why it is preferable and mutually exclusive to the plan (or affirmative advocacy).

Section 3: LD

If you are an LD debater who prefers running Policy-style arguments, that is not a problem for me, but please see my notes in the policy section.

Plan v. Whole Res

I am fine listening to either style of debate.

Name: Tyler Morris
High School: Clear Lake (Houston, TX)
College: University of Houston

Background and TL;DR: I debated LD and PF for 4 years at Clear Lake High School, and am currently in my 3rd year of Policy Debate at UH. I tend to prefer “traditional” debate, but I also consider myself flexible in this regard most of the time. I’m willing to hear you out on any argument, but you’re probably going to be more successful in front of me if you “color inside the lines.”

I am theoretically willing to accept any argument; this philosophy is only to clarify the biases that I come into the round with. I am not as objective as either of us would like to pretend I am, and this should let you know how my biases tend to manifest themselves.

As a side note that I feel needs to be provided, I am not very expressive in round. I will try, but I was never good at interpreting body language as a debater, and I am equally bad at expressing myself as a judge. Please, for your own good, do not try to interpret my body language in-round.

General Stuff:

Paperless & Prep: Prep stops when the flash drive is pulled out, or when the other team receives the e-mail.

Speaks: I generally tend to give pretty high speaks, with an average somewhere in the 28-ish range.

Speed: I’ll tell you if you’re going too fast, or aren’t being clear enough. It will also impact your speaks. You should probably keep it a little on the slow side, though.

Decorum: It's a part of your ethos, and you should do what you feel comfortable doing. Just make sure that if you're deviating from the standard "office dress" or whatever, you're able to pull it off. Don't do something that's not you. Feel free to make jokes or get excited about the round and stuff like that.  Debaters with a personality are a lot more fun to judge.

LD: A thing that you should keep in mind when I’m judging is that LD was the first event that I competed in. That means that most of my other debate experience has been framed in the context of LD, and as such I’m probably one of the more progressive LD judges. Generally, if you don’t think it’s necessary to have a Value or a Standard, I’m not going to insist that you have one either. You do your thing.

The one thing I do insist on is analytical argumentation. I would much rather have an analytical argument against something without a card than a card without any substantial analytical argument backing it. As for specific stuff:

Kritiks: I’m actually a lot more friendly to Ks in LD than I am plans or CPs – I feel like they fit much more naturally in LD than anywhere else, including CX. As far as the types of Ks you should run in front of me and how you should run them, I’m gonna copy and paste this from my CX paradigm:

Theoretically, I like them. I’m not too well-versed in the literature, though, so if you choose to go that route, you’re going to have to slow down a bit and cut back on the jargon a lot. This should be pretty easy with stuff like Cap or Fem, substantially less so with stuff like D&G.

I’m also unlikely to buy anything where the link is dubious. If your link is to use of the USFG in general, you probably don’t have a link. The more specific the link, the better. Links to a claimed impact will do the trick, as will a link to a specific harm of the plan.

Plans/CPs: I naturally default to a truth-testing role, but that’s very much flexible. If you can explain why it’s necessary or preferable to have a plan or a counterplan in the context of the resolution, I’m willing to buy some of what you’re selling.

Topicality/Theory: In LD, I don’t believe Topicality is an ipso facto voter in the same way it is in CX. Where possible, I typically reject the argument, not the debater. That being said, it’s not particularly likely that a debater running a plan will lose a Topicality argument and go on to win the round.

One thing I hate more than anything else is when debaters run Theory arguments as a time suck. You’re not just wasting your opponent’s time; you’re wasting mine too. While running a ton of theory arguments won’t cost you the ballot, it will likely hurt your speaks.

