isaiah1415@gmail.com

I did policy debate at Townview Law Magnet & UTD. Minor experience in LD & World Schools. Currently work with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

Make the debate what you want it to be. I like creativity, think outside of the box, take risks, warrant everything.

Im not partial to anything, nor do I not like to see any particular arguments.

I will be listening to you, not reading your docs.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions.

I was a high school debater and am now a junior Political Science major at Rhodes College. I'm pretty flexible about what you run in front of me as long as it is written well.

If you have questions about it feel free to ask me point blank before round I will not be offended. I would seriously rather you ask me very abrupt questions then you ask me something cryptic and we misunderstand each other and then the round isn't judged the way you want it to go.

Framing is literally so important. YOU get to decide how the round is judged if you so choose. Anything you run should have AT LEAST a sentence or two about how to frame the round (ex: "This round should be judged based on breaks down cap the best, etc.). If you get questions/arguments about how to frame the round, you should be prepared for it. If you do not give me a way to judge the round, then I have to make one up, and that sucks for everyone.

If there is only one framing mechanism presented in the round, I will default to that.

Speed- Spreading is fine, but be clear. I'll say clear 2x, but after that if I cannot understand you I'll stop flowing. I do generally prefer you either flash/email me your cases if you are going to spread because it makes both of our lives easier.

LARP Debate- Cool.

K's- I freaking LOVE a well run K. Make sure you understand the philosophy you're running though, at least well enough to cover anything that might be asked in the round.

Easiest way to my heart is anti-cap lit.

Traditional- Trad is like, super boring, but its fine to run. Imo this has the highest standard of execution because you as a debater don't really have anything to hide behind, so when its bad it is BAD.

Racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, etc. comments= loss 20; being respectful is cool and stuff.

If you're running against a debater who clearly has less experience than you and maybe does not understand what you're doing, you should not be hammering that home to me or being rude/condescending towards them, be respectful, teach them something, don't be a jerk.

If you have any more specific questions feel free to ask me before round/if you see me.

email: emilyjudgesdebate@gmail.com (for email chains, questions, etc.)

updated Dec 2020

GENERAL TIPS:

• Debate events should be educational and have clash. If we aren't learning anything, we are wasting everyone's time. Clash makes the round exciting and shows the judge your skills as a debater and speaker.
• Speed is okay, to a certain extent. The minute I am unable to understand you is the same minute that I will stop flowing. Keep that in mind.
• Tell me what you want me to do as a judge - point out drops, provide standards and voters, and EXTEND your arguments.
• Please be respectful of me and others in the room. Nobody likes to be yelled at. :)

ARGUMENT TYPES:

• (T) Topicality - I am a huge fan of T. I will absolutely vote on it, if it's a genuinely impactful argument. 
• (DA) Disadvantage - These are important in the impact calculus debate. If you don't point out any disadvantages or provide solvency evidence, I have little reason to vote against the Aff. Be clear about the link debate flow.
• (CP) Counterplan - These can go really well or really poorly, depending on the temperature of the round. If you run it correctly, extend where you need to, and prove that it solves better than the Aff, I'll vote on it.
• (K) Kritik - I wasn't exposed to these until my final year of debate, but loved the premise of them. Since I'm not as familiar with these as others, you will need to be clear in explaining what you want and need me to take from the arguments presented. I've voted on K before, and will easily do so again if the cards fall in your favor.
• Theory/Framework - Go for it. These help me as a judge in setting up how I need to evaluate the round. 

FOR CX DEBATE:

I'm officially a Tabula Rasa judge, but was raised in a Stock Issues circuit. If you can highlight stock issues while running things outside of that paradigm, you will do very well with me. I outlined what I like above, take note of that. If you can be respectful towards one another in round, it will get you far.

