I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

Updated for TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 2 :) --- I've been having issues with formatting while updating this paradigm, I'm sorry if this looks terrible on the device you are reading it on.

Email chains (add me): hunterharwoods@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him/His

I have been involved in high school and/or collegiate debate in some capacity for the last 13ish years. I competed on the Texas state and national LD circuits in high school and coached several nationally successful students in the few years after I graduated. I also competed on the policy team at UNT. I have a high level of experience judging circuit debate, although admittedly I don't judge very often anymore. Much of my judging history is not listed on Tabroom (shoutout Joy of Tournaments). I work full-time in software now, so I no longer coach, but I keep up with the community and judge the occasional bid tournament when I have free time. Debate has been the most impactful activity in my life since I started many years ago, and I feel the role of the judge is as an educator, to help instill the same "portable skills" that have helped me and countless other debaters achieve their goals. I balance that with the idea that debate is a game that should be fun for everyone.

I have always enjoyed reading judge paradigms to see how other people think about debate, but you may not feel the same way. Mine keeps getting longer - please at least read the tl;dr and the section about online debate at the bottom (if applicable). Whether I am judging you in a policy or LD round I will be thinking about the debate in largely the same way. If you have questions before the round, please ask. See also: Christopher Vincent's paradigm, I align closely with it.

tl;dr

(1) You must give a trigger warning if you plan on discussing a sensitive topic. If you're not sure if you should give a trigger warning, err on the side of caution.

(2) Debate however you're comfortable, as long as you can justify the practice in-round. I will evaluate any type of argument. At the same time, I could not realistically say I am a "tab" judge given we are all a product of social location and lived experience. Please don't make morally abhorrent arguments, and please be kind and professional.

(3) As the affirmative, I believe you need to tell me how to evaluate the round and then generate offense in this manner (this is intentionally broad). I love critical affirmatives and I'm always game for a straight-up policy debate. Whatever affirming looks like to you is most likely fine with me. I prefer the affirmative to at least refer to the topic. The negative can do whatever to disprove the affirmative, the topic, read a K or CP, etc. I like rounds where each team defends an advocacy. CX is [obviously] binding. Flex prep is fine and binding too. I think this year's policy topic and the Jan/Feb LD topic are both awesome - please feel free to break creative/out-of-the-box strats in front of me. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) I am fine with speed but please slow down a little if I'm judging you in an online round. Slow down on tags and author names, and please allow pen time in the appropriate places. I keep a detailed flow - please listen when I say "clear" or "slow" so I can do this. Please don't assume I know much about the topic or your authors since I do not coach or judge very often anymore (err on the side of overexplaining, try to minimize topic jargon where possible). I still feel confident I can evaluate most rounds but these factors are important to keep in mind.

(5) I will intervene as little as possible - when good weighing doesn't happen this becomes difficult, so please tell me exactly how to vote and why. I vote off the flow but I cannot help viewing the debate holistically, as a performance. Tech > truth, you can win with arguments that have untrue conclusions if you set them up properly and win the necessary planks. If you [technically] win with bad/dropped arguments I would rather give a low point win than intervene. LD rounds are very short so please keep that in mind when reading philosophically dense positions/high theory K's - I like these arguments but I like good explanations more.

(6) If you are making arguments off the flow/off the top of your head and you are not capable of spreading them without mumbling/slurring/jumping around, don't spread those arguments. It is [understandably] harder to spread "off the dome" than prewritten material, and it will come at the cost of me being able to understand you or be compelled by you. Slow down and group, cross-apply, weigh, make turns, win framing, etc - there are so many other routes to the ballot. I would prefer to follow your debate.

(7) I would much rather hear a round containing fewer arguments that are more complex, nuanced, and well-warranted than tons of arguments that are blippy, poorly explained, and hard to build a narrative around. I greatly prefer compelling arguments to bad ones. I also prefer engagement to evasion.