Policy/CX: I prefer a “traditional,” plan-centered Aff, and a DA/CP Neg, but I’m not hard-and-fast on that by any means – it’s a preference, not a rule. I’d rather have a fleshed-out debate over something boring than a skeletal debate about something odd, but if you run them, I definitely do like seeing creative arguments – a lot of the stuff that other judges write off as trying to be “sneaky” is the kind of stuff I like seeing in round. Well-developed debates over unusual arguments are a lot of fun. Actually, well-developed debates over any arguments are a lot of fun, but this is particularly true when the arguments get weird.

Disads: Sure, whatever. Politics is fine, so is whatever else.

CPs: I’m okay with a lot of CPs, with the exception being Consult CPs. If you’re going to run an Agent CP, ask about their agent in CX, otherwise I’m likely to buy a perm.

Topicality: I am absolutely pedantic about T. I love seeing a good T debate and have no qualms about voting for a well-executed Topicality argument, even if – especially if – the definitions that the Neg chose were a little bit out there. I am not a judge that you want to run a blatantly nontopical Aff in front of. That being said, I do tend to give the Aff’s interpretations on T more weight, since T can only win the round for the Neg.

Framework: I don’t like Framework arguments. I default to a policymaking framework and it will be very difficult (though not theoretically impossible) for you to get me to deviate from that. The Aff has to defend the resolution, and if they have a plan text, that’s just a specific means of doing so. I’m going to be skeptical about any arguments that claim to have an out-of-round impact.

Theory: By default, I tend to reject the argument, not the team. It’s very unlikely that this is going to change. I don’t particularly like judging Theory debates.

Kritiks: Theoretically, I like them. I’m not too well-versed in the literature, though, so if you choose to go that route, you’re going to have to slow down a bit and cut back on the jargon a lot. This should be pretty easy with stuff like Cap or Fem, substantially less so with stuff like D&G.

I’m also unlikely to buy anything where the link is dubious. If your link is to use of the USFG in general, you probably don’t have a link. The more specific the link, the better. Links to a claimed impact will do the trick, as will a link to a specific harm of the plan.

Performance/Narrative stuff: I don’t know how to judge this, so it’s probably not a good idea to read it in front of me. I don't have a lot of experience judging this, so run it at your own risk.

PF: When it comes to PF, I am a stickler for stasis. No plans, no Ks, no spreading, debate jargon is acceptable but I’d prefer if you’d discuss things in layman’s terms. I have strong opinions about this. You should treat me as if I have no prior debate experience, and only an average person’s understanding of the topic area.

I'm Emily Nguyen and I competed in LD debate for four years at Alief Kerr HS. I've qualified for TFA twice, UIL Region twice, and NFL once. I've also instructed at Strake Jesuit's debate camp for the past 3 summers. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round, but here are my answers to frequently asked questions. 

Are you ok with speed?

I'm fine with speed, slow down for authors and taglines. I will say clear. Don't sacrafice clarity for speed. 

Are you ok with progressive arguments?

I'm ok any type of argumentation whether it be traditional or progressive. Any type of argument, however, needs to have some kind of claim, warrant, and impact for me to weigh it in the round. I'm not impressed with an abundance of buzzwords like "pre-fiat." Articulate your arguments with a claim, warrant, and impact and you will be fine. 

How do you feel about theory? 

My threshold for theory is high. I would discourage you to run theory unless there is actualy abuse in the round. I prefer to vote off of substance over theory. 

What arguments are you not ok with?

I'm not ok with morally offensive arguments or ones that put me in a position where "if I don't vote for you, I support the Holocaust." Outside of that, I'm fine with any type of argumentation. I will not vote based on my personal opinion of your argument. I may write on the ballot my opinion or suggstion as to how I think you can improve your argument, but my RFD will be based on solely what happened in the round and what your opponenet said. 

How do you award speaks?

I adjudicate speaks based on delivery and in round behavior. If I have to say clear and I see you are making a valid effort to either slow down or be more clear, I won't dock you on speaker points even if I have to say it a couple of times. If you continue to be unarticulant (usually after the 3rd time in one speech) and are rude to your opponenet I will dock points. 