FOR LD DEBATE:

Former Policy Debater, but have experience judging and teaching LD. When it comes to a good LD Round, the most important thing is CLASH! You've all prepared your cases for each side of the resolution, but a debate without clash boils down to two people stating facts but not giving me reasons to prefer their facts. Let's make the round educational and fun, otherwise we are wasting time here. Value/Criterion debate is my favorite part of LD, so don't let this fall flat! 

FOR PF DEBATE:

PF came into existence while I was debating, and it is my understanding that the goal is to provide a debate that a lay person could understand. Be nice to one another, present strong arguments, and speak clearly. 

FOR CONGRESS:

I went to NFL/NSDA Nationals in Student Congress, so I'm very familiar with how things go here. The quality of speaking in Congress is important to me, especially persuasive speaking. I know that sometimes it's tough to get the opportunity to deliver your killer speech you prepared on a given bill or resolution, and so I won't be super harsh if you have to improvise. Good improvisation is better to me than a perfectly scrubbed speech that was pre-written. 

PO can be fun, but also super stressful. I'm not a hypercritical judge of the PO, if you do your best you will score well. 

FOR EXTEMPS:

People come into the room with different levels of knowledge and experience. I will not strike you down if you have to carry a notecard with you, but you will not score as high as someone who delivers a good speech without one. Keep in mind the goal of the event you're entered in, and amaze me with your speaking skills.

FOR INTERP EVENTS:

I've participated in most of these events at some point or another, and have experience judging all of them. You know what you need to do to get the job done. Above all else, remember to have fun! 

nickhernandzz@gmail.com (she/her)

Hi! I’m Gautam.

Carroll Sr. HS, TX ’19

Duke University ’23

Email - gautamiyer28@gmail.com (add me to the email chain please)

Background - debated 3 years for Carroll Senior High in Southlake, TX, qualified to TFA state, NSDA nats, and TOC my senior year. Debated on both local and national circuits so familiar with traditional debate too.

General - I’m fine with whatever you want to run as long as it isn’t blatantly offensive. I mostly read LARP/policy style arguments and some theory, so I'll probably be best at evaluating those things. I'll probably be worst at evaluating tricks (ie burden affs with 4-minute underviews) so if you're reading tricky stuff take a second to explain the tricks and their implications. I'll vote for those arguments, but I'll have a lower threshold for what counts as a response. Additionally, I'm not that familiar with some critical literature (ie Bataille or Heidegger), so if you're reading stuff like that it would be helpful to spend more time explaining your position.

Defaults - I default to comparative worlds, reasonability, drop the arg, no RVIs, presuming aff, permissibility flows aff. I doubt I’ll ever have to use most of these.

Miscellaneous stuff -

• As a debater I was atrocious at permissibility, skep, truth testing in general, burdens, etc so if you want to read those args please explain them thoroughly
• I will vote on frivolous theory but will be more easily convinced by weaker answers or reasonability to things like formal clothes theory
• I won’t drop speaks regardless of what arg you read unless it’s offensive
• Good case debate is fun and will probably get you good speaks
• Disclosure is important and I will gladly vote on a disclosure shell
• Please send screenshots at the end of the round if you go for disclosure
• Compiling the doc is prep but emailing it, etc. is not
• I won’t flow CX unless asked

I've debated in various forms of debate, including LD, PDF, Congress as well as other IEs, such as Extemp for 4 years in Plano under Cheryl Potts in my high school career. Though I have not done LD in college, I am confident that I know a good round when I see one, since I've debated in both good and bad rounds throughout my 4 years.

The thing that will be the most important for me is having a fair and ethical round that is also high quality.

When I said fair and ethical, I mean both to your opponent and me, but also to the people you're using as sources for your cases.

This means that I'll be looking out for any violation of evidence ethics and that I'll be encouraging fair rounds, be it through flashing cases, slowing down speed, or any means to make sure that those in round are able to understand and communicate well with each other. I will not be calling for evidence, nor accept any evidence that wasn't properly shared after the round and will instead drop the warrant altogether and if I see any cards that were clipped, I'll be either deducting speaker points or I will straight up drop the warrant. Though if you indicate where the card was cut clearly to the opponent, I'll accept this.

