History

Overall my competitive background is unimpressive. I mostly did Public Forum and Domestic Extemp for my 3 years of competition. I am however very well versed in Lincoln Douglass, and Congress. I was a finalist in the Senate at State after an unfortunate year. I attended James Madison High School. I have been judging mostly LD since I graduated high school in 2015 and I’ve figured out what I do and don’t like in round. I have graduated from UTSA with a major in Criminal Justice, Double Minoring in Legal Studies and Political Science. I am currently attending UNT College of Law. If you are reading this, please ask me how law school is going! It would be nice to see if anyone reads this.

Value Debate

I do not require a value debate in round. If a framework is established I will default to it until it is contested. Framework is the lens of which I view the round. When I make a decision, it is based off a very mathematical calculus. When no framework is established, or two frameworks are negated, I default to a utilitarian calculus. If you and your opponent have the same framework, or the framework doesn't greatly affect the offense in the round, do not feel obligated to keep debating it. Hearing two people bicker about the definition of moral, even though nobody is arguing a nuanced case around a specific definition, is maddening.

Theory

I for the life of me, could not tell you what a proper theory structure looks like. Tell me what happened and why I should care, and I will buy the argument. I do not enjoy theory debate, and I believe that it should be used solely to check abuse.

Kritik

Link to the resolution or I will probably not vote you up. Imma repeat that to make sure it is perfectly clear, LINK TO THE RESOLUTION OR I WILL PROBABLY NOT VOTE YOU UP. Otherwise I do enjoy seeing things like antiblackness, queer theory, Fem, etc. as long as there is a clear link. I do not enjoy seeing cases that can literally be run on any topic without any real research. I am a big fan of permutations to crappy K’s. If you insist on not linking you better have a damn good reason, and provide a clear Role of the Ballot.

Disads and Counterplans

I enjoy both disads and counterplans, when run correctly. I do find it odd though, most of these could very well be called contentions. I'm sure there is some old technical reason that separates them, but its mystery to me. Remember that any plan you produced can't simply be fiated into existence, that is to say, it must be possible at the very least. Of course with persuasion the idea of plausibility can shifted one way or another, but that is on you.

Speed

I am pretty decent with speed, but keep in mind if you are spreading and have time left at the end of your speech or end up repeating the same thing ten times, your speaker points aren’t going too look nice. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it is simply a tool to get more arguments out in a given time.

Update January 2020

Considering it's been 2 years since I've updated this, I figured I'd add this little tid bit at the end. Amazingly my preferences haven't changed much, I do find myself enjoying progressive debate more and more as the years go on, but I think it's important that every judge have an open mind when going into a round. I strongly encourage you to run whatever version of debate you believe gives you the best chance to win the round. If you have any questions please come find me before or after the round.

Update 2023

It seems like 2 and a half years seems to be the pattern on how often I feel obligated to update this little forum. I am now a third year law student and unfortunately have not been able to judge debate nearly as often as a like, so if I look slightly lost or confused in your round, it may not be your fault, I am just rusty. What I enjoy seeing in rounds has not changed. I may ask you to slow down more than I used to in my prime, but I promise to do my best to keep up with what you need.

As of this year I am currently competing in Moot Court, and will be competing in Mock Trial, on behalf of the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law.

CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

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 am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

I competed in LD and PF at McNeill High School in Austin, Tx. 

I am very progressive when it comes to speed and technical arguments. I always prefer a substance debate over a K or theory. But I love counter plans and plan affs. 

I will say clear but if I dont understand you after that I can't vote for something I didnt hear or couldnt understand.

Former debater at the University of Texas at Austin, former debater at The Kinkaid School

updated - april 2019

- I'm revising this to be less about how I feel about arguments and preferences and more about the general trend of the decisions that I make and how I make them. So what's below is about the general trend – not absolutes on how I evaluate arguments. It's how I typically think, and not universally applicable to every round – so if there's an argument the round that tells me to evaluate otherwise, I will.

Some things to know:

- Be good to each other

- Please don't read into my facial expressions too much. Something you said may be reminding me of something else which made me remember this other thing, etc. I'm not trying to cue you or give you secret clues – I don't want to control/influence/intervene/otherwise make the debate about me and not you.

- Controlling big picture questions of the debate is almost always more important than tech minutia. In other words, dropped arguments are true arguments, but not always important arguments. Identify which issues matter the most and invest your time there. Tech can certainly influence key issues, but rarely replaces them.

- Arguments don't "count" unless they have a claim, warrant, and impact. I typically don't call for evidence to decipher an argument that was under-explained, either. If you're asserting something without any warrant/explanation/impact, there's a good chance it won't matter a great deal to my RFD.

- I find myself usually filtering rounds by starting at the impact level and working backwards. What's the greatest harm, followed by who has the best chance at stopping it. I've noticed I use this frame /regardless of argument type/ - so take this into account even with T, Theory, and Framework debates.

some contextualization:

Theory - I think about theory debates much the same way I think about disads: there must be a clear link, internal link, and impact. Impacts should be weighed (does education outweigh advocacy skills or vice versa?) and internal links should be challenged. A pet peeve of mine is when debaters claim that minor theory arguments are a reason to reject the team - if you want to win this is true, you need to articulate a reason why the impact to your theory argument rises to that level.

-Framework/clash of civs debates – The questions I typically ask myself are: What's the worst thing that can happen to debate (/in debates)? Whose interpretation best prevents this? Prior questions like this – aka taking a stance on what is debate for – guide how I identify whose interpretation is best for debate.

In the interest of transparency: if you read a framework violation that relies solely on procedural fairness as the impact or collapses to only this impact, my track record leans not in your favor. To make this argument successful in front of me, you need to win the impact level – win why fairness matters most. Absent debating it out, relying on "because procedural fairness" full stop doesn't feel super different than "T is jurisdictional" full stop. For every version of framework: don't cede the impact debate. Tell me what debate should give us or what debate should be for us and why, and then why your interpretation promotes that.

Topicality, same vein, should also be about why your interpretation is best for debate and best for the topic. Impact out and weigh the standards of your interpretation against the counter-interpretation.

Counterplans - I appreciate creativity and I also appreciate really good theory debaters. Take the time to make the difference between the aff and the counter-plan clear and feel meaningful, and make sure your theory blocks don't feel like a wall of text thrown at me.

-Disad/case debates - I know I've ranted a lot about impacts mattering, but I also think I have a slightly above average tendency to be willing to say 0% risk. Try or Die framing / 1% risk is not compelling to me if a team has won defense to your impact - you only win in that scenario in front of me if you're the only one trying to extend an impact at all.

Also - I don't "weigh" case per se in framework debates, but I /do/ think the arguments pulled from the 1AC to answer framework are still relevant. I assume "don't weigh the plan" is a different argument than ignore the speech. If you win that my evaluation should shift to who's model of debate is best, and not a yes/no on the advocacy from the 1AC, the 1AC speech still had arguments that the 2A has applied to framework and that I'm assuming you'll answer or say why your stuff outweighs.

Kritiks - All my prior discussion matters here – what is the bad thing and how do you stop it. Or, not do it/ subvert it/ etc. I care about the thesis level here, a lot. Winning a sweeping K claim can control a lot of the round for me and color how I read every argument, and often make tech nuances fall into place depending on the debate. Losing the thesis level will complicate whether or not I think you can extrapolate that thesis into specific links/impacts. When I consider impacts, I'll also usually think about the "level" they happen on – are they about things happening in the round, who we learn to be, big picture political concerns, etc. So know that debating out which of these types of impact matters most is a big component of how I decide ... whose impact.... matter most... That's usually how I interpret the relevancy of framework debates, too. I don't find myself voting on "they shouldn't get Ks"-type arguments often, and I regularly feel too much time is invested here for no reward. The better time investment here for me is on why your framework arguments make your "level" of debate the important one. If you didn't just skip to the K section, you'll recognize this is basically my same spiel on arguments needing impacts relevant to the round.

One more K affs note – I'm not sitting on some secret arbitrary interpretation or bright line of what affs I think are kosher. The sections above on how I resolve debates also impact how I interpret your aff. I'm always looking for what is the worst thing and how do you solve it. I need clarity on that story.

Ask me questions.

You put in a lot of time and energy and care for this activity – I want to respect that.

burdettnolan@gmail.com

Experience

I debated on the TFA and TOC circuits for 4 years in high school (2012-2016) and have been coaching and judging on/off for the last few years. I'm comfortable with speed and familiar with most arguments around the circuit. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask!

Paradigm

I will generally vote on any argument that is warranted, extended, explained with reference to the ballot, and does not create an unsafe space for students or participants involved. I encourage creativity with arguments and don't have strong feelings toward any specific style or type of position. I will not evaluate arguments that don't have warrants, even if they are conceded. Bad warrants are OK - they just have to be impacted to a ballot story.

I do not assume any particular role of the ballot or theory of debate - I will look at debate, education, and arguments in whatever way you tell me to. I do generally assume that my ballot must be connected to some decision-making paradigm and that my decision about the winner must stem from this paradigm, regardless of what that may be. I am open to diverse arguments that apply to debate in creative ways and will evaluate offense accordingly.

Evidence/Flowing

I tend to flow constructives off of speech docs and rebuttals by ear, even when there is a doc sent out. That means if you add an analytic in your constructive while in the middle of a speech doc, it is highly likely that I will miss it and not vote for it. Clarity, sign-posting, and spacing are really important to me because they help me flow. Flowing speeches well is hard. If your speeches are easier to flow, you will have an advantage.

I will only look at evidence if 1) It is explicitly called for in round 2) A warrant/explanation is mentioned that I do not have in speech 3) If I feel it is possible that evidence is being misrepresented. I generally think that debaters should be explaining the warrants in their evidence during speeches - but at the very least, tell me how good and warranted your evidence is in the speech so I can verify the claims you are making.

Speaker Points

I do not have an objective scale for awarding speaker points. I try to award them based on how well I feel a debater has performed relative to their own average performance (average being 28). But, if I think you deserve to break at the tournament you're at, I'll usually start with a 29. I acknowledge that this is not a perfect system but it is how I award speaks. If you are a stronger, more experienced debater hitting someone significantly less experienced: the way to get high speaks from me is to win the round effectively and efficiently with a clear ballot story, then continue to use the rest of your speech time to have an engaging debate with your opponent's position. The more educational, the better. I'm begrudgingly receptive to strategically sidestepping clash in most situations, but not this one - respond to their position, please!

Otherwise, I generally award speaker points based on strategy, execution, efficiency, creativity, performance, clarity, and personality.

Feedback

I give oral disclosures and feedback unless explicitly instructed not to. I try to spend a few minutes going through each speech offering feedback and constructive criticism. If you want to test out a new position, I'm a good person to innovate in front of - I'll try my best to give a few tips and thoughtfully engage with what you've written or put together.

Conclusion

Once again, if you have any questions or are confused by what's written above, just ask. I'm very open to questions. Otherwise, try to learn something, get along, and have some fun!

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.

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: sarahcheung129@gmail.com

Also ok to email me questions

This is my third year debating in college, two years for JMU (D7) and now for Texas (D3). I started with policy and slowly leaned more towards Kritiks in the last two years but don't let that change your strat. You're more likely to do well if you do what you're good at instead of what you think I'll like. Also feel free to ask me any questios before the round if any of this is unclear.

That being said I have opinions

Args:

Kritiks: Love them. Generally would expect an alt. I'm less familiar with French/German high theory bullshit so if that's your game explain it clearly to me. I go with your articulation of the argument you're reading instead of my idea of what your argument is.

T: sure. Don't forget your impacts, people do that a lot.

DA: Love a good DA. I will vote on a PTX DA but I will not enjoy it

CP: I love good CPs, make sure there's a NB

Theory: I'm willing to vote on it. But don't spread your theory blocks and don't forget your impacts.

Performance: Yes but explain the argumentative importance of the performance, don't just do it for its own sake. Also if your performance involves violence I will likely vote you down. I have had someone pretend to throw a backpack at me to get me to flinch during a round and that's just unnecessarily triggering so don't do it.

Other things:

Flashing/emailing is not prep unless you abuse it.

Speed: it is unlikely that you'll be too fast for me to flow if you're clear. I understand teams that want to spread to get more evidence in but I won't reward speaker points just because you're fast.

Sass: sure

Politeness: Yes. You should be polite to the other team especially if they're inexperienced. You should not forget to be a decent person just because you're debating.

CX: Many people might disagree with me on this but I think CX is ultimately a time to ask questions, not to intimidate the other team. Don't be embarassed if you are unfamiliar with your opponents argument and spend all 3 minutes asking verification questions. Understanding the other team's argument is critical to engage with it which is what makes a good debate.

Accessibility: If there are any reasons why you need accomodation from my end I am happy to oblige. You can talk to me before the round or email me.

If you exhibit explicitly racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/ableist or otherwise discriminatory behavior in-round I will likely vote you down. If you say a slur in-round that you cannot reclaim I will give you 0 speaks.

Tabula rasa

Policy Good.

Theory Good.

Abstract Good. 

DA Good.

Kritiki Good.

Quality of evidence greater than number of cards.

Quality of arguments greater than number of arguments.

Plano Senior (CT) '16

TFA State 2016 runner-up in PF 

Debated for 4 years for Plano Senior High School on the local, state, and national circuit with some fair amount of success. I consider myself a flow judge. I can handle some speed, but I didn't compete in Policy debate; so if you're going too fast, I won't flow it, and also won't evaluate it. 

Specific Round Preferences 

• If you're extending an arguement, both the warrant and the impact must be extended: if the warrant is not extended, I won't extend your impacts 
• Any offense you want to extend into the final focus must be extended in the summary. Defense can be extended from the rebuttal, but I prefer you touch on it at least a little in summary 
• Straight refutation in the second rebuttal speech is fine 

Framework

Framework is a great way to contextualize the round, so go for it. Please don't make it too confusing, and please have warrants if it's something unconventional. Dropped framework will hurt you. Props to you if you can win your opponent's framework. 

Theory/Kritiks

Will evaluate it if it's really really good, but I'm truthfully not a fan of theory at all and I will silently despise you and might be inclined to vote you down right away if I'm not in the mood. I don't appreciate theory, I don't think PF is the place for it. 

Evidence 

I'll call for it if 

a) you specifically tell me to 

b) it's being contested/a big issue in the round 

c) I think it's sketchy 

Do what you do best and I will make a decision afterwards

————-

How RyanMalone makes decisions

I hope Whitehead is right, that even dimwits can make good decisions if they follow an appropriate procedure. It’s only fair then for me to give a general sense of how I make decisions, with as few platitudes as possible, though most of them still apply.