Is there anything else I should know?

I'm big on organization throughout the speech. Give me a roadmap (I don't count roadmaps as part of your speech time) and if you choose not to follow it, signpost. If I don't know where to put your argument I'm probably not going to flow it. I'll get frustrated if you jump around the flow without signposting. 

I'm fine with flex prep is your opponent is. 

Don't just say "extend this argument/card" without giving a claim, warrant, or impact. I won't weigh the argument if you don't do that. 

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in the round! 

CX: I served as a varsity CX debater in the UIL and TFA circuits.

I prefer a more traditional CX debate, but I will not count it against you if you choose not to do so. I will judge the debate on how you tell me to judge the round.

I will vote on stock issues but you have to walk me through them. My natural inclination is to judge a round as a policy maker so demonstrating impacts and weighing advantages and disadvantages is important.

CPs, if presented, should not be topical otherwise you are affirming the resolution.

I dont mind spreading but tag lines and main arguments need to be slower and clear. Roadmaps and signposting are crucial to an organized and well flowed debate on my end.

I'm not naturally inclined to love Kritiks, but I do have just as much experience in LD as well and while this may be policy debate, I will evaluate a K as they come up and vote on them if that is how the round is framed.

Ultimately, you tell me how to judge the round. I am a blank slate. I may have preferences but I won't count my preferences against you if you tell me how to judge the round and you win based off of that criteria.

LD: I have several years of experience in LD as well. Speaking and organization are key. In this form I dont mind the more philosophical nature of Values and Value Criterions. I also dont mind if you present policy arguments such as impacts and other things. Most of the above paradigms fit with LD as well.

Policy Debate and LD

Debate > Evidence

Evidence Quality> Quantity

Order of importance: Framework, Big Picture, Evidence, Impact

Speed: I prefer moderate speed so that I can think about what you are telling me while I try to see the big picture. Be clear and slow down through extended analytical and philosophical explanations. 

Evidence: I value the quality of explanation over evidence quality almost all the time. Well placed analytical arguments are great. I don't usually call for cards unless specifically told to do so.

Topicality: If you're going to do this, I recommend that you do a thorough job on the standards debate. 

DAs: I don't have a problem with any DAs. I actually love politics debate as long as you have good links.

CPs: For me, well placed advantage counterplans are very persuasive but please slow down for the plan text.

Ks: I know little about high theory arguments and I think K tricks are often bs, but I will still vote on them if your level of explanation is better than that of the other team. I will have trouble voting on intricate framework arguments if they are not explained clearly. If you explain to me the importance of voting on an argument and how it relates to other arguments, I will vote on it.

Signposting and sticking to roadmaps is important

I did LD in high school and I go to the University of Texas at Austin. 

Flow> anything else. 

Speed- is fine, but I'll only say clear once.  

Theory- run whenever and however you want. One bias I have is that I don't love vote down the debater arguements. This doesn't mean that I haven't/won't vote on this, I'm just prefacing that I don't prefer to see this is a debate. 

K- Feel free to run k's, but please understand that I am not well read in most areas. Do enough work on the alt. Don't just spend 5 seconds on it at the end of your speech as your timer is going off. 

Disads/CPs/Plans- go for it. I think that debate makes more sense if the aff has some sort of advocacy (whether that be something specific or the resolution as a whole) for the neg. 

Role of the ballot/role of the judge: I evaluate these arguments very highly and will typically vote based on who meets the role best. Unless I'm told otherwise, ROB/ROJ comes first.  To win a debate in front of me, it's very important that you do enough work meeting the role (if there is one in the round, obviously). I've literally voted on an ROJ (winning in the round) telling me to vote on the side that I personally believed in. 

Speaks: Speaks depend on a couple of factors. First, how well you formulate your arguments and how good of a debator you are. Secondly, if your rude (and I mean like really rude) I'll deduct speaker points. 