I have read enough philosophy and relevant literature and I continue to read more and more throughout graduate school for me to have to see kids in high school think they can lie to me about what the source says. If I feel as though you are willfully misrepresenting a source, not due to misunderstanding of what the source says, I will give the round to the opponent. It is highly unethical to willfully misrepresent someone else's words, especially when you can find dozens of scholarly evidence that supports any reasonable claims.

Now let's get into common some issues:

Theory:

❀ No theory is so good that I'd drop the entire debate based on it. I would buy that a theory would drop an argument, but not the whole debate

❀ Prove to me that there was abuse. If not, I can't really buy your T. Tell me because even though I probably know, it's still your job as a debater to communicate to me, your judge.

Speaking of T...

RVI

❀ It's not a good look to use this, really. It essentially boils down to "I had nothing better than evoke topicality," and while I'll buy it if you can prove to me that there was an abusive amount of straying from topicality either in your Rs or CX, I won't be buying RVIs just by themselves.

❀ Instead of RVIs, you could give me justified reasons not to buy the opponent's T (opponent's T works off of bigoted worldview, etc)

Speaking of RVIs...

Spikes:

❀ While I dislike "gotcha" debates, if there are absolutely no voters and clash, I will give the round to spikes.

❀ I would rather not have to do this and I will be deducting speaks from both debaters. One ought not use spikes to win and one ought have ways to deal with them (i.e. flowing).

Kritik

❀ Don't abuse the fact that I love Ks. Your K has to make some sort of sense, and prove to me that the resolution fails the aspect you want to bring up in your Ks (i.e. I don't want to see asia-as-a-method in a topic about american voting rights).

Narrative/Micro arguments:

❀ I welcome these. That being said, if I see the other side getting weird about this argument, I'll be heavily deducting speaks from the person being weird or I'll even be giving the round if the abuse is, by my standard, egregious enough.

❀ This is because a debate requires both parties to listen and speak to each other. This is a huge part of being fair to the other debater. I do not tolerate a speaking space where marginalized folks have to feel that they have to participate in debate that is harmful to them.

❀ If you're not sure about graphic/distressing contents, ask me and ask the opponent before the round. That's a part of being fair.

❀ That being said, don't abuse this. If I feel that you are, I'll be marking it down in RFD and it will greatly harm your case.

Extension and other matters:

❀ This is the part where you get to assume that I've either not been paying attention or don't know about the round. Explain all your extensions in the clearest way because that shows me that you know, as well as making it clear to the opponent. This promotes clash the best, from what I've competed and seen.

❀ Flex prep is fine but don't treat it like an extra round of CX and definitely don't stop CX early to add to your prep time.

❀ ykjudge2@gmail.com is where you can send your cases if we decide to open an email chain.

❀ if we do open an email chain, I'll be paying attention to your cases during CX and CX only, as I feel that you should be able to present your case verbally regardless of whether I have the case open or not.

On Speaks:

Speed is fine, however... don't abuse the fact that I am fine with speed. This means you should have a reason that you're speaking fast. When you spread, I expect to see a well-developed case, not a case that is designed so that the opponent has to play a game of whack-a-warrant. This means I expect to see extensions, multiple cards, the whole deal per argument you've made.

As far as speaker points go, I'll usually give no lower than 28 unless you are either really unprofessional, just atrocious, or have other notable issues. I rarely give 30s, as 30s are perfect speakers, which means no breaks in speech, no stuttering during CX, and other means for you to be "perfect."

❀ If I see clash, I'll reward speaks. Same is true for presentation of arguments that are good.

❀ I tend to be lenient toward those with accents that sometimes get hard to understand, but the accented speaker should also be aware when they are being hard to understand and be prepared to clarify or repeat themselves, even if it means losing time.