1. After the 2ar I review 2nr and 2ar arguments and their comportment with the block and 1ar. Unless there are arguments about how I should or should not flow, I appreciate when debaters are attentive to line-by-line, but I understand that strategy sometimes calls one to deviate from it. When that occurs, I am less likely to line up arguments in the same way as you may want me to.

2. While doing that I clarify shorthand and mark out errata and things that aren’t arguments. There is a difference between arguments and nascent things that purport to be arguments. We don’t need to talk about Toulmin; an argument is really anything that could inform a decision. This may seem arbitrary or kind of like question-begging, but I don’t think it’s capricious. I don’t do this because I have some ultra-strenuous “not buying it” threshold for what constitutes an argument. My concern is that there is a temptation to embellish not-quite-arguments, especially those that, if they had been full arguments, would be compelling, strategic, or make for an easy decision. Assessing, at the outset, what all on the flow are reasonably arguments is a way to ward off that temptation.

3. I then look to arguments the 2nr and 2ar say are the most important and other arguments that appear central to the debate or that may supplant opposing lines of reasoning. The last part may seem to imply a premium on the meta, but rarely are debates leveraged on Archimedean points.

4. If necessary, I read evidence. I don’t follow along in speech docs or look at speeches in more than a cursory way prior to the end of the debate, with perhaps the exception of interpretations and counterplan texts. I will read a piece of evidence if there is contestation about its quality, applicability, or illocution, if I am asked to compare two pieces of evidence or a piece of evidence and a countervailing explanation, or if some argument is dense and, despite good explanation, I’m just not following. My concern is that the more evidence a judge reads without specific reason, the more they reward good evidence read sloppily over clear, persuasive argumentation and are at risk of reconstructing the debate along those lines.

5. I hash out the above (it’s hard to adumbrate this process in a way that’s not super vague) and I get something resembling a decision. I run through a few even-if scenarios: what, if any, central arguments the losing team could have won, but still lose the debate, and what arguments the winning team would have had to lose or the losing team would have had to win for the losing team to win the debate. Finally, I review the flow again to make sure my decision is firmly based in the 2nr and 2ar and that there is nothing I’ve missed.

Note on Framework

Framework debates are better when both teams have some defense, in addition to offense.

Even if fairness is intrinsically value, by which I mean fairness is valuable regardless of relation, I’m unsure how valuable procedural fairness is, in and of itself. Because of that fairness arguments make more sense to me as internal links rather than impacts.

Similarly, impact turns to fairness are more persuasive when they are about the purported use of fairness as an impartial rule. Phrased differently, in explaining the way structural fairness informs procedural fairness as a difference in fairness-in-rule and fairness-in-practice, it may be worth thinking about fairness as the practice of appealing to rules.

Topical versions are under-utilized.

Things that do not concern how I usually make decisions

Some of the above is assiduously believed, but weakly held, however, the following points are immutable: I will comply with any tournament rules regarding speech and decision times, speaker points, etc. Any request not to be recorded or videotaped should be honored. If proven, clipping, cross-reading, or deceitfully manufacturing or altering evidence will result in a loss and zero speaker points. Unlike wit, sass, and tasteful self-effacement, bald-faced meanness will negatively affect speaker points.

My rfds are brief, which I’m working on. This reason for this is twofold. First, most of what I write down concerns how I make my decision, not how I intend to give it. Second, I don’t presume to act, even temporarily, as something like an arguments coach, nor as someone who can adroitly explain or find fault in an opposing team’s arguments. The last thing I want to do is say something that would lead you astray. At this point in my time judging I’m really just trying to be a good heuristic machine—anything more is just gravy. Obviously, to the degree to which I have insight I will give suggestions, clarifications, or share in your befuddlement.

Please feel free to email me if you have questions or concerns.

Affiliation - North Crowley High School

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

In short

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

Theory

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

Policy

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

Kritik

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

Speed/Speaks

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

Ethics

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

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

Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org (for speech docs).

I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, oratory and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF.

As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters.

I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'.

If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points.

I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault.

Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.

Updated: 01/07/2020

Standing Conflicts: Strake Jesuit College Preparatory (TX)

Background:

I am a 2016 graduate Strake Jesuit College Preparatory in Houston, TX. I debated LD for four years on the TFA and TOC circuits. I’ve qualified to TFA State three times, clearing to doubles my senior year. I also qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals my senior year. I also briefly debated college policy for UT-San Antonio during my freshman year of college.

Pref Shortcuts (1 = best):

LARP/Stock: 1

K: 1

Framework: 2

Theory: 2

Tricks: 5

Generic: 2-3

General:

I’m a pretty open book with what arguments I will accept. I’ll vote on almost anything, as long as I’m given a clear reason to do so. That being said, however, don’t be offensive. Definitely don’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with 0 speaks.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed. I have a pretty good ear, so I’ll usually be able to catch what you’re saying. I’ll say “clear” three times and deduct 1 speaker point after the three times, but after that I’ll probably just stop flowing. Just be clear. Sometimes it helps to have an email chain going for the round to make absolutely sure, but I won’t require it.

Ks:

I really enjoy hearing a good K debate. As a debater, I read a lot of ableism, cap, race, biopower, and discourse kritiks. Don’t know so much about stuff like DnG and other high theory arguments, but I can have a good enough understanding of them to evaluate them in the context of the round. I won’t be impressed if you simply just use cool jargon and name drop the entire round. I’d really prefer to hear well-thought-out, topic-specific links and kritiks that have good strategic value, as opposed to generic state bad links that you can recycle every topic.

T/Theory:

I have a similar view to my former coach Adam Tomasi… Taken from his paradigm- “It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.” Although, these are my personal opinions on many of the more frivolous theory arguments, I did read a good deal of theory when I was in high school. I’m certainly alright with theory debates, though it’s just not fun to judge all the time when it gets to the point of 2 new shells in the 1AR. T’s alright. I read some T, answered some T in my day. Make sure a topical version of the aff is well-explained and I'll be happier if it's very creative. My soft defaults are competing interps, drop the debater, RVI’s.

Theory vs K:

I don’t have a default as to which comes first. You should do that weighing for me in the round and I’ll evaluate it that way. In the event that neither debater does any weighing on that debate, I guess I’d just put the layer with most engagement done by both debaters first.

Framework:

I like a good framework debate. I know how to evaluate a framework debate and if it’s a good one, I’ll like it.

Policy Arguments (Plans/CPs/DAs):

As a debater, I read a lot of DAs, such as PTX, Elections, Econ, Court Clog, etc. I really enjoy these debates. If you just make sure links to disads are clearly established, a lot of comparative weighing and impact analysis is done, and CPs are competitive, we’ll be fine. I’d prefer it if your extinction scenario makes some sense and is reasonable. Have some basic semblance of uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. PICs are also cool too, if they’re well thought-out and have really clever competition with the aff. I also enjoy really nuanced theory interpretations about the legitimacy of conditional counterplans and PICs, and I enjoy listening to that debate.

Tricks:

Hate them. I’m not a fan of skep, NIBs, spikes, presumption, and other sketchy things. Proceed with caution because I won’t be too happy if you read these arguments in front of me. But I’ll vote on them if weighed correctly and won’t deduct speaks for reading them.

Speaks:

I evaluate speaks based on quality of argumentation, engagement, and strategy. Higher speaks if I sense that you know a lot about the topic and about the arguments you’re reading. I’ll also probably give higher speaks if I hear a good joke or two, or if you debate with flair. Speaks will also be deducted if y’all are exceptionally rude or aggressive to each other. Be nice, but confident. Have fun, but be smart.

Other:

-I default to comparative worlds. Arguments to the contrary can be made, of course.

-Tech over truth.

-Flashing and emailing don’t come out of prep time. However, don’t try and put together your speech doc and think you’re not gonna take prep to do so.

-Time yourselves.

-You should email, flash, or pass pages to your opponent, so they can be able to see your case somehow.

-Have fun and be nice.

If this doesn’t give you a good enough idea about my judging style or views on debate, I generally tend to agree with these people- Chris Castillo, Adam Tomasi

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round. You can also contact me by email (qjc097@my.utsa.edu) or by Facebook message.

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.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hamilton,+Chase

TLDR: This is your round so debate the way you feel most comfortable, my only recommendation is to explain why you should win the round instead of why they should lose. I have experience with most forms of argumentation including the K and performance. I competed in NPDA for Texas Tech so speed and technical debate are something I consider tools. My only serious rule is to respect your opponents and avoid arguments we would all consider unethical. As a general rule, I will almost always default to tech over truth, if you concede a sheet of paper, pathological appeals won't win you my ballet.

LONG VERSION:

Yo, excited to judge your round. I have over 7 years of debate experience from all levels from novice to national finals for 2018 in NPDA. In HS, I did policy and a very small amount of LD. I have freelanced coached and judged almost every debate event, and don't have an argument preference. I have been out of the game for nearly a year so my flowing isn't as a fast as it once was. Clarity is a huge issue for me, but if you label and signpost arguments clearly I should be able to keep up with most speeds.

traditional paradigm: NA win offense, win round

AFF:

K affs and performative affs are fine so long as you are able to justify why you should be able to read them when challenged on things like framework and T. Preferably explain why your performance is UQ and K2 solving for (X), absent that explanation for the solvency mechanism I tend to be more lenient towards generic link scenarios.

Policy affs: Whatever aff you read is fine, but I find it nearly impossible to vote for a plan meets needs aff due to the lack of embedded offense. Beyond that, I don't believe it is my role as a judge to control what advocacies you're reading.

All theoretical objections to the negative strat must be read in the 2ac or as round framing at the bottom of the aff. This obviously changes in something incredibly abusive happens in the block, but those cases are few and far between, e.g. they read a new K in the 1nr or refuse to provide block evidence. I need a reason to drop the team if you want this argument to win you the round. I strongly dislike the current trend in policy that collapses theory into a single block of text on the offending sheet, so please put it on its own sheet.

In the end, to vote affirmative I want a clearly defined change in the squo and reasons that change is preferable in cost-benefit analysis.

NEG:

Thesis: I don't like all off in the 1nc and all on in the 2nc, it's sloppy and leads to less interesting debates. It also hurts you strategically because you don't actually start to develop ideas from the 1nc until the 1nr. I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying I will have a much more difficult time voting for it.

T/Theory: I will vote for this type of argument when it is deployed and argued like a win condition. If you want to win my ballet on T, you will need impacts on fairness and education and not just a blip in the voter section. (AFF: please meet your counter interps) Consider T a disad and argue it as such. I default to competing interps unless instructed differently, and will not do standard weighing for either team.

Disad: Read them? I don't need to go in-depth here, I hope.

CP: The role of a counter plan is to either prove an opportunity cost to the aff or function as an advantage take out. Topical counter plans are fine, but definitely a fun theory debate to have. Absent external offense or a solvency deficit for the aff I probably won't vote on a floating advocacy.

K: I was a K hack when I debated. This has two main implications for your round, I hate hearing bad Ks and I am familiar with most critical lit. If you feel confident in your ability to run a critique effectively, then please read them because they open up a level of topic discussion that can't be accessed by reading a simple disad. If you don't understand how a K works or what your author is defending, I am not the judge to read a K in front of. In terms of lit, I am most familiar with Foucault, and D&G, but have at least surface-level knowledge on most arguments. I tend to vote on arguments that result in either a material or epistemological change to the status quo so yeah explain that.

On-case: Solvency take-outs aren't a voter unless they are paired with either an advocacy that solves the aff or external offense. Solvency turns are a voter. Just reading cards on the aff isn't productive beyond the 1nc; I need a reason it matters for it to change my ballet.

Strategy: Beat your opponents vertically, instead of horizontally. I.E. a lot of explanatory and interactive arguments on a single position is much more likely to win my ballet instead of going for 10 off in the 2nr.

Kicking arguments is fine if you answer all the offense on it.

MISC:

CONDO is good, but that is up for debate in the round. That being said, I will drop a team on condo bad if the opp wins the arg.

Floating Pics are generally bad, but if the aff doesn't notice...

ROB debates are generally a waste of your time, the role of the ballet is to say who wins the round. Instead, tell me the role of the judge or just tell me what offense to prioritize via weighing (probably faster TBH)

I tend to dislike rejection alts (reject the res, reject the aff, etc), but I will vote on them. It's just going to take more work on your end.

Don't be rude or hateful. I will drop you and the speaks will show it.

Speaker point range: 27-30 Average: 28.7

LD:

I am traditionally a policy judge so my approach to LD tends to fall along those lines. The easiest pathway to my ballet is warrant comparison and impact analysis. I dislike arguments like "my value supersedes theirs" unless they include a specific reason why that's a voter.

Beyond that, a clearly defined weighing mechanism for the round is critical. Am I an educator, a policymaker, or a Nihilist? All three of these fundamentally shape how I view the round, so tell me what kind of judge you want me to be. Absent this, I will default to cost-benefit analysis to evaluate your claims and determine my ballet.

I debated for four years in high school and am in my 3rd year of college debate

During my high school career I primarily read kritiks and performance arguments, but I have also worked with and read traditional policy arguments. This means I won't automatically lean one way or the other-I expect you to frame the debate and make the arguments that tell me how to vote, so that I don't have to rely on my personal beliefs. 
The things I will not tolerate: card clipping, evidence fabrication, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. 

I prefer truth over tech-I prefer in depth discussions of evidence comparison, warrants, and explanations of the thesis of arguments over the minutiae of the line by line-if you think you can win with a long, contextualized explanation of your argument that adequately addresses the main issues in the debate, go  for it. That being said, I still expect some kind of technical debating in the sense of providing warranted responses to specific arguments-this doesn't mean you have to go down the line by line, just address all the arguments in the debate somehow and let me know what you're addressing. 

Specific argument preferences:

Kritiks: These are some of my favorite debates-for me a K debate is good when it's well explained and contextualized, and aff-specific kritiks are even better. I am familiar with literature spanning from: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Afropessimism, Coloniality, Settler Colonialism, Queer Theory, basic Marxism, and Foucault. If your K is very high theory but not on my list, that doesn't mean I can't judge it-I can probably catch on pretty quickly given that you explain the arguments well enough. My familiarity with a literature base is not an excuse to slack off in your explanation or contextualization of arguments-Well warranted [not necessarily carded] arguments and explanations of your theory are necessary. I'm not a big fan of links of omission unless they are very specific [for example, if settler colonialism is intrinsic to the discussion of the topic then I am much more likely to buy that the aff's omission is problematic]. Always have a clear role of the ballot, framework debate, and impact calc. You should make explicit and specific turns case/root cause arguments, explain the specifics of why the aff's truth claims are false or should be rejected-I'm not likely to vote on generics. Have a solid explanation of the alt and what it does. I will vote on Floating PIKs if they are conceeded, but I err aff on floating piks theory. The best K debates come with contextual explanations, examples, and illustrate an in depth knowledge of the lit and its real world use.