(8) If you have a position that was written by a coach, teammate, friend, etc, and you do not understand it as if you wrote it yourself, it is my strong preference that you do not read that position in front of me - if you read a position that I understand well and explain it poorly, that is not good for you, and if you read a position that I don't understand well and explain it poorly, that is also not good for you. It's a lose-lose.

(9) Please be very careful with evidence practices while assembling speech docs. Evidence ethics is important. When I debated we were very, very familiar with exactly how long it would take us to get through pretty much any file we had. During a policy round at Stanford I received a 31 page speech doc that ended up as a 15 page speech doc by the time we cut everything that wasn't read in the speech - that is ludicrous. This is the most extreme example but it was a trend and I don't like it.

(10) Please weigh so I don't have to do it for you. Tell me a good ballot story.

Longer Version

(1) Good debate starts with good research. Cheesy but true. You should feel confident walking into the round that you know more than anyone else in the room about the topic. Getting caught off guard is no fun. Being able to make awesome, carded, responsive arguments on the fly because you know your stuff is super fun. And a super topic-centric, contentious round is far more fun to judge than a super generic one. If I feel like you know a ton about the topic you're discussing (ie you explain it super well, don't have to constantly refer to evidence or quote it to explain warrants, etc), your speaks will be high.

(2) Theory Specific Stuff: I default to competing interps, no RVI's, drop the arg. You can change any of these defaults with arguments in-round. I ran a lot of theory in high school. Although my views on the subject have changed since then, theory is an important part of debate strategy, and I will vote for pretty much any theory arg. I will not vote for "wifi bad", "shoe theory", or really any shell that isn't about something that happened in-round. I generally think shells should be structured Interp-->Violation-->Standards-->Voters-->Implications (drop the arg v. debater). Justify why you should get an RVI if you're going for one. My threshold is pretty low on CI/I meet's for the 1A and 2A; if the affirmative is going for an RVI, the negative needs to do a lot more work to prove why the aff shouldn't get an RVI than the aff needs to prove why they should. I feel like this offsets the time burden placed on the aff should the neg choose to go theory-heavy in the 1N and 2N, but again, you've still gotta win why the RVI is a voting issue in both the 1A and 2A. I despise messy theory debates so pls don't be that person. I am okay with theory preempt-heavy 1AC's as long as the rest of the round is coherent.

(3) K debate <3: I ran a broad array of K's in HS and college. I don't love generic K's, I do love critical affirmatives that tell a great story, and I do love critical negative strats with extremely relevant link and impact stories and tangible alternatives. Please make sure the evaluative mechanism for the round is clear so I can vote on your K. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) Larp/policymaking: I love it when these debates go well/are extremely substantive and find generic ones to be excruciatingly boring. Please feel free to run creative/out-of-the-box plans and CPs in front of me.

(5) Tricks: I ran some tricks in HS. Not my cup of tea anymore, but I understand that they can be fun to run from time to time, especially if both debaters can throw down. I also believe that being able to answer them makes you a much better debater. If you're going to read stuff like this, don't be shady. I won't flow spikes that aren't clearly numbered. I will bomb your speaks if your strategy involves your opponent missing a tiny blip that you blazed through in the first speech, and if they missed it, I probably did too. That is not good tricks debate.

(6) I feel like this goes without saying, but arguments in bad taste or that justify bad things (racism good, genocide good), or use of rhetoric that I feel violates the safety of others (hate speech, slurs, sexism, etc), will cause me to immediately stop the round and have a serious, coach-involved discussion after I vote you down with the lowest speaks I can. Read this article by the legendary Chris Vincent if any of this is unclear (I'm sure you've already read the Vincent 13 evidence but the whole article establishes good norms)

https://www.vbriefly.com/2013/10/26/201310re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate/

(7) I think disclosure is a good norm. I obviously can't require you to do this, but I am pretty persuaded by disclosure theory as a result.

(8) Do not clip cards. It's easy to do it by accident, but I will hold you accountable regardless. If you're not 100% sure what I mean, https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

If you follow those guidelines, you should not have any issues with clipping.