Traditional: Although I prefer progressive, feel free to read a traditional case.

Feel free to ask me any questions. I did this in a bit of a rush, so sorry if I left anything out. 

aurorareinmiller@yahoo.com

I did speech and debate all through high school and college. I have been to NSDA Nationals multiple times in LD, Congress, and DX. I grew up debating in Texas and have about five years judging experience in LD, Policy, and DX.

Overall:

• Fine with spreading, I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand you. By the third "clear" I expect you to slow down. For policy and nowadays LD, no double breaths, super distracting and it's never going to help you.
• Do not lie in round
• Should go without saying but be nice to your opponent and the judge.

POLICY PARADIGMS -

- I do hold cross-x as binding. However, I don't flow it. But you can extend argumentation and answers said in cross-x on the flow and I will consider them as arguments/stuff the other team said.

- When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like.

- If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.

- Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

- Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

- I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.

LD PARADIGM -

My background is in LD and so I love judging it. I want to know that you know your argument, the philosophy, etc. Like I said above, I am fine with spreading but be clear.

• Impact calc is a must here as well.
• If the round comes down to definitions, make sure you're clear on why your def. trumps.
• I see who wins the value/criterion debate and then view the arguments through that lens
• tell me the links to everything
• I like seeing clash, make sure you address what your opponent said. If there's gaps in the flow I'll see that as a concession.
• Fine with K and T for LD.
• Spreading is fine, be clear.

Excited to see everyone compete. Good luck to everyone.

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

General
I debated for Northland Christian School, in Houston, Texas from 2013-2015. Towards the end of my Senior year, I almost exclusively read Fem/Ableism kritiks. I'm fine with speed, as long as you are clear, and will say clear 3 times before I begin to dock speaks. It would also be really nice if there's actual clash in the round- meaning that you make offensive arguments that are interacting with both flows, not just defensive arguments about why your args are better. If you do not weigh arguments, you'll leave the ball in my court, and I'll have no choice but to intervene-- you may or may not like how this turns out, so you probably shouldn't risk it. Please use the word extend, and then explain what/why you are extending... It is so incredibly helpful to me when listening to the round, as it signifies that you are making an attempt at extending offense, which I may not have picked up on for whatever reason. 

Speaks

I award speaks based on in round strategy, as well as literal clarity. Bonus if you can work a great joke or pun in. Please be respectful to your opponent... If you see that they are clearly not as advanced as you, there is not need to show off or intentionally talk down to them. Slow down for taglines/author names etc!!

Specific Arguments

• Kritiks: Like I said above, my debating style evolved into both fem/ableism k's. I really really really enjoy these debates. I like k debates, so long as they are not contingent upon my understanding of obscure critical philosophy. You are probably walking on thin ice if you're considering reading DnG or Baudrillard in front of me! I think Role of the Ballot/Judge debates are important, but they are often understated in most of the rounds I've seen, which saddens me. 
  
  
• T/Theory: Not a fan. This is not to say that I won't tolerate or listen to either, but I really don't like debaters that are obviously just reading theory to read theory, or so that they don't have to answer or engage. If there is a seriously non-topical aff, or your opponent does something ridiculous in round, then by all means, go for it. As far as theory goes, I default to competing interpretations, and drop the argument, not drop the debater.
  
  
• Utilz/Policy Arguments: Totally cool with Plan/CP/DAs etc! Just be sure to roadmap/signpost where you are going so that I'm not lost between sheets of paper/offs.