Ks vs a K aff-have specific and clear links and places of contestation-have a clear explanation of what the alt does, how it's different from the aff-your should have specific explanations of how the alt resolves the aff/any of the aff's disads-for me this is distinct from having a root cause argument-I need an explanation of the reverse causal argument [example: even if you win cap is the historical root cause of racism, I need a warrant for why the alt would result in a transition that would eradicate racism.] 

For a policy aff to win against a K I think the most important thing is to win a solid defense of the aff. I give very little weight to shady or unexplained perms, by the 1ar you should have some explanation of what the permutation does and be consistent in your explanation. You probably won't persuade me that I shouldn't evaluate the K with framework, but you can probably win that you get to access your impacts.
For a K aff to win against a K I think you need a solid explanation of your aff in the context of the K with well explained link turns, an explanation of how the perm functions, and impacted out net benefits to the perm. I think a lot of time people will read really bad K links to K affs or Ks that dont address the specificity of the aff-you should point that out and use it to your advantage. 

Peformance/Method debates-I debated with these arguments and critiques for most of my last two years of debate-I love GOOD performance and method debates. A good performance debate should be one that clearly establishes competition between the performances/methods with specific disads and links to what you are debating. I believe that all debate is a performance, the question to be debated is just whether your performance is good. 

In these debates I think the aff should have a solid defense of the aff and their performance and education-roleplaying good, policymaking good- in addition to permutations, defense, disads to their performance. You're unlikely to persuade me that I shouldn't evaluate a criticism of the aff's performance.

K Affs:
I'm open to K affs-I don't believe the aff needs to have a plan text-I generally err towards the aff should have an advocacy statement but I can be persuaded otherwise. Similarly, I believe the aff should be connected to/in the direction of the topic, which will be much more persuasive in Framework debates, but again I can be persuaded otherwise. Just do your thing and tell me how to evaluate the round.

Framework against K Affs:
I am not a big fan of framework and would prefer to not judge that debate. However, that does not mean I will not evaluate it. Make your framework impacts specific to the aff and give examples. I am more persuaded by discussions of institutional engagement, policy education, switch sides, etc than fairness and predictability arguments. I prefer FW debates that end up more like method debates, in a way.

CPs:
I'm fine with most counterplans, and counterplans specific to the aff are even better. Generic solvency evidence isn't very persuasive. The permutation debate should be thorough [from the aff and neg] with an in depth explanation of how the perm functions/how the disads and net benefits to the perm function. 
I am fine with most counterplans. I err aff on process cps, word pics, delay, consult, and conditions CPs. For PICs am more persuaded to vote on the CP if it's specific to the aff and you win it addresses a key point of contention with the aff-I'm less lenient to random squirelly pics.

DA: The best disad debates have good, well warranted, comparative evidence-I prefer quality over dumping large numbers of short, speculative pieces of evidence. Impact calc and turns case debates are very important. Specific links to the aff are as well. I probably won't vote on 1% risk calculus if it comes to that, so make sure to win strong internal links and probability for your impacts. 

Theory: Slow down in theory debates-don't explain your standards at the speed you would read a card. I am not the most well versed or experienced in theory debates but I can follow one reasonably well. 
I default to evaluating conditionality as a reason to reject the team, everything else as a reason to reject the argument. I can be persuaded otherwise. Specific and well written interpretations will probably win you the day and makes the debate much easier to evaluate, especially on condo. Flush out and compare the standards, give contextual examples and point out abuse. I err neg on theory. 

Topicality- Well written T shells with specific interps, definitions, and standards are preferable to generic shells. As with theory, I am not very experienced with in depth T debates but I can follow it along. As with theory, comparative debates over the standards are a must, with contextual examples and all. Provide a case list, explain what the topic is like under your interp, explain in round abuse. Win framing issues-I default to competing interpretations but I can be persuaded otherwise. 

Miscellaneous: 
flash drives-for me prep ends when you're done with the speech doc and you're ready to flash it-I'll be fairly lenient on 
Clarity before speed-if you are unclear I will yell "clear".

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop. I've been saying for a couple years now that I cannot physical handle the top debaters speed any longer. I will not backflow or flow from doc. This is an oral activity so adjust. I am very expressive in round and you should have no issue discerning if I am with you or not. For me it is definitely that my pen times needs more time, so look periodically and you should be fine.

Speed

The older I get the more triggered I find I am when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it outspread your opponent then I am not your ideal judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time.

If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.


The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

K:

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hsun%2C+Kim

Experience: I competed mostly in PF and Extemp, but I have experience in LD; competed at local (Houston-area), state, and national level. 

Preface: Debate is inherently pedagogical; that is, the core purpose of debate is education. I believe that a debate round is disconnected from the real world; the only real-world implications of a debate round are that one side will win and the other will lose and that all participants in the round will be slightly more educated. That's it. Policymakers, governments, and individuals outside the realm of the round don't care about your advocacy or your solvency or your arguments. Although it is impossible to be purely tabula rasa (we are all defined by our experiences), I attempt to weigh the round based ONLY on the frameworks/arguments presented by the two sides. Debate is also NOT a safe space. Many judges state that they vote down arguments that are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/whatever other prejudice; I don't buy into this, and I accept any argument as long as it is warranted, contextualized, and defended.

Speed: I am okay with speed and spreading as long as you slow down on tags/authors and either provide an off-time roadmap or signpost in speech. I expect competitors to time themselves and not go unreasonably overtime. 

Speaker Points: I am fairly generous with speaks; I award 28-29 like 99% of the time and I'll only give a >29 if I think you were phenomenal, and <28 if I think you were a disaster. 

LD Specifics:

• Kritiks: I'm a big fan of Ks and accept them on both aff and neg. I look favorably on a K that has more specific link arguments and is embedded within the constructive. I can not buy a K if I can not buy your links, so I expect any K to be well contextualized and have strong links. 
• Theory: Not a big fan, would prefer you avoid it. If you run T, I won't hold it against you, but I basically never vote on T. 
• Counterplan/Disad/Topicality: Fine.
• Role of the ballot: Must justify why this is an a-priori argument in the resolution's context.
• I'm ok with flex prep.

PF Specifics:

• Framework: PF is essentially competing worlds, one advocated by the pro and one advocated by the con. If you have a specific framework through which you want me to view the round, like deontology, then I will weight your frameworks. If I buy into your framework, then it is very likely that I buy into your world and vote for your side. If I don't buy any framework or if framework debate is a wash, then I resort to cost-benefit analysis.
• Impact calculus: Must be explicit on what your impacts are and how they should be weighed in round.
• Rebuttal: Line by line argumentation.
• Summary Speech: Big picture and extensions. If you do not extend arguments then I consider them dropped and don't weight them. 
• Final Focus: Voters only.
• I am ok with kritikal debate in PF.

This is my fourth year judging PF and LD. I am a parent judge who prefers clarity and logical argumentation over speed and technicality. I value arguments that clearly link back to the topic and are well thought out.

Being familiar with your case and being able to communicate your ideas in an organized manner is what will earn you high speaks.

If you are talking too fast, I will give you two chances by simply saying "speed" before I start docking speaker points.

What impresses me is a calm, focused, intelligent, and respectful style of debate.

I debated for Stony Point High School in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national level. I previously coached for Westlake High School. I am willing to listen to almost any argument.

I will usually ask for pronouns before/after the round. Include trigger warnings if appropriate. Be kind to your opponent. This does not mean “don’t be explicitly rude”, it means be kind.

Regardless of what argument you read, be clear about the strategic implications and have a thorough understanding of your own position. It can truly undermine your chances of winning a debate round if your case is poorly written or if you do not understand the implications of your own position.

General:

- Be clear and slow down on tags or anything you want to ensure that I flow.

- I prefer strategies that are explained at the meta level, do not just do detailed work on the flow and assume I know how this means you win the round. Explicit impacting will minimize judge intervention.

Speaker Points: I award points based on a combination of strategy and clarity (of speech not clarity of arguments). To be clear by strategy I mean how effective your strategy was in the round and whether it was purposeful.

Theory: I default to a competing interpretations paradigm for theory. I enjoy listening to unique and specific interpretations. If you have specific theory questions, feel free to ask.

Ks:

Please do not assume I am well versed in the literature/theory you are using. The more specific link arguments you have, the more compelling the kritik will be. If you plan on reading a long kritik with minimal explicit work on the aff flow, that is fine, but I need to see embedded interaction with the AC while the K is read. That means specific references to the AC. Do not rely on 1 or 2 generic links.

Policy Arguments: Specific evidence is better. The debater who does more comparative analysis and weighing usually wins these rounds.

• I participated in Parliamentary and Public Forum debate in High School, doing LD my senior year.
• Because of this background, I tend to vote for the side that best defends their arguments/impacts in the round
• In terms of speed, I'd prefer if you stay somewhere in between spreading and normal talking.(I'll let you know if clarity is an issue)
• If you feel the need to use theory, clearly shell out your argument so I have taglines to jot down.(Please don't run theory just to run theory or seem smart, it has the opposite effect on me)
• Note that I will vote for substantial contentions over theory any day. 
• I rarely used kritiks in high school, but if it is something core to your strategy, clearly show me the link to the round and weigh the sides our for me(love hearing impact turns)
• I also enjoy debate over the value criterion and that can be another huge reason to sway me to your side.
• Time yourself
• Have a great time and if you have any questions at all, don't be afraid to ask!

Policy Debate

I would like to be on the email chain if there is one. my email is jessekeleman@gmail.com

Basic Philosophy

I debate at UT and debated for 4 years at Grapevine in highschool. I'm fine with any argument. I really like well-researched PICs.

I'm not too familiar with a lot of the kritikal literature bases besides Virilio, so keep that in mind when explaining your arguments. I still love hearing kritiks, just be sure to make your arguments as clear as possible. 
I haven't heard a lot of debates on this topic, so try and keep that in mind if you were planning on throwing around a lot of acronyms at a fast pace. Making your arguments clearer can only be good for your speaker points.
I like hearing specific disads, generic ones are fine too if you can contextualize the link to your argument to the affirmative. Same thing with kritiks.
I'll be glad to answer any more specific questions you have before the round.

Disads

I prefer specific disads, but of course that's not always possible. I find that disad links can be pretty awful, and think that it can be a great place for an aff to gain some ground against the disad. However, I think that disads with strong and well-explained links can be extremely convincing. Politics disads can either be underwhelming if extremely generic, or very solid arguments if your link story is a bit more nuanced then "some people in congress hate the plan, so congress will suddenly decide they hate immigration reform.".

Counterplans

I am not a fan of conditions counterplans, or any other counterplan that causes a very small change in the process the aff goes through (consult counterplans also fall under this catagory). I tend to think that they form boring and repetitive debates. I will still vote on them if you are winning the argument, but I find the theoretical objections to them to be pretty convincing. I am a huge fan of specific pics. Any well-researched and well debated pic will likely give your speaker points a boost. I am not a fan of generic pics, or some of the old-fashioned word pics, such as the "the" pic. I think advantage counterplans can be extremely stratagic, especially when paired with a strong disad.

Kritik

Kritiks are great, but I am not very familiar with a lot of the more complex kritikal literature. This means you have to make your explanation of the argument clear to me, or I'll have a hard time voting on it. I have no problem with affirmatives that don't defend government action as long as they are relevant to the topic or have a convincing reason not to be, but at the same time I have no problem voting for framework if the negative gives me convincing reasons why debates about government action are more useful than what the affirmative performance is trying to do. I would prefer negatives use well thought-out counter-advocacies over framework as those debates tend to be more interesting, but I do believe that framework has its place in debate.


Topicality

I'd generally prefer a DA or K, but I think that topicality debates can be interesting in their own way. I think that high school debaters tend to expand the topic a little bit too far, and get away with affs that might not necessarily be topical. Running topicality against a clearly topical aff will most likely not get you anywhere, and should probably be replaced with more viable arguments.

Theory

I find that there are certain arguments in debate that seem polarizing, as far as if they are beneficial arguments that should be used in debate or not. For these arguments that do seem to spur disagreement, I think that theory can be a fantastic argument against them, and would enjoy seeing an in-depth theory debate about them. On the other hand, theory arguments arguing that you shouldn't speed read, that counterplans are bad for debate, or that kritiks belong in LD, I do not find convincing. You're not likely to win on these arguments unless the other team severely mishandles them, so you might as well actually engage in their arguments instead of trying to just ignore them. A questionable argument that has been well-researched and has specific evidence is much more likely to look legitimate to me than a generic counterplan that just pushes the aff back a year and claims a politics net benefit. I think that clash is one of the most important parts of debate, and that if an argument disagrees with the actual content of the 1AC in a substantial matter, it should be permitted in debate. If an argument tries to avoid clash in unhealthy ways (mostly in ways that don't promote topic-specific research), then I am more likely to decide that these arguments are illegitimate.

Conditionality -

I think that more than two conditional arguments is pushing it, but I do not think there is much merit to saying that the negative cannot get even 1 conditional argument. If there's one conditional argument your time is probably better spent on debating the substance of the debate. I also think that you should make your argument as nuanced as possible, for example instead of saying just conditionality is bad, say that multiple contradictory conditional worlds is bad.


Speaker Points I haven't judged enough rounds to have a well though-out system of giving speaker points, but in general better arguments will get better speaker points, and more persuasive speakers will get better speaker points.

LD

I rarely judge this event. Assume I know nothing about the topic, but I am probably somewhat familiar with the critical literature base you're drawing from. I have a hard time voting aff in LD debates because of the huge time discrepancy that makes it seem as if there are a lot of dropped arguments. To get around this, I suggest grouping arguments often as the affirmative, and making it clear how your impacts outweigh any risk of what the negative is talking about, bringing up at least a few specific examples in the process. 

Yes I want to be on the email chain: khan.aimun@gmail.com. In an effort to reward clarity, I will no longer look at docs until after the round.

Tldr: I don't care what you read. I like: 1) Good argument resolution that makes me not have to think, 2) Seeing smart strategic decisions, 3) Learning something because an argument I didn't understand before was explained well. I type fast but my flow gets messy when I'm not told where to flow things.

This paradigm and this paradigm shamelessly copied my old paradigm and I more or less agree with both of them.

I graduated in 2016, debated in Texas and on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC my senior year. As a judge, my goal is to get out of the way of the debaters and let them do their thing. Since graduating I've become pretty familiar with different styles of debate, and I don't really care what you read as long as you read it well. Policy, K, phil, theory, tricks are all the same to me as long as I understand the argument resolution. I enjoy watching debaters make smart/strategic decisions much more than I care about the particular arguments being read.