(9) CX is binding. I don't usually flow or take general notes during CX but I pay close attention. Flex prep is fine, but you may not use CX time as prep time. Any questions asked and answered during prep will also be binding. You must answer any question asked in CX, and if you and your opponent agree that flex prep is cool, any that they ask you during prep as well. If you are not okay with flex prep, please make that clear before the round begins.

(10) Be clear and concise. I'll say clear as many times as I have to. I don't think it's fair of me as a judge to stop trying to understand you just because I'm having to work a little harder at it. However, you're liable for anything I don't get the first time. Debate is a communication activity. If you're trying to extend an argument in the 1AR and I have no idea what you're talking about because the 1AC was 6 minutes of garbled tags and authors, that's on you. The speech doc will not save you in this regard. I feel like I've developed a pretty fair brightline over time for how clear and expounded upon I require an argument to be for me to vote on it.

(11) Being clear and concise doesn't just apply to spreading. Word economy and time allocation are super important. You'll be amazed at how much more time you have in your rebuttal if you weigh and do argument interaction concisely, while telling a good ballot story. Organization is crucial; consistently good debaters are not sloppy.

(12) Please weigh. Please. If you don't I have to do it for you, and nobody likes judge intervention. Avoid that situation entirely and do good weighing.

(13) Please stop reading generic, pre-written overviews in front of me. Your speaks will suffer. If you tell a good ballot story an overview is not necessary. A short overview at the end of your rebuttal is fine to wrap up key voting issues but that's not what I'm referring to.

(14) I might not know all of your jargon. I also probably won't know all your authors. Just explain things well and this will not be a problem.

(15) Speaker points: You'll start at a 28.7, and move in increments of .1. Good strategic decisions, conciseness, clarity, and confidence are all important to me. Pretty much everything I discuss in this paradigm will affect your speaks. At a bid tournament, 29 or above generally means I think you deserve a shot to break, above a 29.4 means I think you deserve a speaker award too. If the maximum increment set by the tournament is .5, I will round up and let you know that in the RFD. Although I start the round with all debaters at 28.7, I find I give speaks around an average of 28.3-28.6.

(16) Do not be mean to less skilled debaters. If there is a clear skill gap in the round, and you're a total jerk, spread them out of the room, intentionally make super complex args that they cannot engage with (basically doing things to exclude them from participating in the round in any way), you'll get the win but I will bomb your speaks. Debate should be inclusive, fun, and educational for everyone. Nothing is more demoralizing than getting dunked on while you have no idea what's happening. The flip side of this is that being kind, educational, helpful, mature, and still decisively winning a round against a significantly less skilled debater/novice will be a quick W30 from me, even at a bid tournament. We have to prioritize fostering an atmosphere in this community that will make people want to stay and get better, not quit. Relatedly, if your opponent asks you not to spread, and you do it anyway, I'm not going to vote for you. I don't care what their reason is. If you ask your opponent not to spread and then get up and spread the 1NC (why would you even try this), I'm going to down you too. I saw this happen at a local a long time ago and I've always kept it in my paradigm. It's mean and probably cheating.

(17) The case that you send in the email chain must be formatted identically to the one you're reading out loud. Same font size, highlights, stylization, everything. Don't be that person who sends their case in all caps or with the cards uncut or all highlighted or whatever. That's not cool and you shouldn't need to do that to get a leg up in the round if you are prepared.

(18) Time yourself and your opponent. I have noticed an increase in people not keeping time. Please make sure you keep your own time and time your opponent as well. Time prep and tell me how much you have left, and write it down yourself too. If you ask me "how much prep do I have left?", I'm going to take a speaker point away.

(19) Please flow.

(20) You should compile your speech doc during prep. I don't count flashing/emailing as prep but please do not abuse this; if it takes you longer than 20-30 seconds to get it done, I'm going to assume you're stealing prep and I'm going to remove the excess from your remaining prep time, or dock your speaks if you have no prep left.