❀ I'll also be looking for signs of actual engagement with other debaters. Surest way for you to get lower than a 29 for me is if you don't flow.

email chain: sarah.manjee@utexas.edu

I debated LD for 4 years at Colleyville Heritage and I am a first year out

I primarily did larp debate, but I’m comfortable with ks and phil if it is explained well. I def like a good larp round. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps were my thing. I don’t like judging theory rounds a lot and hate frivolous theory. I’d say I'm least comfortable judging tricks so if that's your A strat I probably wouldn't pref me. Do clear weighing and have a clear ballot story. Speed is fine, i'll yell clear. Other than that, I want to see good clash in round. You can get high speaks if you read something interesting, make me laugh, and just be nice to your opponent.

I did PF in high school and I am now a senior in college, do with that information what you will. Please add mirandahopenutt@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain something like "Grapevine Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN."

The basics:

- I hate paraphrasing, please cut cards. I think it's bad for the activity, 9/10 times is misrepresentation, and high schoolers are less informed than the academics they are citing. I won't drop you for paraphrasing, but please make it abundantly clear where you pulled your argument from the text. (If it is clear, you could have saved yourself and everyone else a whole lot of time by just reading the card in the first place)

- I will vote on the most cleanly extended and well weighed argument in the round.

- Respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal please (your speaker points will reflect whether you did). I will not evaluate new defense in second summary on offense dropped by the second rebuttal.

- Make sure your extensions of arguments are extensions of the entire argument. Saying "extend the Jones '12 turn" in summary is not sufficient for you to go for that turn in final focus, for example.

- I will evaluate theory, k's, etc., but I prefer debates on the topic. This is simply because I feel that I am much better at judging debates on the topic. So, if you choose to read these arguments go for it, but understand that I need you to explain exactly how they should influence my ballot.

Debated LD since freshman year of High School. I like critical arguments and I mostly ran K's whenever I could. I look for clear ballot stories vowing on offense linked to the winning framework. I won't extend for you, if an argument is dropped it's dropped and I'll only consider the the last speeches for offense.

I'd like to be on the email chain: juliatothezan@gmail.com

I am a former debater from Grapevine High School and competed in LD on the local circuit of Dallas, the state and UIL levels. I qualified for TFA state both my junior and senior year. I now judge in the Dallas, Austin and sometimes San Antonio circuits.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I did both, although I debated more progressive and tend to enjoy those rounds more. You can choose to read whatever you want but know that I'll vote you down on anything I deem to be blatantly offensive, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc.

Speed: I'm fine with any speed. Don't try to spread just because your opponent is or because you think I'll be more inclined to buy your arguments; I need to be able to hear them. Slow down on any important analytics and voters. I won't yell clear.

Framework: As long as there is some standard to evaluate the round, whether it be a traditional value criterion or some sort of role of ballot/judge, I'm good. Don't just read it at the beginning of the speech and drop it throughout the round because then you are wasting my time and yours. I like rounds weighed through framework but ultimately don't care how you weigh (impact calc, framework, comparative worlds, etc.). Pre-fiat like arguments are fine.

K debate: I'm fine with it as long as you explain the lit/philosophy. That being said, don't automatically assume I know whatever K literature or philosophy you are using, so please explain it anyway. I very rarely buy "reject the aff" alts; they don't actually mean much in the round and take away from substance. I will vote on them if the aff doesn't refute it. If you're going to read a K, please make sure to find specific links. That being said, I will vote on any of this if I have to.

T/Theory: I'm okay with this too as long as I don't think you're using it specifically as a strategy because you know the opponent is not as good at T/theory debate as you are. I will vote on it if there is no adequate response from your opponent but I would prefer it only be read if there is actually abuse in the round.

DAs/CPs: I'm good with both.