• ***OFFENSIVE OR MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE ARGUMENTS***: I strongly believe that patriarchy, ableism, racism, and homophobia are terribly and incredibly offensive arguments. DO NOT make any arguments that include (but are not limited to): rape good, disabilities do not exist, humor as an alt. That is the fastest way to drop a ballot/get

Overall
Please be mindful of your words and respectful of everyone in the room. Do not be the person that steals prep time, or creates a hostile debate space. Let's keep the debate community a place where everyone is able to grow, learon and feel accepted. If you have any questions about my paradigm pre-round or about my decision post-round, please feel free to email me or add me on Facebook! (diyasalian10@gmail.com)

I am a pretty open judge. I prefer LD Debate and not a heavy influence in Policy. Resolutional debate is important, and not straying off. The ability to be creative is important, but being able to handle heavy argumentation and deep thought is also important. Do not run a case that you cannot handle.

Otherwise, pretty open to the way a debate can run.

I graduated in 2013 from Clear Brook High School and I'm fairly familiar with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. 

Basics

In both policy and LD I look for some sort of decision calculus/weighing mechanism in the round. Whether that be Role of the Ballot, Value/Value Criterion, Theory, etc. it doesn't matter. Just be clear and link back offense to that decision calculus. So, its in your best interest to give me voters especially towards the later speeches so I understand how the offense links. I'm generally fine with K's, theory, and other progressive arguments being run in LD. However, if you're running a really obscure K please slow down on the tags. 

Speed

Generally I feel like I can follow speed pretty well, but I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand what you're saying.

Extensions

When you're making extensions please try to rearticulate the warrant and impact of the card. Also make sure to weigh the impact of the argument once you do extend it. I don't like having to weigh arguments by myself, I feel like I'm intervening too much. So please make sure to do that during the round. 

Theory

I'm perfectly okay with theory if there's some sort of legitimate abuse in round. Please don't read frivolous theory if you can avoid it. That includes reading a ton of shells just to suck time out of an opponent's speech. If you read theory solely for the purpose of avoiding substantive debate I'll dock your speaks. I'll still vote on it if you win the theory debate, but I'd rather not listen to that type of round. 

Critical Arguments

I'm generally pretty okay following these types of arguments. If you're reading something that's not part of traditional K lit then please slow down on tags. Often times I see debaters not include a role of the ballot when it's needed; if your K requires it make sure to read a ROB. 

Misc

- I generally average 28 on speaks and go up/down

- I don't care if you stand/sit during speeches

- Flashing isn't part of prep time for me 

- I won't vote for morally reprehensible arguments (ex. racism good, genocide good, etc). This is a pretty broad statement so if you have questions about this please ask me before round. 

- Flex prep is fine

- Don't be rude, that'll reflect poorly in your speaks

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

My name is Anthony Tohme, and I debated for Strake Jesuit in Houston for four years. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior years. Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Here are some answers to questions that debaters usually ask:

Are you okay with speed? 

I'm fine with speed, just please be clear. It's often helpful to slow down for the sake of clarity because if I don't understand what you're saying, it's not getting on my flow and I won't evaluate it. In general, slow down for tags and card names too.  

How do you feel about theory?

I'll vote off theory as long as I'm given a clear reason to do so. A lot of theory debates can become super muddled and I really won't enjoy judging between competing blips with no warrants. If you're going to read theory please compare your arguments against your opponents' and signpost clearly. I won't intervene against a strategy where a debater reads tons of theory against a pretty non-abusive position, but you won't get good speaks. I guess I'd default to competing interps but I wouldn't like doing it; you really just need to justify a theory paradigm if you read a theory shell. 

How do you feel about K's?

Just like any other argument, I'll vote off kritiks if you win them. I won't get excited just because you name drop and use jargon. Similarly, you need to justify every argument you make. I won't assume your arguments come first because you call them "pre-fiat" or something along those lines. Explain in concise, rational terms why that jargon means you win the round in the context of your opponent's arguments. Be prepared to explain your argument concisely in CX and rebuttals, because I'll have a pretty low threshold for responses if I can't understand the argument myself. I think a good K debate can be fun to judge, but I really want you to explain your jargon in English (pre vs. post-fiat; role of the ballot vs. methodology; etc. ) instead of throwing it around and assuming I know what you think it means. 

