[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]

[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu

Public Forum Debate:

TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.

Similar Outlooks: My view on debate is very similar to those of my former teammates Grant Barden and Fionella Caputo. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as they do in their paradigms.

A Couple of Specifics:

Cases. I'm open to pretty much anything here. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative, or otherwise not stock. After all, debate loses its productivity if competitors have the exact same round again and again. If you're spreading you MUST send a document BEFORE the speech.

Impact Warranting & Terminalization. I would think this is obvious....ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED. Too many debaters are failing to do this, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death], it is not presumed.) Examine opponents' arguments for lack of warranting and terminalization, there's a high chance it's there.

Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary, the first gets a little latitude. If you make abusive new arguments or false claims (like your opponents dropping something they didn't) I dock speaks. Also, collapse and weigh.

Framework. Defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably just concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so as soon as possible. (Not mandatory, but it makes the round easier to understand, and thus more likely I'll understand why I need to vote for you.)

Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be especially in-depth. Make sure to include uniqueness, links, and impacts. If you are going for a turn: YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. If you don't, I can't vote on the turn. If your opponents don't extend, make sure to bring it up in a speech, it makes it much easier to evaluate as part of the round (DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM THIS).

Frontlining. The second rebuttal must frontline. Defense isn't sticky.

Calling for Evidence. Despite my desire to be included on an email chain, I will only review evidence for abuses if specifically asked to by a particular team. Only read the evidence you have on hand, it shouldn't take forever and a day to retrieve, if it does, I dock speaks quickly. A hyperlink you found on Duck Duck Go mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also properly full-format cut it mid-round too. Also, one of those fancy hyperlinks that highlights the text when you click on it does not count.

Notes on Speech Docs. Two things here: (1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read on your doc. Don't include evidence or rhetoric you are certain won't be read on the doc. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. If you don't understand what I mean here, don't worry about this. (2) Docs should only be sent through irreversible means, they shouldn't be able to be un-sent after a round. The classic example of this is with Google Docs. Not once have I been on a shared Google Doc that wasn't immediately un-shared after the round or had the download or copy features disabled. There are also evidence ethics concerns as teams can insert new evidence into the doc after a speech and falsely claim that it was read as it was "in the speech doc."

Cross. I'm listening to cross, but I'm not flowing it. If a key point is made here, it needs to be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are excessively rude or stage a soliloquy that rivals those of Shakespeare to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.

Grand. I'm fine skipping grand cross, but doing so means the round goes straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocations earlier in the round.

Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, let's say if someone paraphrases I would be more than content to hear a theory shell calling it out.

Trigger Warnings. If you are wondering whether an argument needs a trigger warning, it probably does. These should also be anonymous, I'd suggest an anonymous Google form. If you read a harmful argument without a trigger warning, I will be very perceptive to a theory shell on the matter. (For clarification, "wipeout" and "spark" arguments need trigger warnings, you are telling everyone in the round that they should die.)

Weighing. Please do this. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (i.e. scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Most notably, please steer clear of using "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are low-key abusive and amount to either: (1) new un-warranted defense claims; or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." Less common, but even more ludicrous is "cherry-picked" evidence analysis. DON'T do this. ALL EVIDENCE IN DEBATE IS CHERRY-PICKED at the point a debate case is an agglomeration of evidence that forms a specific narrative. While weighing is important, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it.

A2: Weighing. Except in the occasional situation where it might be advantageous to concede to your opponents' weighing mechanism, you must rebut their weighing. It can be easy to overlook weighing in a busy round, yet it can prove to be fatal. Too many teams end up losing despite superior argumentation because they lost the weighing debate even though they won large portions of their offense.

Timing. It is not the judge's responsibility to time y'all. While I likely will do so for reference, y'all should time yourselves and hold each other accountable for staying on time. The only time it MIGHT be okay to go overtime is if your opponents have already done so.

Speed. I'm good with speed/spreading. When spreading, it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are not clear, I'll shout "CLEAR" two times before docking speaks. If you're pushing 300 wpm, you MUST send a doc BEFORE the speech. You must also slow down on analytics (presuming they're not on the doc), and you MUST signpost when going off the doc.