---------

PF Paradigm:

Speed: See above

"Progressive" PF: I will evaluate any arguments brought up in the round. I understand PF has the tendency to be more traditional around framework and impact weighing; however, the nature of these events is that they can and do tend to run more progressive at times (I say this as a former progressive LDer). I am cool with you running Ks, DAs, CPs, etc., but I am not super comfortable with T/theory/tricks in PF because I don't think they are arguments most PFers can run comfortably. I say this as a general rule, but if you are a good T/theory PFer, by all means, run your arguments. Just know I probably can evaluate these arguments better than you could successfully run them in PF. Frivolous and not well run t/theory in PF is somehow a thing I keep seeing. I tend to grant more RVIs in PF unless the aff is proven to be clearly abusive. For specifics on progressive arguments check the LD paradigm above.

Framework: I like a framework debate. Numbering your voters helps. Don't drop your framework unless planning to collapse to the other teams' framework justification.

Links/Impacts: I vote off of impacts and links. I'm not going to make the link or impact calculus for you so make it clear in the round.

Extend: Extensions are important to PF debate offense so make sure you extend cards you want me to flow in the round. I'm not going to extend something across your speeches if you don't bring it up. I don't expect the first speaker to extend their own case in rebuttal since there's no offense on it. If something isn't extended to the last speech I'm not voting on it. This should come as a given in any debate type but I will make a point to mention it here: extending your card doesn't mean saying "extend *insert author name*" and moving on. Properly extending evidence means extending the uniqueness -> warrant -> link -> impact, otherwise I don't know why the card is brought up again. Unwarranted claims kills debate clash and education.

-------

Make sure you weigh the round, whether it be through framework, voters, or anything else. Otherwise, I don't know how to vote.

If you have any questions after round, feel free to email me.

Welcome to my paradigm! If you have any questions over this or have questions about things I did not mention, feel free to ask me and I will try my best to give useful and concise answers.

Overall: Speech and debate is an incredible activity and easily one of the most important activities in terms of preparing you for a successful post-high school life. With that in mind, I would prefer rounds are educational to some extent. This means that there is clash, CX/crossfire periods are productive and respectful, and there is critical thinking put into summarizing arguments and painting a picture of the round that easily shows you won.

Speed: I have no personal problem with speed. My biggest thing is that any word/name/date/title that you plan to use for extensions or other references is spoken clearly in the speech. If you are going to say "Smith 07" for extensions, then you need to make sure that citation was clear when it is first brought up. This same idea applies to any other content that you want to use frequently. For example, a key statistic within a paragraph that you want to use should be clear when introducing that information. I do not plan to say "clear" if you are not clear; the expectation is that you know how you are presenting (know ya self, know ya worth...ya know?).

Argument Types: Any argument type is fine for me in LD/CX. All that I ask is that you try and keep the round educational and respectful (watching a 3 minute crossfire where the AFF just asked the NEG what their counterplan is, when the NEG didn't know what that was, will never be an experience I want to repeat). In PF, I do not see the purpose of using more critical argumentation. I will evaluate the round regardless of the type of arguments made, but know that there is less room to adequately present and back-up critical arguments in an effective manner within PF time restraints.

Speaker Points: I do not do decimal speaker points (something I might change over time). For a 30, you need to be organized, have solid and well structured arguments, and overall show that you deserve to get the highest possible speaking evaluation. For a 28-29, you may be stellar in one or two areas, but you have room to improve in other areas of speaking. For example, you may have incredible arguments and speak without skipping a beat, but if you are jumping around the flow and not signposting properly, that would be a 28-29. A 26-27 is gained when there are more areas of improvement than stellar speaking qualities. Since decent argument formulation and coherent speaking are transferrable skills out of high school, I see the presentation side of a debate as important. I still value arguments>>>presentation, but having not-so-great organization may ruin the argument-side of things.....So...to get a 25...you most likely did something discriminatory or blatantly disrespectful in the round. This includes being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or being condescending to your opponent, judge, or both. I'd most likely talk to tournament staff if you received a 25. At the same time though, I have yet to give out a 25, so I've got confidence anyone reading this will keep that streak going!