I'm willing to vote on anything I understand by the end of the round if it's won (and warranted). If an argument is bad, the other debater should be able to point it out. My only exception to that rule is I will not evaluate actively problematic arguments e.g. racism good.

Things that get you good speaks (and make it more likely that I make the decision you want me to):

1) Spell it out for me. Some amount of implicit clash is inevitable, but the more I'm left to resolve on my own, the lower your speaks will be. If I'm left to resolve two arguments, I will look for the path of least intervention. Good collapses get good speaks. Tell me what to care about and what not to care about.

2) Make yourself easy to flow. Slow down on important things that you want to emphasize. It's really hard to get warrants down in blipstorms. I have trouble with flowing big blippy analytic dumps so go like 80% of your top speed.

3) Explaining complex theories in a way that is understandable to a non-debater or someone with no background in the literature base you're reading will get you high speaks. I appreciate slower thesis explanations at the top of the 2NR/2AR. If I learn something from the round because you explained an argument I didn’t understand well, your speaks will be great.

In short, the easier you make it to evaluate the round the better your speaks will be.

Other things that affect your speaks:

1) Err on the side of slightly over-explaining warrants and interactions between args.

2) If you're reading stuff on case, I'd appreciate if you tell me where to flow your arguments. Good line-by-lining of the 1AC/1NC, as opposed to card dumps, is a lost art. Good warrant-to-warrant comparison and smart analytic responses make rounds enjoyable, and I express that enjoyment in the form of speaker points.

3) If you're debating a novice and you knowingly spread them out of the round, the highest your speaks will be is a 28.5 and I won’t feel bad about going even lower. By contrast, if you're debating a novice and you slow down and explain things simply to them (in other words, if you make the round accessible), your speaks will be high. Just use your best judgment here and don’t be mean.

4) In theory or K rounds, tell me what your model of debate looks like and how that frames the way I evaluate things.

5) I'd prefer you be straight up about what you're reading. If someone asks where the a prioris are in the aff, say where the a prioris are in the aff.

6) Big pre-written overviews are generally not incredible at argument resolution, and fully doc'd out speeches can make it hard to know where to flow things. If you’re reading off a doc for most of the 2NR and it makes my life harder, your speaks will reflect that.

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.

New - NDT 24. Welcome to Atlanta!

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll recieve a loss along with the lowest points tabroom will allow me to asign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissable for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

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'm pretty tab, and you should feel comfortable reading whatever you like in front of me.

Here's a short version of my paradigm:

- Flashing/emailing isn't prep so long as you don't take forever

- Don't steal prep

- Fine with K's

- Fine with speed

- I only vote on args with warrants that are extended (yes, this includes analytics)

- Don't say stuff that is obviously bad is good (racism/sexism/etc.)

- I default tech over truth b/c I want to minimize intervention as much as possible

- I default competing interps (but can easily be persuaded to pref reasonability)

- I will not extend or kick arguments for you

- Don't steal prep (really)

Long version:

DA's:

Who doesn't like DA's? Link analysis goes a long way with me. I prefer hearing specific links to the Aff either in what they say in CX or in the AC. If you don't do this, I'm more persuaded by Aff defense that says your links are generic and your DA isn't that probable. There's a recent trend of doing extensive overviews on DAs in the block and 2NR. I honestly don't hate it at all, but I think you should only be doing it to accomplish either or both of these things: 1) To extend everything quickly and efficiently, 2) Explaining to me clearly what your strategy is on this flow and how it impacts the round/other arguments (like turns case args). The latter, if done well, can be really helpful to me and can get you higher speaks if you're able to do it concisely and clearly. I think this applies to overviews on all off-case positions for me.

If you're Aff, I think at some point the amount of offense and defense you read against a DA should take a backseat to comparative analysis. I am a lot more engaged in DA rounds where you are doing evidence comparison and analyzing what your evidence means for the possibility of the DA. I'm not all that interested in hearing VH1's Top 100 Link Turns of the Past DecadeTM.

CP's:

I genuinely don't have any dispositions against particular kinds of counterplans. Any question of the validity or fairness of reading X kind of counterplan should be resolved in a theory debate. In general, CP's need to explain what part of the Aff they solve, have a specific solvency advocate, and have some substantive debate about the solvency deficits to the perm.

One thing to note about me is that presumption flips Aff if you go for a CP. The same sentiment applies to K Alts.

K's:

Probably what I know best. My personal beliefs about a particular author/camp do not affect how I evaluate the round. Additionally, I'm not going to cut you any slack or fill in holes for you in your explanations just because I might happen to have read what you're talking about.

K's need specific links to the Aff. Poor analysis on the link debate on the part of the Neg almost always results on me voting Aff on the perm on the chance that it resolves the link and/or the K itself. The ideal block strategy on the link debate is to reference specific parts of the Aff (I encourage you to even quote their evidence) and directly citing their responses in CX. You do not need to read a lot of evidence with K's. You will get better speaks if you are a) very well organized and b) can explain to me specifically where the Aff goes wrong.

Alts are usually terrible. I need to know what I'm voting on. Like I said above, presumption flips for me if you go for the K in the 2NR. If I don't even know what your alt does, you are risking me voting on presumption. While I don't flow CX, they are still ethos moments. If you sound like you don't know what you're talking about, I'm less likely to buy your alt.

Aff's should obviously try to read no link arguments, but it's in your interest to sit on the alt debate. Explain to me clearly how the permutation works, is justified, and resolves the link. Explain to me why the alt fails.

I don't have any predispositions about kinds of K's, so, like CPs, resolve any validity/fairness claims via theory. Make it apparent to me that the K is a floating PIK in the block, not the 2NR.

K Affs:

Cool with me. Although, I prefer K affs to intersect with the topic in some way. Two biggest problems I see with K affs: 1) I don't really understand what you are advocating and 2) I don't understand how your advocacy resolves the impacts outlined in the AC.

Framework:

Reading a TVA is in your interests if you're Neg. You need to explain how your version of the Aff's advocacy would resolve the violation and why it's good for fairness/education (whatever you're going for). You have a much better chance winning on Neg if you are able to turn the Aff's offense in the AC with your standards.

For Aff's, it's really important that you read counter interps and are doing impact calc. You will want to try to win some disads on their TVA if possible. It never hurts to read some of your solvency/framework evidence in the AC in response to any Neg framework interp to prove that your discussion is crucial to the topic in some way.

T/Theory:

Will vote on it.

I don't have any predispositions about any theory interpretations. One caveat: while I don't have predispositions about specific interps, it's not enough for you to just propose a good norm for debate. You need to prove there is some abuse going on in round AND how your norm resolves said abuse in this round and future rounds. If it's not apparent to me what the other team/debater did wrong, I'm less inclined to vote them down for it.

Please slow down a bit on theory. I can only type so fast. Your voters need warrants. Just saying "voters for fairness and education" is a great for you to decrease my chances of voting on theory/t or to buy your abuse claims. Reasonability debates should be about the Aff's counter interpretation.

For LD folks, I'm not the greatest judge for you if your primary strategies are uplayering.

For T specifically, it helps if your definition is from a source whose credentials are relevant to the topic. For example, the definition is suited for or written by someone with a lot of experience in immigration policy.

I debated for three years at Anderson high school in Austin, Texas, and competed in LD at the local, state, and national circuit. I believe debate should be a fun and educational activity, and that debaters should not hesitate to read any arguments they feel passionate about.

Speed:

Go for it, but be clear. I'll remind you twice, and then I will dock your speaks. I won't vote on anything I don't pick up. I find it's much easier for me to listen when debaters start off slower at the beginning of the AC or NC and then gradually pick up to their ideal speed. Then again, while I think my flow is pretty good, if you're spreading at the TOC level, please make sure to slow down on tags or the most important aspects of your evidence/analytics. Nevertheless, if I don't tell you to slow down, you're fine.

K's:

Love them. I mostly ran these arguments in my last two years of debate. However, you should make sure you have a specific link to the aff's advocacy or you may find it hard to win my ballot. I'm not a fan of generic links you can read on any topic. 

Dis-Ads/Counterplans:

I enjoy these debates. Just slow down on tags, especially on Dis-Ads. The only time I find DA debates hard to follow is when debaters spread through the tags.

Theory/Topicality:

If you're A strat is going all in on theory from the get-go, I'm probably not the best judge for you. I'm not a fan of frivolous theory, and if are confused on what I mean by frivolous, you can ask me before round. I find that this is more of a problem for theory, rather than topicality. I default to competing interps and drop the debater unless told otherwise. I'm not a huge fan of RVI debates as well, but will vote on it if that's what the debate comes to. Nevertheless, I do think that theory/T is beneficial in many circumstances, and will also look to reasonability if told to do so.

Speaks:

Speaks will be based on the quality of a debater's arguments and his or her strategy of choice within the round. While, I don't really care about presentation, clarity of how the argument/strategy is delivered will help raise speaks. I'd also prefer a clear story of the round near the end of the debate.

Other:

• I will give more leeway on extensions for the 1AR
• If there's a role of the ballot argument and theory/T in the debate, it would be beneficial for a debater to inform me on how to weigh the two arguments against each other. 
• Flashing/emailing cards/cases will not come out of prep-time unless it's taking an enormous amount of time to do so
• Sexist, racist, and any other derogatory comments/arguments will cost you the round, and 20 speaks.
• I enjoy hearing role of the ballot arguments, but would like justification on why these are an a-priori argument in context of the resolution.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before round. 

I debated for 4 years at Anderson HS from 2006-2010. I haven't been anywhere near debate since I graduated HS in 2010, so if there has been any new developments in this activity that may have occurred in the past 6 years, I am not aware of it. Because I have been out of the debate community for several years, I will just explain how I debated in my day, and what I will look for when I vote. However, that does not mean that you have to tailor the round to the "olden" days of LD. You are more than welcome to debate the round however you wish, but just know that you cannot assume I know what is going on. You will have to be clear and concise for me to follow and vote for you.

My style of LD

I mostly ran traditional value/value criterion debate cases. I like cases that have very strong links between the warrants, impacts, VCs and Vs. Sometimes, I ran off-cases or Ks, but that was rare. I always had blocks to theory cases on fairness, but never ran theory because I found them silly and rather wanted to have a substantive debate. 

I spoke at a relatively quick pace, but never near the level of a CX-er.

How I will judge

DO NOT speak like a CX-er in front of me. I mean, I guess you can, but I'm only going to look at what I've written down when I decide to vote on something. If I missed something in your 1AC/1NC and so did your opponent, but I'm going to assume the argument was never stated. But, if your opponent did get it, then I'll add it to my flow (fair?).

I need arguments to be sufficiently linked to the voting standard. If you and your opponent have different voting standards, you better make sure to tell me why I should prefer one over the other. Or, it's going to be an arbitrary decision. If there is an a priori, theory, or topicality argument, then you must be clear as to why those arguments must be decided upon first.

As for the substantive arguments, I was never a big fan of abstract philosophy (you can assume I am dumb and never understood their esoteric language). You are welcome to have those cards in your cases, but be sure that you are able to clearly explain it to me with concrete examples. Make sure all substantive arguments are clearly extended in each speech. If you forget to extend an argument (which includes the warrant and impact), then that is unfortunate for you. 

Basically, I will vote however you tell me to vote. Give me a standard to evaluate the debate (making sure to tell me why that standard is the best), list the arguments for how you meet the standard better than your opponent with very clear warrants, impacts, and links, and list reasons why your opponent fails to meet the standard. I would not waste time bringing up arguments that were not extended throughout the round. A hierarchy of how I should vote (i.e. - offcase first, case second, etc.) would be great. If this does not happen in the round, then godspeed.

Speaker Points

I will give 30pts if (1) you are clear and concise in your arguments/strategy and in explaining how I should vote, and (2) kind to your opponent. I will give 25pts if my flow looks like a mess, and I have no idea what is going on. Otherwise, it's a sliding scale between 25-30pts. However, I will give 20 pts if you make sexist, racist, or other derogatory remarks. You'll also likely (most, likely) lose the round.

Other

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round about specific judging philosphies. I'll be happy to answer them.

Modern problems require modern solutions.

P.S. I have never and will never evaluate a judge kick argument as if it were valid. If you make a 2NR decision, you've made it. You can't unmake soup. I'm not going to intervene into the debate to fix your 2NR mistakes.

Make all arguements have clear links, spreading is fine if you are still articulate.

Easiest way to win a round is by extending and pointing out where they drop the points you extend.

Don't be rude

I debated 2 years of PF and 2 years of LD back in high school. I attended Coppell High School and then Hebron High School. Judging for the past 3 years I have been pretty much open to anything. I do not want to assume the reason for someone to win the debate I need you to tell me that. I also take CX as a huge part of the debate so do not be abusive but really own it! I am fine with speed as long as you are clear. After telling you about 3 times I will dock off points. I will not give oral critiques unless asked for. Debating was the best part of my 4 years of high school so i expect a lot of respect but I love the saas and passion when speaking. The way you present yourself goes a long way with me. When I sense your ego getting high and using language not appropriate I will call you out. I prefer the traditional framework but willing to listen to something new.  

Update for online tournaments:

Please slow down and make an extra effort to be clear for these rounds online. I will not call clear online since then we miss some of what you are saying.

I did LD for three years at Cy-Fair HS outside of Houston, Texas, qualifying to the TOC and NSDA nationals, and reaching semifinals at TFA state. I worked for McNeil HS in Austin while attending the University of Texas, and I teach at NSD and TDC.

Conflicts: McNeil HS, Cy-Fair HS, Lovejoy KC, Pembroke Pines MC

TL/DR:

I'd rather evaluate your style of debate than have you do things you're not comfortable with because you think it's what I want. My paradigm is here so you get an idea of how you want to pref me and how to debate in front of me, not to dissuade you from any particular type of debate.

Feel free to ask me questions at cameronmcconway@gmail.com.

If I am judging you at 8 am or late after a long day of rounds, please make an extra effort to be clear and organized. I'm tired and I want to make sure I can evaluate the debate as best as possible, so this is in your best interest!

The trend of taking forever to send speech docs (and then wait for everyone to download them) is extremely annoying. I haven't figured out the best way to check this, so for now I'm asking that you come to round with the aff ready to send, and have docs ready to send as soon as prep ends before the NC. If you think you might have wifi trouble or problems with your email, a flash drive would speed this process up.

General:

I will vote on most arguments as long as they aren't morally objectionable or blatantly false. I will do my best to be tab, but I think there is a level of plausibility necessary for me to vote on an argument (for instance, I won't vote on an obviously false I-meet). It will be difficult to convince me to vote on a super blippy apriori or an argument that turned into a voting issue after being one line in the original speech.