Signposting/OTRs. Please signpost and give an off-time roadmap. The only thing worse than not giving one is giving one and not following it.

Presumption. If there's no offense in the round, I'll vote for the status quo (which is usually, but not always, the negative). That is unless a team presents and wins an argument in-round that a presumption ballot must act differently. If you do this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary, there can't be a new-in-final presumption argument because you've just now realized you don't have offense.

Post-Rounding. It's fine, ask as many questions as needed for you to properly understand my decision. Feel free to email too.

Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate arbiter of what you consider abuse. If you're alleging abuse, you need to read the shell immediately after that abuse. Friv theory might have a place in PF, but it is certainly not to steam-roll some novices who don't understand it for a cheap win. It's clear when this is a team's goal. If reading theory, shells don't need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final. I don't expect a word-for-word extension, but its spirit or intention shouldn't fluctuate.

Disclosure Theory Specifically. I'm on the fence on whether disclosure is beneficial, I don't lean to either side, so I'm open to seeing it run. That being said, please keep the following in mind. First, see the note about the new TFA rules below, if applicable. Second, I stand vehemently against the all-too-common 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, particularly when it is run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. Put simply, if you're a big school and run this standard against a small school, I'll down you. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even potentially for big schools against small schools, just use other standards.

Ks. I'm willing to go here. I've used common Ks like Capitalism and Securitization. However, if you're doing something uncommon make sure you explain the literature as I am likely not familiar with it. (Like theory, don't use Ks for a cheap win, they should be part of a productive debate. Once again, if you use this to steam-roll novices......I WILL DOWN YOU.)

Tricks. I am open to these, but I have a very low bar as to what is a sufficient response against them. So, you're welcome to read "nothing's the cause of anything" but I'll consider your opponent calling your argument dumb a sufficient response.

Blippy. Don't be. This is usually a cheap excuse to not provide adequate warranting or terminalization. See above.

TKOs. (Technical Knock-Outs.) TKOs are stupid. Even if a team has eliminated all of their opponent's paths to the ballot early in the round, there is still ample time for that team to make technical errors in later speeches leading to their loss, or for the opponent to introduce independent offense or weighing (if sufficiently early in the round) to remedy the situation. I have seen both of these eventualities occur. As TKOs preclude necessary argumentation, if you go for a TKO, I WILL DOWN YOU.

IVIs. (Poor-Man's Theory.) IVIs are usually stupid, particularly evidence ethics IVIs. Shell format is nearly always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round.

Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being discriminatory, I'm more than happy to down your opponents off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present, beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (i.e. racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech. However, if it's never mentioned in the round I won't be able to vote off of it.

Economics. I'm pursuing a BS in Economics, and as such I understand economic realities. Please make sure that if you're running an econ argument, like interest rates, that you know what you're talking about and aren't stumbling around in the dark. I'm not adding this disclaimer out of being biased against poorly run econ argumentation, but rather if your econ argumentation makes no sense it's hard to look away from it unless it goes completely conceded.

On the Recent Amendment to the TFA Constitution Regarding Disclosure... as some of you may be aware, the TFA has recently adopted an amendment to the TFA Constitution that reads: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." Given this, if you intend to run disclosure theory, please first ensure that the tournament, if operating under the TFA, hasn't stipulated that judges are unable to vote on it. If this is the case, regardless of whether you win disclosure on the flow, I will be unable to vote for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I very rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in rather progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority if not all of LD argumentation. Relevant commentary above on debate in general applies, that being said I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD the way that I do in PF (as detailed above). Please make sure everything is neatly on the doc, or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I know/am familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Please don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.

World Schools' Debate:

I don't think there is too much to be said here. When it comes to how I will decide on the round, I will decide before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should be taking at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also if you are speaking at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive, or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate, I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 3 yrs

Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches! Don't just throw around buzzwords with no actual weighing. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be extended in both speeches. I will usually vote off of the clearest link chain in the round. Cards should have quality warrants (less paraphrasing please). Quality over quantity.