Online Debate-Specific Stuff

a.) You MUST make local recordings of your speeches as you give them in the round. If you or I or your opponent drops off the call, please complete the speech without stopping, and immediately email the copy in the email chain. Failure to do this will result in any missed arguments not being considered. After reviewing community discussions on this issue, this seems like the best norm going forward.

b.) Pls don't steal prep.

c.) DO NOT GO FULL SPEED ONLINE YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE!!!! Go 75% of your top speed max. Spreading is HARD to follow online. I'm tired of flowing off speech docs, if I miss an argument completely I will not even flow the extension and that's on you. Also, I often mishear/misspell the author names, and sometimes I'm way off, so it would benefit you to say "extend [warrant]" as opposed to "extend [author name]." This is a good habit to get into regardless, some judges don't even flow author names and it's usually more convincing if you don't need to tell me the name of the card for me to know what you're talking about.

d.) Email chains are required, if you're flight B please set it up before the round. Yes I would like to be added, my email address is at the top.

e.) Try to find a way to see both me and your opponent during speeches, and please keep your camera on if possible. Body language is important, and I'm pretty expressive as a judge, so you'll probably want to see me while you're reading to see if I look receptive or confused. If there is a bandwidth issue, equity issue, etc preventing you from keeping your camera on, a simple "I'd prefer to leave my camera off" is enough and I will not ask questions.

f.) Debaters can tell each other "clear" or "slow" (please do not abuse this) during speeches. Other than that please make sure your mic is muted while your opponent is giving a speech.

If you have any questions for me before or after the round, please don't be shy. If you have any questions about the decision or things you could've done better, please ask as many questions as necessary after the round (time permitting) or in the downtime between rounds.

Debate can be stressful, and life is stressful enough as is. You should always feel safe and cared for in the debate community, and if you don't, please speak up; there are always people listening. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

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'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

I debated at Northland Christian School on the Texas circuit and national circuit. I attended TFA State 4 times and TOC 3 times. I graduated in 2015.

I am fine with just about any arguments (obviously nothing morally repugnant). Speed is fine. I do struggle with dense philosophical positions, so slow down on tags or give me a quick overview in the rebuttal. As a debater, I enjoyed theory and util debates and feel most comfortable evaluating similar arguments, but proceed as you wish. Ask me any questions before the round and have fun!

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

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.

Howdy, I debated at Katy Taylor for four years, and I currently coach at Harker.

The following is copied and pasted from:

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fink%2C+Ryan

I've decided that debaters can flash me constructives if they want. This will help with the previously mentioned card clipping problem and also help me flow since debaters refuse to make obvious when cards end by whispering author names.

General Stuff

-I default to evaluating rounds via a comparing worlds paradigm
-I do not base speaker points based on speaking ability but rather based on strategic decisions in rebuttals which means your constructive can go against everything I stand for but have good issue selection and you'll get high speaks
-I am not persuaded by the extension of spikes to take out whole positions unless the implications of those spikes are clearly articulated within the AC
-I give the 1AR leeway on extensions 
-I will presume if I have to but not because a debater told me to. In the absence of offense I presume to whichever side is less of a shift from the status quo.
-If you get through a round without flashing problems you get higher speaker points
-if you make the round shorter you will get higher speaker points
-logical fallacy arguments reduce your speaker points



Theory:
-If your interp is a preposterous attempt to abuse competing interps my threshold for responses goes down
-RVIs are fine
-I meets or defense don’t get you an RVI in front of me
-Default competing interps and drop debater
-Philosophy args don’t disprove fairness or education as voters


Framework/Philosophy:
-Obvi I prefer util but you can read whatever you want
-I usually don’t know what dense phil frameworks actually say but I rarely feel that impacts the decision because neither does anyone else
-since I view debate rounds from a comparing worlds paradigm it means that skepticism and permissibility are probably defensive arguments
-I'm very persuaded by life is a pre req args


Critical Arguments:
-Familiar with some but not a lot of lit
-I personally believe topicality should be a constraint on critical AFFs but can be persuaded otherwise in round
-If you debate against a K you are much more likely to win with clash not shenanigans


Ask me questions if I've missed something important to you.