I'd like to be on the email chain in case I need to look at a card, but I will flow you not the speech doc.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, just slow down on tags/author names and interps/advocacy texts.

T/Theory:

I am comfortable evaluating theory under whichever paradigm you prefer, so long as you justify it. I have found that I enjoy a good theory debate where there is a lot of weighing and internal links.

I am not a fan of disclosure debates, especially when the violation is unverifiable or the wiki was down. That said, there is a difference between a debate about disclosure vs a debate over open source or round reports, and I would much prefer the former.

Ks:

I read both high theory and identity politics. I feel comfortable evaluating most K debates but I strongly prefer debaters err on the side of overexplaining/not relying on jargon rather than assuming that I am familiar with the literature they are reading. These debates tend to either be excellent or my least favorite.

I enjoy K affs, but I do think if you are nontopical you need to a) win that being nontopical is legitimate b) have an evaluative mechanism and c) have offense under that mechanism. I am happy to listen to unique/innovative K affs regardless of their topicality, though I am also happy to listen to T debates against them. I think these can be interesting debates.

Recent observation: I find positions that rely on premises like "performative contradictions good" or "debate itself bad" to be unpersuasive. Not positions that criticize the current iteration of competitive debate (I am fine with that), but rather I think there is inherent value to the act of debating. This doesn't mean I won't vote on high theory authors like Baudrillard, because I will and I have, but I do think your interpretation of these authors should be compatible with your performance.

LARP:

I think that high level LARP debates tend to be more difficult to evaluate because a lot of debaters do not do sufficient weighing or impact calc. I enjoy well done LARP debates, just please do good weighing.

Framework:

I enjoy framework debate more the longer I judge. Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps and err towards overexplaining the dense philosophical warrants, because these things are difficult to flow at your top speed.

Speaks:

I start around a 28.5 and go up or down depending on in-round strategy and skill relative to the tournament. Speaks tend to be over-inflated and relatively arbitrary, so I try to give speaks with influencing who clears in mind. I like speaks as a way to reward well-executed or particularly clever strategies.

I've been pretty removed from debate for two years now. Go slow.

Theory: I ran a lot of theory as a debater. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI's.

K's: I ran a lot of K's as a debater.

Framework: I never did framework debate. I understand what most frameworks say, I conceptually understand how to debate a framework and how framework arguments work, but I'm definitely not going to be great at adjudicating a dense framework debate.

High Theory: I never ran these types of positions nor did I debate them much. I think these have gotten more common in debate, and just know that I'm new to these positions.

How to get better speaks: Slow down on author names. Sign post with author names when responding to arguments.

Side note: Use your best judgement on what to read against lay kids if you're a nat circuit debater. There's a comfortable middle ground between reading fifteen off and a lay case which is difficult to find. I'll be generous with speaks if you're accommodating to your opponent's familiarity with debate.

About me: I did debate for 3 years at Strake Jesuit in Houston Texas. I qualled to TOC as a junior and as a senior. My senior year I won a few tournaments, got eleven bids, and I got to Octas of TOC.

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

I want to be on the chain: cmckinleytx@gmail.com

I debated at Houston Memorial for three years, and am in my senior year debating for UT Austin.

I don't do any high school topic research and I only judge once a year at the Longhorn Classic. Slow down a little bit please and don't assume I know whatever topic acronyms you're referencing.

I don't care what you say -- just do what you do best. If I'm judging you, you're not here for me, I'm here for you. Most of the following is just some stuff I think about debate -- if you just got a pairing with me on it then you're better off prepping than reading the rest of this.

If you think an argument is terrible, you should beat it easily, or you deserve to lose.

Fine for framework, fine for an aff without a plan. I think procedural fairness can be a terminal impact.

I don't want to adjudicate stuff that happened outside the debate.

I'm more likely to vote for a 2nr/2ar that identifies the central question of the debate and has robust impact framing than one that dumps 20 pieces of offense and hopes I can put an RFD together. I will generally read all the evidence extended in the final rebuttals if time permits, but help yourself by telling me how to read it and what to look for - both your own ev and your opponents.

Role of the ballots are almost always stupid. Do impact calculus instead. Perm do the aff is not an argument and neither are links of omission. Tech over truth at the margins.

I will hold the line on new 2ar arguments. If it's not in the 1ar don't waste your time - unless you can justify it with a new 2nr arg. Whether or not the 1ar gets to make new arguments is up for debate.

Cross Ex is my favorite part of judging. Take it seriously, and use what you get from it in speeches. It's always annoying when someone has a devastating cross x and then their partner wasn't paying attention and it gets wasted. I flow cross x.

Don't clip. Please be funny.

I won't kick an advocacy unless you tell me to.

Good luck and have fun!

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 

I like to see value and Criterion clash. I like to have a well organized debate going first through the main arguments of the round and explaining how your case better achieves the resolution. If you have been able to attain your stance  and destroy your opponents or at least explain why your stance is better than you will have persuaded me to vote for you. 

Hi, im Altamish. I debated for Hebron in Texas on the local and national circuit in both Policy and LD. 

K's: I use to run K's a lot so I'm familiar with them, just make sure you actually know what you're doing.

T/Theory: Don't run friv theory just because you can and will be more inclined to vote on RVIS. I will vote on actual abuse in the round but be warned heavy theory rounds are tough for me.

Counterplans: I ran 6 counterplans in a round once. You should know my position on them. 

Disadvantages: The better the link the better the disad.

Framework: Framework is all fine and dandy but make sure you boil it down to why your framework in a better than your opponents. I.e Education, Fairness, etc. 

Speaks: I start at a 27 and work my way up. The less boring you make the round the better speaks will be. On that note don't be rude. Any arguments like "Racism is good" will result in a 0.  

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! 

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

I debated LD for 3 years at Christopher Columbus High School. I am a second-year student at the University of Texas at Austin majoring in Chemistry.

In General:

I'm probably closer to what you would consider traditional or lay than progressive. But above all else, tell me how to evaluate the round and that is how I will evaluate it. I strongly urge you to do I traditional V-VC framework because that will be a lot simpler for me to judge, but feel free to run anything under that umbrella. Kritikal stuff is mostly fine. Even though I'm looking for V-VC, don't feel confined to only use things like justice or basic morality, I'll accept anything from nihilism to virtue ethics if you can explain and defend it thoroughly. I will try my best to keep up with Plans and CP's, but please try your best to avoid this. No Theory. Just tell me what you’re winning and why it matters, and you shouldn’t have a problem picking up my ballot. The best thing you can do for yourself is give me a clear ballot story. Give me a clear ballot story.

Speaker points are determined by how well you are able to articulate your arguments and defend your position, the winner of the debate is determined by which argument ultimately wins. In layman terms, speaker points are based on how well you debate, the winner of the debate is based on the substance of the debate itself (the flow).

Specifics:

• Speed and Spreading: Please don't spread. My handwriting is pretty slow and it's been a while since I've heard someone spread, so I'm not that ready to keep up with it. You can talk a little fast, so maybe start off at about 50 percent your top speed and see where it goes from there. If I can't understand you then I can't understand or evaluate your arguments so keep that in mind. If you are speaking too fast or if I cannot understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" to let you know to slow down and speak clearer.
• Theory: No Theory. I don't feel comfortable enough evaluating it, and if you run it, it will be reflected in your speaker points. If you feel that there is a serious imbalance or unfair aspects in the debate, trust that I will address it on your behalf in my judging. Don't go over my head and run Theory.
• Cross Examination: Definitely interact with your opponent during CX. Don't be rude, but if your opponent is rambling on feel free to politely interrupt them and move on to the next question. Don't just interrupt an incomplete answer so you can use that response to your advantage, I will make note of this. CX is binding, keep that in mind.
• Evidence and Arguments: Evidence and arguments must be extended through every round and weighed appropriately against other pieces of evidence or arguments if you wish to use it later on in the debate. If you wish to use a piece of evidence or an argument later on in the debate, you must say "extend [blank] through the round" and say why it is extended for each speech in the round. If arguments or evidence are dropped one speech and picked up in the next, I will not evaluate it. If you notice your opponent has dropped an argument or a piece of evidence, please say "my opponent has dropped [blank] so I extend it through the rest of the round" and then explain why you are extending it. If there are two competing pieces of evidence or arguments, they absolutely need to be weighed against each other and you have to tell me why your evidence/argument is better than the other. I will not do the weighing for you just the same as I will not do the debating for you. Just because your opponent has dropped an argument or a piece of evidence, don't expect it to just be automatically won for you and the debate over it to be decided, you must explain to me why that particular argument or piece of evidence is so important and how it works in your favor. If there is a very contested piece of evidence in the round, I may call it over to be evaluated for legitimacy after the round is over. If you are misinterpreting a card or an author, I will not evaluate it during the round. This applies substantially to those using kritiks and are abusing the words of the author when they know very well that the author never intended the use of it in that matter. Don't twist words to fit your own interpretation, they will not be evaluated. As well, there must be no new evidence or major arguments brought up after the first few speeches, I will not evaluate them. Extensions are essential, weighing is essential.
• Final Speech: Extend anything you intend to you, weigh again, address new or recurring arguments from the previous speech, and then give a ballot story. The ballot story is where you specifically go over the entirety of the debate and tell me the concrete reasons why you have won the debate and your opponent has lost, this summation is largely where I will decide the debate. Making it easy to understand for me will go a long way towards me evaluating the arguments correctly and you winning or losing the debate. Do not bring up any new evidence or arguments that weren't mentioned before.

Other:

• Try to have fun during the debate, it doesn't have to be completely serious. If you or your opponent can demonstrate that you are having a good time, more speaker points may be awarded.
• Be polite and courteous. Don't be rude or aggressive to your opponent, especially if they seem like novices or are otherwise outmatched. This includes not running things like K's or CP's or such if it becomes painfully clear that they are not going to be able to respond. I will evaluate your arguments effectively, but your speaker points may suffer severely from it.
• Feel free to either sit or stand, I don't care. Whatever you find more comfortable.
• Try to give a roadmap of where your arguments will be in the speech before you start talking, it'll make it easier for me to follow and keep up with you.

Nikunj (Nik) Patel

nik.patel826@gmail.com

Third year out. I did four years of debate at Reagan High School. I did LD and FX all four years and did a few tournaments in CX near the end.

General

Please clarify before the round starts whether you are going to be flashing evidence or not, or creating an email chain just so we don’t have to worry about it during the round.

Don’t steal prep time, I’ve seen people do it from the other side of the desk for four years, so what makes you think that I won’t catch you now.

I am a judge who deeply evaluates arguments; however, speaking is a key factor. If I cannot understand you, then I cannot flow your argument. Even if your opponent concedes your argument, if I did not get it the first time, then I’m gonna try to draw some connection somewhere, all the while I am now missing your next argument. Basically, it is an endless cycle of lack of clarification. If an argument is important to you, than make it clear that it is, simple as that.

You need to understand that there are multiple levels to the debate, and you need to frame your rebuttals in that manner. If you do this, I can guarantee that it will help me make a decision during the round.

Framework

I don’t really care on this one. You can have a regular value and criterion or you can have a standard. I just need some weighing mechanism for the round.

Don’t run some BS theoretical pre-fiat framework that you don’t understand and simply use to just confuse your opponent. Also, don’t read it if it takes away from the actual debate either.

Preference for arguments

I am down with any arguments that you want to go for as long as it is not racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

I really like hearing many different and unique arguments. That being said, I really don’t want to push you to run anything that you don’t feel comfortable reading.

YOU DO YOU.

Policy-Making

I like them. Just make sure they are well structured. I read them and I enjoy seeing them in LD. Number one issue is being able to defend the parametricization of your plan text and why it is important that we take the debate to that topic area specifically.

Please be updated on your news before you decide to run an Elections DA.

Kritiks

I like them as well. I read them in high school and I am familiar with some of the literature. That being said, if you want me to vote for you on the K, you have to first make sure I understand what you are talking about. K's need to be articulated clearly in order for me to evaluate them.

Need to have a solid way for me to frame the round.

With generic Ks, I will evaluate them; however, I am growing tired of generic links that are just to the topic itself or links that require no work at all and are really just recycling of backfiles. Again, I will evaluate them and I will do my best to not be biased about them.

Theory

Aight, so when it comes to theory and topicality, there is one rule.

Do not run it unless there is actual abuse. I hate having to vote on theory that has “potential” abuse. Unless it is clear that it will make an actual impact on the debater or the round, I would not like to hear it.

Please be slow when reading through shells.

Theory is not an RVI especially if it is I-meet or defense on the shell. If you think it is wasting your time on the aff, read a position that you know won't cause your opponent to run it.

Miscellaneous

Do NOT read 4 off against a novice that is just trying to get experience and learn. There is no good in scaring off a novice just to make your ego bigger. I will dock speaks for this.

Please do not attempt to argue with me. I understand that you may have concerns but the best thing to do is just ask questions about how you could have done better/be better or how I evaluated certain arguments.

I really do not wish to have to ask for evidence after round unless I absolutely need to (i.e., you are banking your ballot on one piece of evidence, or there are opposing cards that are dealbreakers in the round). Thus, do your best to elucidate what the evidence says through your extensions so we don’t have to waste time doing that and I can make more time for the RFD and critiques.

Also, JUST BE NICE. Being civil in round sometimes matters a lot more to me than being a good debater. Sure, I will vote you up as a debater and you can go on to win tournaments, but I will vote you down as a person, and again I can do that with speaks.

Oh and yea, I knew you were just looking for this, so I put it at the very bottom

I’m good with speed. If you become unclear, I will yell “clear” once, after that I will put my pen down.

In terms of speaker points, (I like to think I am fairly generous), this is a general guideline of what I think about you as a debater

29.5 - 30: probably very late outrounds, winning it all maybe

29 - 29.4: will break

28 – 28.9: you are doing good so far, might break, but still much room for improvement

27 - 27.9: probably just starting out, which is completely fine, do not take it offensively. It was probably a lack of fluency during speeches and/or not enough clarity during the collection of arguments

26 - 26.9: too many filler words, hard to understand, could not keep track of arguments, did not make use of time well

Below 26: this was probably if you did one of those bad things in round listed previously

Updated for Harvard 2021:

While I have a background in policy and LD I’m usually in pf pools for round commitments these days. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round that you think would help your strategic advantages.

I prefer a framework or a weighing mechanism in which I can filter the debate. I like strong link chains, impact calculus, and contentious clash. I think defense should be extended if it’s an important argument in the debate, but you ought not waist speech time if they concede the defense. Speed will always be fine, I will flag if I get tech fuzzy because of storms that are expected throughout the weekend.