How can I get good speaks? 

I award speaks based mostly on strategy and argument quality, not the delivery for the most part (I do appreciate the occasional good joke, but don't try too hard to make one up). That being said, if it becomes too frustrating for me to try to understand what you're saying (and it's clear to me you could slow down/be more clear and choose not to), that's certainly not going to help you. And obviously, don't be rude or condescending to your opponent or say anything offensive. Even if there's a significant disparity in skill level between you and your opponent, there's absolutely no reason to be anything but civil and respectful to them. Reading four theory shells or any similar strategy against someone who's clearly new to the activity definitely won't endear you to me either. Use your common sense. 

I'll pretty much vote on whatever you tell me to vote on. My decisions won't reflect how I personally feel about your arguments (but if you would like to know feel free to ask). I don't like intervening so I won't do it unless I'm forced to. Give me a standard so I know how to evaluate arguments or else I'll have to decide for myself and someone's feelings will get hurt. Tell me which arguments are important and why. Tell me why I should ignore other arguments. I don't like having the feeling that i have to evaluate every argument that was made in order to make my decision. At the very least I'd like to know which arguments I should look to first.

Three main things I evaluate

1) Framework and pre-fiat arguments

2) Evidence Comparison: give me reasons to prefer your evidence especially to set the record straight about something.

3) Impact Calculus

Topicality is something I will vote on

Kritiks must have an alt. it must be clear through Cross X and Speech what the world of the alt looks like.

Updated: 12/19/18

Unfortunately, my old judge philosophy has been deleted from wikispaces. I'll try to be brief here. You are always welcome to message me with questions on Facebook or send me an email.

I debated on the TOC/TFA circuits several years ago for Dulles High School. I judged at many of the larger tournaments for a while in college, but I have since essentially stopped judging rounds altogether.

Short version: I will vote for anything that is not sexist, racist, etc. as long as it links back to some sort of decision calculus. Your job is to outline what that decision calculus is and weigh back to it throughout the round.

Longer version: Since I am out of the activity, please give me time to adjust to your top speed. I will call slow or clear if necessary. In high school, I primarily read policy arguments. CPs, DAs, Ks, T/Theory are all fine, but again weighing is the key here. I default competing interps/RVIs but can be persuaded otherwise. I am not familiar with dense, philosophical literature. If you are reading something of the sort, slow down and explain it in detail. I give high speaks for strategy, humor, and being nice.

Have fun, good luck, and see you at the tournament!

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

I debated for Spring High School, in Houston, all 4 years of high school. I am a double major at the University of Arkansas (Philosophy, History). My beliefs about debate have drastically changed from what they were when I competed. I will evaluate whatever is run in front of me; however, you should be mindful of my personal preferences about specific arguments as well:

Some General things

·      Speed: Please know that I am not the best at flowing. I have no problem saying “clear” or “speed” a few times if I cannot understand or can’t flow your arguments. Be cognizant of this and help me, help you. Because I am bad at flowing, tricks and spikes have a poor chance of making it on my flow, so if there is something you want me to hear SLOW DOWN. If it is not on the flow I will not vote for it.

·      Debaters who can combat the spread in a slow, communicative way impress me.

·      I no longer find it necessary to provide a traditional value/criterion framework structure. Just be sure to give me an explicit standard to weigh offense with. 

Policy arguments

I am probably most comfortable judging these types of rounds. You MUST provide a solvency advocate if you plan on running a plan/cp. To be clear, I don’t think that you will solve 100% nor will your opponent so it becomes a matter of who solves the best/most. Additionally, please weigh your arguments!! If you don’t, I will be forced to do the weighing for you and intervene. I tend to think that conditionality is bad.