I would prefer if offense (and maybe defense if possible, but not necessary) is frontlined in the second rebuttal, and that both teams collapse throughout the round. Do not try to go for too much.

Extend terminal defense in summary.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

I never ran any K's, theory, Cps, but will do my best following if ran.

Please be nice to each other!

qzpbellman@gmail.com

I've traveled across different circuits so I know a little thing about every event. However, no matter what event I judge I will 80% of the time follow the exact scoring format I am given on my ballot. The other 20% is what I expect out of the event I am judging. Across all formats I strongly prefer development of clash -- as long as you're engaging with your opponents and promoting on-topic clash it will reflect in point distribution and my decision.

Below I've compiled a short list of what I expect from some formats, and if you have any further questions you're more than welcome to ask in-round;

PF - Strong use of evidence and argument analysis. I don't like it when competitors stick to evidence weighing; there's an effective way to weigh evidence, but simply stating that your evidence is more recent doesn't automatically mean you win the argument. I prefer engagement on analyzing the logic behind the evidence itself instead of surface-level engagement.

LD - Uphold your value and criterion. Actually discuss the effects (good and bad) of the resolution as well as whether there is a moral obligation to enact it.

WSD - A mixture of presentation and strategy are the biggest things I look for after clash in Worlds. Clash weighs most heavily, but you should be deliberate in your presentation and work together as a team to dismantle your opponents. I also like to see WSD-specific techniques, like points of clash or highest ground, but it's not expected.

CX - I'm pretty basic in this format; all I really expect is on-topic clash and strong argumentation. I'll also ask which side weighs more, so doing some impact calculation would definitely help you get my ballot. You can spread if you want, but you should always make sure your judge can understand you. You can use this email for cases and the such: hamza.bouderdaben@utexas.edu

He/Him

I did LD debate in high school.

I read mostly util and am probably most qualified to judge that.

You can read almost anything and I'll vote on it, but I can't say i'm super qualified to judge particularly complicated Th or K debate.

Speed's fine, just email any docs to: joehbridges@gmail.com

Slow down if you really want me to flow something

I award speaker points for the 2N and 2AR based on clarity of your narrative of the round (weighing ect.)

Good with speed, will say a loud "clear" if I can't understand you. If I still cannot understand/hear you I will stop flowing the remainder of the speech. However, if I am just looking at you and haven't said anything, it just means I'm listening. Fine with any argument as long as it is somewhat topical and you extend the impacts. Give me clear voters and always contextualize impacts of argument.

About Me:

Jack C. Hays High School CO'2019

UT Austin CO'2023

Add me to the email chain: jackcoffey@utexas.edu

Events I have experience from actually doing in High school: Extemp (FX/DX/UIL Extemps), Congress, PF, LD, World Schools

I have experience judging other speech events too: Info/OO/DI/HI/Duo/etc.

My primary events overall were extemp & congress and I have experience on the local, state, and national level after having competed all throughout high school.

PF/LD Debate:

For PF, I generally always vote based on impact calculation. So pretty much tell me why your side does more for whoever or why the other side doesn't do enough for me to vote for them. Weighing on what side is more important and which has more to gain is really how I prefer to do my ballots. Always tell me what side is winning and why I should vote for them and how the debate has progressed to preferring their side. For framework, I won't vote based on it unless you make a point out of it on why I should. Really framework doesn't make or break a ballot from me unless a team explains why it's relevant and why it essentially causes one side to win over another. Overall, the easiest way to get a ballot from me is through impact calculation on which side brings more to the table or why the other side does not do enough. My biggest evaluation for a ballot is always impacts. Please avoid spreading and watch the speed. I am a more traditional judge so speaking so fast to the point I can barely understand you is not always going to be the best option for you. Please avoid speed, especially when explaining things. Being a bit faster on reading cards is okay I guess, but I prefer having less speed overall.

For some niche things, if you do not mention an argument from either side or touch debate it in any way, I am just going to assumed it has been dropped. While I can keep time if you want, it is not preferred, so please time yourselves.