Email Chain: Grahamphlieger@gmail.com

Background

Policy, PF, Ld, Congress, Extemp for Crandall HS (Tx): 2011-2015

Coach for Southlake Carroll HS (Tx): 2015-2017

Coach for Lake Travis HS (Tx): 2019-

npda/npte at University of Texas at Tyler 2015-2018

Email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

TL;DR. I’m cool with whatever you have to say in whatever format you would like to say it. I think that your arguments should interact with the topic in some way, though that doesn't necessitate having a plan text or defending the federal government. Assume you need to over-explain arguments and link stories, I like to refrain from doing work for the debater(s) - that has gone poorly for some folks I've judged in the past that assumed too much. I’ve lost some flowing proficiency since high school, but I will try my best to keep up.

Stuff about me:

I haven't debated for several years, so I’m not going to trick myself into thinking that I remember everything about every debate argument or that I'm still able to effectively flow at super high speeds. However, I vow that I will do everything in my power to be present and alert of what is happening in the round and be respectful of your time. I will also do my best to explain my thought process for every decision so that you understand why I voted a certain way if the tournament allows. If not, I will make myself available to you to provide my insight or comments if you wish.

I debated for 4 years at Ronald Reagan HS in San Antonio, TX (2012-2016) and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin (hook'em). In my first three years, I did exclusively LD and Extemporaneous Speaking. I attended many national tournaments for LD, so I am very familiar with the argument types and strategies on the national circuit. I also attended UIL State for Informative Speaking. Policy debate, however, was the highlight of my senior year. As a 2A/1N, my partner and I attended elimination rounds at various national tournaments, was the top seed at TFA State where I was 5th overall speaker, was in late elims of NSDA Nationals, and attended the Tournament of Champions.

My advice to you: Do what you do best. That doesn’t mean that adaptation isn’t important. I’ve had to do my fair share and I know of its challenges and rewards. The big takeaway is that I am open to anything you have to say in any manner or format to which you would like to say it.

Some house-keeping items:

- Be Kind. Please.

- Prep stops when the email is sent/when the document is saved to the flash drive and is out of the computer.

- Speed is fine. Go slower on Theory/T Interpretations and CP Texts, as you should. I try to flow everything said in the round including the text of evidence and cross ex. Hopefully this isn’t anything new, but clarity is very important.

- I like reading evidence, and I'll call for it if it's pertinent to my thought process at the end of the round.

- Sure I'll be on the email chain: richardsonmichael98@gmail.com

Affs -- Read whatever you're comfortable with.

- I believe that affs should be a critical discussion of the topic. What that "critical discussion" entails is entirely up to the debaters. Heg/Econ scenarios, poetic performances, whatever you do best, do it. Though, I'm likely not going to be persuaded by an aff that I feel could be cross-applied to any other topic (I think you lose out too).

- In order of how much I've read them in HS (from the most to the least), it would go "middle-of-the-road" affs, K affs, then Policy affs. I do not have a proclivity towards any one of them: I've enjoyed reading them all.

- In LD, I do not have a preference as to what the aff should look like. You can do the traditional "definitions, framework, contentions," thing or you can switch it up and do it in reverse, I don't care. As long as the information is read.

Topicality -- I enjoy Topicality debates and have no qualms voting on a well-executed topicality shell.

- I default to competing interpretations if all things are equal - actually, I probably default to an offense/defense paradigm on most things.

- In HS, I rarely read any other standard than predictable limits; I intuitively think that both sides have reasonable ground for argumentation if they're smart enough, but I can be persuaded to vote for other standards. That being said, I generally think along the lines of "the caselist" in topicality debates, so doing your due diligence in these debates should be rewarded.

- I don’t think that RVI’s are a thing and I'm not sure why they ever were; I've yet to vote for an RVI argument I thought was persuasive. BUT, *shrugs* if it's conceded, then there's not much I can do about that, now can I?

Framework/T-USFG -- Go for it.

- As a 2A I've both defended and not defended a plan text, so I have experience with both sides of the framework debate. I've also read it quite a few times on the negative, so I'm familiar with how it ought to be executed.

- I don't think that FW is inherently violent, but that doesn't mean there aren't sweet impact turns to roleplaying/policy education.

- Carded topical versions of the aff are very persuasive for me.

LD Frameworks -- Do your thing.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the Framework should look like for the aff or neg. You can do the Value/Value-Criterion if you want. You can do a Standard if you want. You can read a Role of the Ballot/Judge interpretation if you want.

Theory -- With me, you should explain the violation more than normal if it's anything other than disclosure or condo.

- In all honesty, based on my skill level I'm probably not a good judge for you if your strategy is to spam 4 tricky theoretical violations and go for the undercovered ones.

- Except for conditionality and disclosure, I am not really experienced with the various types of theoretical violations floating out there, especially on the LD national circuit. In my HS experience, I'd never read anything on the affirmative that justified opponents making theory a 2NR position, so I rarely had to give a substantive 2AR on anything other than condo.

- If theory ends up being a "game-winning" 2NR/2AR strategy, I would implore you to please go slow and over-explain the argument. It’s not that I am incapable of understanding theory (I think I'm actually selling myself a little short), it's just an area of the argument spectrum that I don't have much personal experience with.

- I am more receptive to theory as a result of actual cheating, whatever that means for the debate.

- I don't think theory needs to be in a traditional "shell" format - as long as all the components are there, we should be good.

Counterplans -- Explain to me what they actually do.

- The only caveat I have with CPs is the quality of solvency advocate evidence; I'm just a sucker for evidence that actually says what you're claiming it says.

- An explanation as to what the counterplan actually does would really help me conceptualize how it interacts with and is different from the plan, especially if it deviates from being textually and functionally competitive.

- I don't have an expectation as to what the net benefit should be. Internal Net Benefits, DA's, on-case DA's. All fair game.

Disadvantages -- I'm game for anything you've got.

- I'm a stickler for strong, definitive pieces of evidence, especially on the uniqueness debate. Though, I'll probably give you the benefit of the doubt if you do a fair amount of explanation as to why that piece of evidence may be true.

- I've read politics, linear, and on-case DA's with extinction-level or structural violence impacts so I shouldn't be unfamiliar with whatever you decide to read.

- I've done my fair share of impact turning DA's on the affirmative (I am particularly familiar with dedev or "warming irreversible" arguments) and I think these can be particularly strategic.

Case debate -- Underrated, and that is a darn shame.

- I've had some 1NRs where I just extended the warrants of 1NC evidence, read 5 minutes of cards, or a mix of the two. I’ve got no qualms voting negative on presumption if the aff’s responses are lackluster.

- Some of my best and most fun 1NRs to give were impact turns to the aff (dedev and "warming irreversible" again).

"Critical" arguments/K Affs/The K -- Read whatever you want, but be smart.

- Out of anything on this page, the K is probably what I have the most experience reading in HS. K affs and one-off K strategies were the bread and butter of my senior year.

- Some authors/criticisms that I enjoyed reading and deploying in-round include: Anti-Blackness, Berlant, Oliver, Settler Colonialism (plus every Eve Tuck article, ever), Critical Asian Studies/Orientalism/Model Minority Myth, (Racialized) Capitalism, and the Academy K.

- I prefer the line-by-line to long-winded overviews (oftentimes, they are hard to reconcile).

- Big overarching theme: you do you. This also encapsulates different arguments characterized as “performance,” though I tend to think that how you choose to debate is a performance of sorts. If you need to play music, dance, scream, do your thing.

In conclusion, some parting words.

Since my paradigm page is part love-letter-to-debate, part diary, I would like to share a thought about my philosophy on judging that may be helpful for you to know. Reflecting on my experiences as both a debater and a judge, I am a firm believer that debate, while an educational activity, is also primarily a persuasive activity. I have become increasingly annoyed with debaters and judges that are disappointed with someone's skill level (particularly if they are a novice debater or judge) and verbally express those frustrations to the public or behind their backs. Yes, having an experienced judge gives you more options to deploy different arguments and strategies, and that can certainly make for a more entertaining and enjoyable debate. But the world is not full of debate hardos. The next time you have a "lay" judge in the back of your debate, consider this: if you lose, perhaps it has less to do with the judge missing something and more about your inability to persuade someone outside of the activity (i.e. 99.9999% of people). This academically elitist pedestal some debaters find themselves upon is incredibly insufferable. So don't vent to me about how your last round's judge was a random mom or pop, you will find the opposite of sympathy from me.

If there are any lingering questions about how I view the debate or argument types I haven't listed above, don’t hesitate to ask!

Thanks y’all. Happy debating, and good luck!

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in high school, and have coached for the past two years with novice debaters. Most of my experience was in western Pennsylvania on a local level, but I did compete occasionally on the national circuit.

My judge paradigm is limited only by what I can understand, because I don't really have any preferences concerning how students should debate or how the round should play out. If you take sufficient time explain your arguments then you can do whatever your want. I'm fine with theory or k's or any other off args, but am not used to evaluating them based on the level of debate I usually judge nowadays. Speed is fine as long as I can flow (can follow the slower end of what is considered "spreading" but not ridiculous speeds). Still debaters should preference clarity over speed. If a point is especially important, slow down. 

LD: I judge line-by-line, then view the round wholistically if the line-by-line doesn't show me a clear winner. Competed in college with some of the fastest people in the country in NPTE/NPDA so as long as your enunciation and diction are good, I'm fine with any speed. I'll tell you clear once, then after that I'll put my pen down and stop flowing. It's partially my job to adapt to you and what you run, but it's also somewhat on you to adapt as well.

DA- I personally love DA's, and especially Tix DA's. I will not vote off your DA if it is not formatted correctly. I.e. Uniqueness, LX, MPX (and ILX if needed). The reason for this is pretty simple, you can't have a fully fleshed out arguement without each of these, they're extremely important. I've become really annoyed with someone running a "DA", and they end up running 5 turns and calling it a DA (which it isn't), I believe this practice delegitimatizes debate, and doesn't provide for a good discussion.

MPX Calc: I'll err Dehume > everything else unless you tell me differently. This is just how a default because I don't really see death bad arguments in debate, debaters just assume death is the worst thing possible. A lot of mpx scenarios shell out to a lot of death, but you don't feel longing pain/aggony in death. Whereas when you face dehumanization it's something real world, it's cyclical, and you're usually in a state where you'd rather be dead. Ashley Montagu said "It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent pgysicla harm, yet the extent of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and it's potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric fo civilized society is beyond calculation."

CP: I love hearing CP's as long as they're mutual exclusive (can't exist within the same world). I will listen to any type of counterplan but I am willing to vote theorgetical objections if this is warranted out by the Aff. For example, if you real a delay CP and the aff says nothing about it being abusive, I'm fine with voting for it. But if the Aff does say something about it being abusive and wins the theory debate, I'll err Neg.

Theory: I usually err Condo Bad. In saying that, same as with CP debates. If you run it and they don't say anything I'm fine... but if they do, and win the theory debate, I'll err Neg. When it comes to RVI's I'll almost always err against them... They're the most ridiculous arguments in debate, unless there is just this outright abuse that no one in the world could argue against. I've only voted for an RVI once, at UT Elims 15', so it's not impossible but highly unlikely.

K: I don't mind K debates at all, and encourage my debaters to run them because they create a very good discussion in/out of round. I'm most familiar with Mills, Rachels, Nozick author wise... I was a Fem/Enviro debater in college, so I'm very familiar with Ecofem, Anthro, Deep-Eco, etc. I Belive that FW is the most imporant part of the K. I need to know where I should be voting and what should be prioritized in the debate. You also need to do a good job explaining either the LX to the aff or why we need to be having this discussion over the res, then why we can't do both... I really enjoy hearing AFF K's, so feel free to run those as well.

PLEASE GIVE ME A VERBATIM COPY OF YOUR PLAN/ALT TEXT. I want the word for word, exactly what's going to come out of your mouth text.When you don't give the judge or your partner a verbatim copy of the plan/alt text, it skews them from running certain disocurse aguments and T arguments. PLEASE!!! At least give me a copy before the round or during your opponents prep time.

As always, feel free to ask any questions in round if they're not answered here and good luck!

Congress: It's called congressional debate, not congressional speaking. I place 80% of the judging on clash with other representatives and critical evaluation of the bill/resolution. I'm a very experienced congress judge and parli, so I know what's going on. Speeches that don't have clash after the 2nd/3rd speech on a specific bill/resolution will not only be ranked extremely poorly, but it'll hurt you in round.

PF: Look to LD paradigm. I'm fine with theory/k's in PF. I think it engages in good kritikal discussion that has good in/out of round mpx.

CX: Look to LD paradigms. Everythings basically identical. Ask questions if need be.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Sayani,+Asad  

Add me to the email chain: pia.sen@utexas.edu

Did some coaching for Texas + judging through the NDT 2020-2021 season

Texas Debate 2016-2020

UT Dallas Debate 2015-2016

LASA Debate 2011-2015

Updated 09/16/2023

Online Debate:

Please go a bit slower (80% of normal speed) on tags and analytics to account for video lag. If you're willing, maybe put in analytics for the doc to mitigate tech issues.

Short of it:

Probably best for clash or K v. K debates - not super good for policy v. policy debates except for T (not an ideological thing, just lack of experience with those situations), but I will do my best to evaluate those as instructed. Please explain topic specific acronyms and jargon for now. I believe debate is more about combat than collaboration - there's a competitive incentive to win so though we do learn from each other and have important discussions, I don't feel super persuaded by claims about how we should all work together in a debate (yes, I am persuaded that debate is a game). My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments in front of me unless given an alternative role.

I think debate is not about me (the judge) but about the debaters - college debate gave me my voice and so much more, helping me grow as a person. It is a game with implications that shape our lives, and I want you to debate the way you are drawn to and find those benefits in whatever form is most important for you. I will do my best to help make your time as fulfilling as possible. That being said, I have certain biases/ ways of seeing debate/ limitations which I will try to describe below - however, I can be persuaded otherwise.

Judge instruction is crucial. My most extensive involvement has been with NDT and CEDA college debate, so I will probably try to adhere to those norms when judging. Fine with framework arguments, fine with K's and K affs. Will probably not vote on theoretical objections to intrinsic or severance permutations. Do impact calculus. I will follow along with your ev. and read the cards as much as I can.

Judges I try to judge like: Brendon Bankey, Will Baker, Michael Barlow, Scott Harris, and David Kilpatrick.

Speaking:

If you spread through analytics with no warrants, I may miss something. I will say 'clear' twice then put down my pen. My flow is okay, but online debate has made that harder so take that as you will. I believe CX is speech time, and accordingly, you will be rewarded/penalized for good CX moments and smart questions. CX concessions and moments need to be brought up and explained/ impacted in speeches to be considered arguments on which I will cast my ballot.