Kritiks

Chances are I will understand whatever philosophical content you use. However, you should not assume that I know what you are referencing or how you are applying it to the round in question. Rejection is typically not a sufficient alternative in my eyes. Furthermore, these debates, in my experience, get very muddled very quick. As such you should slow down and explain how the argument functions in round. Getting my vote with a K is probably harder than winning with other arguments, but if you do I will reward your speaks.

T/Theory

I have really come to enjoy T/theory debates. It is extremely important that you slow down for these arguments. Standard comparison is a must. I find it difficult to vote on an RVI, but it has happened before.

             Theory:

I default and am easily persuaded that it is a matter of reasonability and to drop the argument. Education trumps fairness. In all honesty, I don’t believe that fairness is a voter. These are just defaults, and they are exactly that, I will evaluate whatever you run. Disclosure theory seems to be an argument that evades debate and therefore, is not one that I am particularly fond of.

             Topicality:

I default that this is a matter of competing interpretations, that education trumps fairness and that I should drop the argument.

Speaks

You start with a 28 and it goes up or down from there based on your clarity and strategy.

I am pretty much open to whatever you want to run. If you have any questions just ask, and I will be happy to clarify.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Xue%2C+Jesse

I previously coached LD, PF, and CX at A&M Consolidated, and did LD at Northland Christian in high school. If you're here for PF, skip to the third paragraph.

Disclaimer: I have not judged many online rounds this year and would really appreciate it if tags were read slowly and if you prioritized clarity over speed! I'm sure a lot of my paradigm is dated (I wrote most of it a couple of years ago) so feel free to ask for clarification on anything :)

As a debater, I read a lot of plans, DAs, and CPs and so I like listening to them, but I'm cool with other off case positions, too. When it comes to Ks, I would really appreciate it if the position was clearly explained (especially in terms of ROB/ROJ and the layer of the debate it functions on) and cleanly extended throughout the round, since I may not be as familiar with some of the literature (especially if you're reading pomo type stuff). I won't vote on any argument that tries to justify unjustifiable things (the Holocaust, slavery, other forms of oppression). If you need clarification on what that means, feel free to ask. If you're reading a process CP I'll be more receptive to perms/theory against it.

I would prefer that you don't read frivolous theory in front of me. I know my definition of that is different than others, so feel free to ask for clarification before the round. I'm open to listening to T, but I'd honestly prefer to not have it become the only layer in the round/the only thing I have to vote off of. Same with RVIs. Also, I find myself voting for K's a lot more often in TvsK debates, so my threshold for "non-topical" affs is probably more forgiving than some. I default to reasonability if it's a situation of potential or frivolous theory but will go with competing interps if you justify it, which isn't hard to do, so please take the extra 15 or so seconds to do so if that's what you want to go with. Also, extend voters and drop the debater arguments please. Condo is fine when limited to one (or two in CX) positions, but feel free to take the time to explain otherwise in either direction. I think conditional K's can be kind of bad perceptually depending on what the pre-fiat impact is if there is one, or if there's a performative/different method-based aspect to it.

You'll get high speaker points if you speak clearly, extend arguments, and weigh, and you'll get low speaker points if you're rude and/or offensive to anyone in the room (I listen to CX, too, so be civil during that), especially if you're debating someone clearly out of their depth and you're obviously winning but you decide to go about it obnoxiously, or if you speak particularly unclearly. In more competitive rounds aka at bid tournaments, speaks will be more likely to be based off of strategy. If you go all in on T or theory when you don't need to, for example, there's a chance I'll dock speaks. When spreading, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times if necessary, but eventually I'll just have to try my best with guessing if you don't listen, and that isn't good for anyone. Also, for PF, the 2nd speaking team should cover part of the case in the rebuttal speech, terminal defense is fine to extend, and line by line is alright up until the summary, arguably the final focus. Don't go for everything and have solid issue selection since y'all don't get the best time constraints.

Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points before the round, or ask any more questions that you think could apply to the debate. Thanks for reading this!

My email is zollomargarita@gmail.com, I would love to be added to the email chain!