My speaker point scale (I adjust to the tournament): I award speaker points for speaking style, strategy, CX, etc. I do tend to have a soft spot for clever strategic turns and CX moments so I think I probably tend to penalize speaking slips like "uh" or "um" less than most judges.

28.8 - average

28.9-29.3 - Quite good, I think you'll break even or be in early elims of the tournament

29.4 -29.6 - Probably top 15 speaker at whatever tournament (D3 regional)/ outrounds of a major

Case Debates:

Do it.

For policy affs - harder to get me to vote on presumption. For K affs, I am not afraid to pull the trigger on presumption - especially if you don't have a reason why the introduction of the aff into debate is a good idea, or why deliberation around it is good/ why the reading of the 1AC is insufficient to access the aff's educational project. If you just play music in the 1AC and claim that's the aff solvency mechanism, I need to know why this is a departure from the status quo or why the introduction of that pedagogy should be evaluated as something to be affirmed with the ballot. However, if you are going for presumption I would like to have an interpretation for what the aff should do to meet the burden of presumption (whether that be material change, or whatever).

Framework Debates:

I enjoy framework debates on both sides, and think they can be some of the most interesting debates when we discuss the value of debate and what education should be obtained from the deliberative process of the activity. Similarly, they can also be the most stale and least responsive regurgitation of blocks (on both sides).

I think fairness is just an internal link to education, but can be convinced otherwise.

If you go for CIs with framework (Aff teams):

While debate is probably just a game, the education produced is not neutral. I think that limits and clash as internal links to deliberation are persuasive when adjudicating a framework debate, so the aff should provide a counter-model of debate and what the debates that should occur within debate look like under the aff's model (what is the role of the aff? the neg?). Probably, there's a reason why the aff's introduction into debate is a good idea and why discussion over it is good- otherwise we wouldn't be here. Do that work to parse out your role of debate - I think it's best done through a model of competition. Additionally, do good work on the internal link turns to the neg's model of education (debates occurring under that model)

If you go for Impact turns vs. FW (Aff teams):

I'll vote on args like 'debate bad' but you need a reason why I should vote for you/ not vote on presumption/ what voting aff does.

For the negative reading FW:

Ground isn't really a great impact for framework debates in my opinion, because ground is sort of inevitable so going for a limits k2 deliberation impact is probably better.

Topicality Debates (other than T USFG):

T is fun! Do your impact work.

CP & DA Debates:

All good. Do what you need to do. I love Politics DAs and topic DAs. I don't feel super equipped when judging the theory components of consult or delay CP debates but I'll try. I love good advantage CPs.

Kritiks:

Contextualize the link and impact work to the aff you are debating, have a solid alt or a good framework explanation for why I don't need to vote on an alt for you to win the debate. I believe that debate is a question of scholarship production that shapes how we see the world, and so 'revise and resubmit' framework arguments are more persuasive to me than some. I think examples are awesome for contextualizing impacts and how the aff uniquely makes things worse, which is a question I need to be able to answer at the end of the debate to vote for you.

Please do your impact work in terms of the aff, and explain why those are relevant.

Misc:

Probably won't adjudicate based on things that happen outside of the round that I don't witness. Will evaluate in round impacts about performative aspects of the debate. Please no slurs for subject positions that you do not occupy. Decent judge for gendered/ableist/racist language arguments. You must impact out your theory arguments, and I will not vote on an argument that is not well explained with warrants.

Accessibility:

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help- feel free to email me or pull me aside if that is easier.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I do not judge this very often, will adjudicate it similar to a policy debate. Will probably not vote on cheap shot theory or "tricks" unless it is well explained.

Updated 12/27/2018

I am currently a junior at UT and have judged occasionally since graduating. I debated at Cypress-Falls High School in Houston, Texas for four years.I received a bid my junior year and broke at TFA state for three years in a row. I mainly read Util and T/Theory my senior year.

I think debate is a good space to be creative and strategic. I will listen to all arguments because I think debaters should have a space to be creative with their thoughts. I think debate is important because it teaches us skills we can use the rest of our lives.

- Weigh arguments. People don’t weigh. Good weighing in front me will net you higher speaks and increase your chances of winning.

- Don’t presume I know anything. You should be explaining terms to me. I’m not doing that work for you. Err on the side of over-explaining.

- Extend the claim and impact if an arg is dropped. Signpost effectively or I won’t flow effectively. I'm pretty lenient on extensions.

-I like it when debaters make analytic arguments. Please look up from your laptops, look at me, and actually make arguments that have not been pre-written for you.

-Overviews are amazing. They give you the ability to collapses layers, pre-empt arguments, and write the ballot for me. I like it when debaters write the ballot for me. If you can effectively do this, you'll most likely win and get very high speaks

- Don't steal prep. I won't count flashing against your prep, but you need to be ready to hand the flash drive to your opponent when prep ends and not still be compiling a doc.

-I prefer that you don't use the rest of CX as prep. A good CX can net you higher speaks.

-I default to CI, no RVI, and drop the argument

-If you sit down early, I'll give you higher speaks.

Include me on the email chain. sironthree AT gmail.com

If you have any questions about anything I've written below please email me at cadeskelton@gmail.com and I will generally reply within the same day at worst, although keep in mind I am a college student and have jobs and stuff so I might get a little busy sometimes but rest assured I'll do whatever in my power to reply as soon as possible.

2018-19 Update:

None of my views have substantially changed in the past year, keep in mind I am out of the debate game for two years now and won't know all the topic-specific acronyms, disads, etc, so take a little more time specifying what you're talking about.

Other than that, once again read whatever you feel most comfortable with because I'd rather judge a good debate I'm ideologically opposed to than listen to a bad echo chamber centered around me.

2017-18 Update:

Just going to emphasize that if you want to win in front of me read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with and not what you think I would like.

Written for the St Marks tournament - 10/11/16

Cade Skelton
Cedar Ridge HS c/o '16
Oklahoma University c/o '20

I debated in policy for four years at Cedar Ridge High School, and am now a freshman on OU's policy debate team.

In terms of LD experience I have none specific to that event but it seems to be the general consensus that LD is moving to be a lot like policy debate so I'm going to give y'all my views on things and hopefully it's of some use.

Short Paradigm:

You do you, I'll flow it and vote for whoever gives me the best warranted reason to vote for them.

Long paradigm:

Specific argument wise: I like to think of myself as well versed in OOO (Object oriented ontology), different blackness fields (afrofuturism, afropessimism, etc) and general kritiks of anthro and capitalism. This isn't to say that if you read these things I'll know what you're saying, everyone interprets theory differently based on their own social location and predispositions, so your spin on what Wilderson says is different than how I view his work. You should always speak to me as if I have no clue as to what you're saying, don't get caught up in the jargon and debate buzzwords and explain your argument to me in regular terms like we are regular people.

On the other hand I only have a vague understanding of postmodern/post structural theorists and most high theory in general. If you wanna go for Baudrillard or Deleuze that's fine, just explain it in english and not buzzwords because I need to know what those words mean.

No matter what you read, please just explain it well, I can't emphasize this enough that comparative analysis is what separates good debaters from great debaters.

If this matters to you, I never really read traditional policy affs with extinction impacts, I was reading either policy affs with structural violence impacts or affs without a plan text. I still have plenty of exposure to both ideological realms though so whatever your aff is you will probably be alright.

Holistically, I like to think of myself in the truth over tech camp, although those two things aren't mutually exclusive and it's impossible to really just be in one. But I guess that's to say I'm a lot more willing to vote on a few, well developed arguments over twenty blippy ones. Basic argument theory says that all arguments have a claim, warrant, and an impact, if I'm not seeing all three parts in your final speech it's going to be a lot harder for me to vote for you

Kritiks:
Gonna get this out of the way because this is the real question we're all asking.

Kritiks are fine I read them all four years of high school and have a basic understanding of most theories, read whatever you think you are best at, I'd much rather see you debate your arguments well then you debate my arguments alright.

On the specifics of the kritik, I'm really reluctant to do work for either team, for the negative "links are disads to the perm" is not sufficient explanation, you should apply your link analysis to the affirmative and the permutation. On the other hand for the affirmative, "perm do both" won't suffice for an affirmative ballot, you need to describe what the permutation looks like and explain how the alternative isn't competitive with the affirmative advocacy.

Alt/aff debate needs an explanation of how the alternative/affirmative functions and what my ballot means in this context. This means that framing issues are really important for me as a judge because the round is what places meaning on the ballot so it is up to you as a debater to tell me what my ballot means in context of the round i.e. is it about fiat/policymaking or questions of ethics.

Impact work needs to be comparative even if you're winning an overall impact framing argument, you should always try to shut any doors the other team can use to win, doing so in a well, developed manner will reflect an increase in your speaker points as well.

K Affs:

They're cool, I read them myself, doesn't mean I won't vote on a good framework argument though.

I do however, feel that affs need to have something to do with the topic, for example on the 2016-17 hs policy topic, the affirmative must say something about China. I think debate is good and that well prepared debates are good and I'm not saying you need to defend the state or anything but just some relationship to the topic helps foster better debates.

If reading an aff not about the resolution is your thing though, by all means do it, just be ready to debate soft left T arguments because I'm slightly more sympathetic to the negative in this scenario, but if youre confident in your abilities to get my ballot then you got it.

A topical version of the aff can be a compelling negative argument when deployed correctly but most of the time this isn't done well. You need to explain not only what the topical version of the aff is but why it solves each part of the affirmative or at least a sufficient amount of the affirmative to win the round.

Counterplans:

Most are fine, bad counterplans warrant bad theory debates, I'm more sympathetic to the affirmative that your sunset counterplan isn't competitive with the affirmative plan. Your counterplan should either a, have a really good solvency advocate, or b, have a really good defense of any squirreliness that it contains.

Disads:

Fine of course.

It seems to me that evidence on both sides is declining in quality overall, teams are highlighting two sentences out of three paragraphs and calling it an internal link, what I also have been witnessing is a decline in the other team calling out bad evidence. If you're debating in front of me, and a team reads some awful cards, unless you call them out I'm forced to give them all the spin you allow them, so it's in your benefit to do as what Iggie Evans from Towson told me to do, "Call shit shit".

Theory:

Theory debates generally are two ships passing in the night, if you think theory is important to the debate you're having or you're going for a theoretical reason to object the team in your final speech, you need to be doing comparitive impact work and telling me how your offense subsumes/internal link turns their offense and why you're winning defense to their impact claims.

I'll vote on in-round discourse as reasons to reject the team. Don't be racist/sexist/heteronormative/etc. A good rule of thumb, if you think something might be problematic, it probably is. This is especially true for white debaters (specifically white men). Too often white people in debate, myself included, say things we shouldn't and aren't conscious of these things when we need to be self-reflexive on our actions and the implications they have or could have based on their perception.

Topicality:

Good T debates are really fun to be a part of and to judge, especially when the negative's evidence is really good. That being said, I understand that sometimes topicality as a timeskew is a real component to negative strategy and I understand that, but if you're going to go for T in the 2NR then make sure you do it well.

Impacts need terminal impacts, "procedural fairness" isn't enough for me you need to explain to me why procedural fairness should come first and how it implicates the way I arrive to my decision.

Clash of Civ debates:

No predisposition either way, I think that both teams need to decide where they want their offense to be come the final speech, and if they realize this early on it's beneficial to spend a good amount of time at that point. Framing is really important here.

Performance:

I'd like to preface this with, I still hold true to the belief that debaters should debate what they debate best and not let any of my personal feelings determine your affirmative/negative strategy because if you're coming from something you personally believe in, I will be receptive of that and you'll have an easier time convincing me to vote your way because you're genuine about the arguments you're making.

Although, I do hate the deliniation between "performance" and "traditional" debate, to me, it doesn't make any sense.

Why is someone rapping, playing music, dancing, reading poetry, projecting images over them, etc., any more of a performance than someone reading 16 heg good cards?

Most "performance good" evidence generally doesn't give a threshold for what a performance is, so I don't know most of the time if the aff is doing the things it claims to, negative teams also don't capitalize on this most of the time either

"We did a performance" is not a sufficient explanation of why your method of communication is preferable to that of the other team's, you need to give me reasons why your specific performance was/is good and what it does, not just performances in the abstract. Conversely, you also need to do the work on why the other team doesn't access your performance and what this means for their advocacies and how I evaluate the round.

Prep:

Preptime ends when the flashdrive leaves the computer or the email has been sent.

You can use your preptime to keep asking crossex questions but more often than not that prep time would probably be better applied to prepping.

Crossex:

Very important and underutilized. Important enough for me to give it it's own section.

A good crossex strategy is very important in setting up negative link analysis and affirmative perm explanation, and good for generally trying to understand the other team's argument.

I'm very persuaded by "crossex checks" arguments within reason, if you wasted all your crossex time talking about some minute detail then complain that the alt was vague, I'm gonna view that as you never trying to understand the alternative.

Misc:

Gonna reemphasize here, don't be racist/sexist/heteronormative/etc. Debate is a place where people go to when they don't have anything else. I very much agree with thinking of debate as a home for some people, and I myself consider debate to be my home. I think this means we need to foster an inclusive space that doesn't include other perspectives in order to amalgamyze them into existing power regimes but rather to hear and attempt to understand their perspectives so we can be self-reflexive and improve ourselves as people. At the end of the day, my ballot just determines who gets a win and who takes an L, so really all that happens in the debate is that we learn things, so we must make sure that the education and pedagogies we produce and enforce in rounds are not violent to any oppressed group.

Silly arguments like consult ashtar, consult jesus, timecube, etc - you can read them if you want, but silly arguments don't warrant in depth answers, unless the affirmative severly messes up/completely drops the argument, I'll have a high threshold for taking your arguments seriously within the round

Satire - Don't do it if you're gonna make jokes that are violent, see point one under this category for more explanation.
Also, don't do it if you aren't funny, nothing is more uncomfortable than listening to bad stand up when that person thinks they're really funny but no one else is laughing. Although, if executed well, it could help out your speakerpoints.

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

Updated for Fall 2020

Background: I competed on the San Antonio circuit for three years, in PF for two years and LD for one year. I went to TFA state in both competitions. I also have spent four years judging both events at tournaments on the San Antonio circuit, on and off. I formerly coached for John Paul II Catholic High School in New Braunfels, Texas. If you need help, I can offer advice in verbal or e-mailed critiques (ralexs42@gmail.com). I have been more distant from debate since 2018, but I remember quite a bit from my experience.

Argumentation: I evaluate everything fairly, there really isn't any arguments I won't vote off of. With kritik arguments, don't let your cards do all the talking. I am not super familiar with a majority of K literature so I ask that you explain in compressed terms what the card is. Of course, don't compress it to the point where meaning is lost.

Not super familiar on the nuances of theory debate so if it comes down to that, don't spread on theory. I would rather have theory start in the 1st CX rather than the NC, if that makes sense. I don't have the strongest foundation for theory but I know the structure of the shell and the importance of RVIs, so work with me by explaining your voters and the RVI so I can make a fair decision.

Presentation/Speed: An easy way to get 29-30 speaker points is by slowing down on tag lines and author names. Spreading cards is fine. I will make this clear in the round if you don't read this and will follow it closely. Also, if I stop flowing, you've lost me on either speed/clarity. I'll try to say clear but observe your judge (Me) first, if I'm not flowing, we have problems.

Repetitive speech is another place where I'll dock off on. You don't need to spend 40 seconds repeating yourself if you can do it in 10.

Also, sign post, sign post, sign post. Very important that you sign post correctly and for every new piece of argumentation. These rounds get very messy on my end when you don't do this bit of work and I am willing to take you down to 26 SPs if you consistently forgo signposting.

Also, I do dock speaker points for lazy extensions. Give me a reason to extend argumentation/contentions/rebuttals/etc., tell me why it matters, give me something to weigh it on. Telling me just to extend it is not cool, so even if you win while doing that, the speaker points will not reflect a good performance.

How I vote in LD: NR and 2AR are the most important speeches for how I decide my vote. There are a bunch of in-round issues that I could evaluate but would rather not because I like to be fair to both debaters. Sign post your voters, only give me voting issues that have been extended through all speeches (I will know), and be comparative. Does this outweigh the other side, is it an a prori issue, etc. The Aff/Neg arguments do not occur in a bubble, the voters should reflect that. For voters, I like looking at the big picture rather than by the line by line, we already spent about 30 minutes doing it line by line so big picture is fresh.

How I vote in PF: I vote on issues that only the Pro or Con have made the most prominent in the round. Summaries and Final Focus speeches should direct me to an RFD. I'll evaluate arguments comparatively based on weighing made in the round and arguments made on why I should prefer one side's impact calc. Argumentation should still follow a claim-warrant-impact type of logical progression, but I highly encourage teams to lean into a persuasive form of delivery. I'm also less tolerant of a full LD/CX style spread, speaking fast is fine but we don't need to be gulping for air in a debate designed for laypeople.

On paperless, I'd prefer if Aff flashes to Neg before round, Neg flashes whatever they need ASAP. Less time spent on this, the better. If your laptop dies, malfunctions, etc. and you don't have backups, I feel no sympathy so try to prep for the worst case scenario.

On digital tournaments in the age of COVID-19, I highly recommend you do tech troubleshooting before round to ensure the best audio quality possible. If turning on video causes your audio to cut out (and I'll kindly let you know if it is), I'd prefer to hear and evaluate the quality of your words than seeing you present. Not all judges may feel this way, but if you need to turn off your cam due to bandwidth, please do.

I like parts of both David Kilpatrick's and Ryan Malone's paradigm, so a lot of this is taken from the two of them.

I will also add this note from Kevin Clarke as the TL;DR: "Do what you do best and I will make a decision afterwards"

Things to Know

1. I believe debate is fundamentally about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand the argument that you are making (whether it's because you're unclear or the argument doesn't make sense), it likely won't factor into my decision. There are pretty much no arguments that I think are off limits. If you think an argument is egregious, rude, or absurd, you should be able to beat it.

2. Framework: I liked going for framework and I liked debating against framework a lot in college. Some trends I've noticed:

- A lot of aff's seem to not pick a side as to whether or not they're going to impact turn the resolution or go for a middle ground. Picking one is crucial to developing a coherent strategy against framework.

- A lot of neg's seem to not do terminal impact calculus in the 2NR. This is absolutely imperative to you winning the debate, because the aff is never going to forget to do it in the 2AR.

- It seems like a lot of teams just end up saying "procedural fairness is an impact" or "procedural fairness isn't an impact" and just hope that the judge is on their side at the end of the debate. I don't believe either one of these things to be fundamentally true. Debate the value of procedural fairness and the value of clash instead of just hoping I'll dogmatically agree with you.

- Sound topical versions are important. For the aff, it's important to debate the merits of topical versions that have some chance of solving some of the aff's impacts. For the neg, it's important to explain which of the aff's impacts the topical version specifically solves for.

3. Theory: much like framework, I think teams can win just about anything if well-warranted and impacted. That being said, it shouldn't be too hard for you to beat a counterplan that competes based off the certainty or the immediacy of the plan.

I won't kick the counterplan or the alternative unless told to do so by the negative.

4. Zero Risk: It seems more realistic to talk about the negligibility of a risk either in and of itself or vis a vis another impact, instead of totally-nullified-zero-% risk. Defense-heavy responses would seem to benefit from arguments about how risk should be assessed and problems with the other team’s assessment.

How I Make Decisions

1. What arguments have either been identified as or appear to be the most important arguments in the debate and what is comparative impact to those arguments is?

2. Are both teams winning the arguments they claim they are? This involves evaluating whether or not a team has identified clear links/internal links to their impact and whether or not the opposing team has played sufficient defense against those arguments.

It also can involve evaluating whether or not the arguments in the 2NR/2AR resemble those from the block/1AR. Unless there are arguments about how I should or should not flow, I appreciate when debaters are attentive to line-by-line, but I understand that strategy sometimes calls one to deviate from it. That being said, for arguments that appear to be new in the final rebuttals, I'm much more inclined to evaluate those arguments when a line is drawn to previous arguments.

If necessary, this step can also involve evaluating evidence, although it's pretty rare for me to do so to avoid reconstructing the debate.

3. After evaluating all of these things I get to a general decision and then try to do some even-if scenarios. I run through a few even-if scenarios: what, if any, central arguments the losing team could have won, but still lose the debate, and what arguments the winning team would have had to lose or the losing team would have had to win for the losing team to win the debate.

4. I decide any independent voting issues and theoretical objections to determine if winning any of those issues would help the losing team win the debate.

5. I deliver a reason/list of reasons that compelled me to vote the way I did. I'll then explain how I arrived at that conclusion as well as some of the issues that gave me pause. I try and do this fairly quickly to give you as much time as possible to vet my decision.

Email: stransky.alex@gmail.com

*Conflicts-Clear Brook High School

Background: Competed for CBHS in LD and Extemp debate for 4 years, both on the state and national circuit, quallifying to TFA state 3 out of the 4 years in LD and was the 2016 LD TFA State Octofinalist, have exposure on the TOC circuit as well, breaking to a few bid rounds at Bid Tourneys 

Paradigms:

Speaking: Go as fast/slow as you'd like, spreading is a non-issue as long as you are CLEAR. Slow down on tags and authors and anything else you may deem important for me to flow. I usually give 29-30 to debaters who are very fluent yet also entertaining-no one likes a mundane round, anything less than a 29 you probably were unclear and didn't make too much of an effort to fix it

--> I will yell clear whenever i feel the need to (...don't make me feel the need to)

Basic Overview: I will vote on who ever has the most weighted offense linking back to a pragmatic framework within the round. Give me clear directions on how certain arguments function and relate to the opponents case. In far too many rounds I've debated the arguments presented were completely in parallel, with barely any clash whatsoever. Just becuase you have a fancy kritik with policy jargon, doesn't mean it has inherent links to the topic at hand. 

CP/Plans/Disads: All fair game. I ran multiple positions like these as well as debated many in my time. Make sure the warrants and links between the cards are clear and not being stretched too far just to achieve your desired impact (i.e. Global Warming leads to Nuc. Extinction) and we'll have a fun round. 

Theory/Topicality: I ran multiple shells and enjoyed thorough theory debates as my time as a debater. Using theory as a strategic tool or to actually check abuse doesn't matter to me, as long as it's in a proper shell format and the violation is relatively easy to follow. *Please know how to refute a T-shell properly with the correct format, instead of reasoning. (This should tell you I default to competing interps rather than reasonability UNLESS it is well warranted and contentious. Also, i tend to vote off of RVI's, if you run one, make sure to link it back to the specific competing interp so i know to follow it.

Kritiks/Critical Literature: Never ran too many critical positions but I am open to anything in round. If it is another numb Cap K or something we've all heard a million times, I'm most probably going to be apathetic to vote for it unless the links and impacts far outweigh the opponent's offense. If you are to run one though, make sure the ballot story is clear and not just a pile-on of jargon from your school's policy backfiles. Krtikal engagement is rarely done well throughout rounds, but I'd love to judge a good K debate if run properly. Theory before K? K before Theory? I dont't care, that's up to you to covince me on how the round breaks down (so have good framing)

Final Overview: I consider myself a pretty chill guy when it comes to judging. Be nice to your opponents but don't be afraid to be aggressive to get the answers you desire. Remember to have fun with it and compete, after all, we are spending our weekends discussing national policies and value systems while our friends are probably out partying-make the round worthwhile.

Addtional Info: You can reach me @ 832-405-8606 or sukeths@gmail.com for any questions

Feel free to ask as many questions as you need to before the round starts-I'm an open book, and don't mind clarifying anything in order to have the least amount of intervention when I make my decision.

I will disclose *ONLY if the tournament allows it, if not, on the ballot as usual. 

Put me on the email chain, please: jasmine.huiya.sun@utexas.edu

Pronoun: She/her/hers

I've debated two years for Coppell High School and two years for UT. I've been both a 2A and 2N (but mostly 2N), and I'm pretty flexible with the arguments I run, going for DAs, CPs, T/FW, and Ks. I'm familiar with the literature for cap and anthro (and psychonanalysis and antiblackness) to a certain extent, but please don't take that as an opportunity to spout out buzzwords that you don't understand. I'll try not to substitute my understanding of the arguments for your understanding of them. Other than that, feel free to go for anything - it's not my job to dictate what you can or can't run in the debate.

DA:

I love a good impact calculus debate, and I think doing a good line-by-line and comparative analysis of the evidence is really key for both sides. I prioritize smart analytical arguments over a bunch of three-sentence cards and pre-written blocks.

Kritiks:

Kritiks should have a clear link. Vague links like "the aff uses the USFG so it's bad" are not a great strategy, and I find good link turn arguments to be persuasive. Ks should also have an impact, and an alt. I have a pretty low threshold for alt solvency, but if the alt doesn't solve at all I won't vote for it, and the neg should clearly articulate their vision of what the alt looks like. I'm not a huge fan of the "reject the plan" alts.

Non-Traditional Affs/FW:

I support non-traditional affs in debate and think they're important for the activity. However, I do expect your aff to be related to the topic in some way (that could take the form of a rejection of the topic) and for you to explain why your aff model specifically is good for debate as a whole. You should also impact turn the neg's ideas of education and fairness.

I will still vote on framework, though. SSD and TVA arguments are really important for the neg to have. I generally prefer education impacts more, but I will vote on fairness. Structural unfairness comes before procedural unfairness.

I generally default to reasonability on T. Affs should still have a we meet and counter-interpretation, and the neg needs to have a really strong explanation of why the aff being unfair is in of itself a bad thing, as well as what sort of important, topic-specific education that the aff trades off with by being untopical (and why's that important). What I'm saying is the links really, really need to be impacted out for me to vote neg on T.

Additional Notes:

Open CX is fine, though you should not be dominating your partner's cx.

Flashing doesn't count as prep to me unless it's pretty obvious you're prepping.

I am fine with speed, but make sure to be clear. Please slow down a bit on your analytics and the T/FW/theory blocks.

Also, I will deduct speaks if you're being too rude to your opponents. Being confident and a bit aggressive is fine, but rudeness can be really detrimental to inexperienced and younger debaters, and it just creates an unpleasant atmosphere in general.

Basically, I'll vote on anything you run just as long as it makes sense and you don't go over my head with your argument. Take caution, however, when you tell me how I should vote. If you don't clearly and fully explain and defend your stance, then I'm more likely to vote for the other side if you don't address major holes in your argument.

That said, I love philosophical implications in debate. They are fun to judge and really engaging to me. I think the more complex they are, the better, but again, don't go over my head. I won't judge what I can't understand. Also, if I can't understand you because you cannot accurately articulate your stance, then that usual means you don't understand everything you're saying, too. 

I don't really care too much for speed. If you can do it, great! Just be clear. If you aren't, then I'll tell you by saying "clear." If you don't speed, that's not a big deal. 

Besides that, be respectful! Don't stereotype and try not to make emotional appeals. 

And most importantly have fun! If you're not into the debate, then odds are I'm not either. At the end of the day, though, you just do you.

I am a pretty traditional judge, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate well done progressive stuff. As long as you run it well, and make sure you're running it because it's actually valuable to the round and makes sense, rather than just because you thought it'd be cool to run a K, I'm happy. I like focus on the v/c debate. Obviously clash is important. Speaking skill is important to me, again make sure you're spreading because you're good at it and because you need to , not just because you've heard that's what people do. I am pretty easy going, so don't stress. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!! Good luck!!

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

First things first: If you are speed reading, do not raise your voice and yell your speeches at me. I will call out your tone in round and that will probably mess up your speech. Talking loudly does not make me understand your speed any better, and it will dock you on speaks. Use your inside voice.

Argumentation: I like bare bones clash and direct argumentation. I evaluate everything pretty fairly, but avoid topics that would clearly create distress and aren't relevant to the topic. Hate speech, homophobia, implicit or explicit racism, and being rude to other debaters are not tolerated in my rounds.

Presentation/Speed: An easy way to ensure you get your speaker points is to slow down on taglines, authors, and provide summaries of cards after you read them. I judge based on end of round voters and impact calculus. Your use of the sources is more important than the name tied to it. Additionally, I think playing the cards game is a waste of debate time. Engage with the content of the round and if there is a legitimate issue of false sources we can have a discussion in post.

Very important: ALWAYS SIGN POST. At the start of a new argumentation, when flipping between AFF and NEG, whenever you change to a new topic you need to tell me. Otherwise the flow gets messy on my end and it hurts my ability to judge you based off of all the wonderful ideas you're presenting. You'll get docked if I can't understand you.

How I vote:

For LD: Value Criterion. It may seem basic but it's how I judge. Drops count against you- so if you're running a K but don't address your opponents case, whats the point to the debate? In your last speech I need specific voters and specific links and very specific reasons for my vote. Be comparative, that means impacts. I have the nitty gritty details written on my page, but give me the big picture reason why you win.

For PF: Impact calculus and clash. Hit every single one of their points, then show how yours are better, and you win. I want to hear why your "world" is the more feasible and the more worthwhile.

My bark is much worse than my bite- just respect me, respect each other, and have fun with it. Good luck!