In regards to presentation, since it is PF debate and meant to be easily accessible to the public, please don't spread especially in the later speeches. More speed will make me less likely to understand what is being said and gives me little reason to vote for your team. Pretty much consider me more of a lay judge than anything. For speaking, just be clear and concise really. Also I really don't like rude or spiteful speeches no matter how the debate has ran.

More LD Specific Stuff:

I am not a totally progressive judge when it comes to some arguments so if I do not mention them below, just assume I have no experience in those types of arguments and avoid running them at your own discretion unless you think you're just that amazing to introduce me to a new argument and compelling enough to get me to vote on it:

Plans/Counterplans (CP) - Completely cool with me, just be sure to explain what it does and how it causes your side to win the debate. Plans/CPs are acceptable in PF for me.

Topicality (T) - Topicality is cool as long as you explain why the other side violates topicality in regards to the debate.

Kritiks (K) - I am very new to this kind of debate, but I am generally okay with it as long as you don't have a ton of speed whilst explaining. Additionally, you need to explain what harms/impacts are brought on when you assert your opponent violates the K argument. For example, if you run capitalism K, explain to me why capitalism is bad. So many people have just said that I should vote for them because capitalism is bad without explaining much how or why it is bad. I know this is super basic but you have to explain why other teams violating the K argument is a bad thing (whether it be capitalism, settler colonialism, states, etc.). Tell me why capitalism is bad and why I should vote for you!!

For speaker points, I generally give higher speaks to people who are more clear, articulate, and organized. The lowest I usually give to people is ~27 unless they have done something so bad such as being rude or very disorganized throughout the whole round to warrant something lower. Speed plays a part in speaks in that I do not prefer spreading and speed is not my forte in a round. Overall, as long as you are organized and well articulated and respectful throughout the debate I will give you decent speaks.

Extemp/Speech:

I did both FX & DX in high school so I have experience in these events and know what an appropriate speaker looks like. For your speeches, you should obviously be well-spoken and organized in throughout your round. In particular for content, good extemp speakers are able to articulate information from a wide array of sources and convey it in a manner that is articulate and entertaining. Specifically, I prefer speakers who are informative and/are entertaining by incorporating humor, emotional content, pertinent information and a wide array of relevant sources. Being funny when relevant and doing it well will always gain good points with me! Additionally, always be sure to EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Many people often just give me some facts and expect the audience to make something of it. Explain what information is important and why! Tell me what it means and how it pertains to the question of your speech. For the beginning of your speech, it should be a well done introduction that at least initially catches my attention through a thought provoking or funny statement, provides some background to your topic, tells me the question verbatim, provides me your answer and a preview of your points. For your actual points, you should aim to provide at least 2 sources of relevant information and have some structure within each point to have some flow and organization. Within each point you should again always explain the information you present to give some good insight into the importance of each point and why the audience should essentially care.

In regards to performance and presentation, I prefer speakers who speak clearly with adequate speed since a lot of people get nervous and tend to speed through their speech and use up their time. As a speaker, you should aim to be relaxed and be able to balance the time you are given throughout your speech to make the most of your presentation. Moreover, having a good physical presentation is preferred such as a good usage of hand gestures, appropriate movement (such as a slight walk when transitioning between points), and maintaining eye contact with your audience.

For cross-examination, I don't put too much emphasis on this as it is not something I would consider making or breaking your speech. Really, I just look for speakers who are kind and respectful and are able to defend their points and know their own topic well. Pretty much just don't be rude or sarcastic and you'll be fine with me.

Congress:

Pretty much refer to my extemp/speech paradigms. I have tons of experience of doing Congress from high school so I know what to look for and how good speakers are supposed to look. For your speeches, aside from the first or second affs/negs of the bill, all speeches should include some sort of clash or argumentation of the other speakers' arguments. This is congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving.

Presiding Officers should aim to be quick, effective, organized, and knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure. Just maintain precedence for speakers and be transparent about what is being done so the whole chamber understands what is going on. Making mistakes is okay as long as it is not a pattern so I know you really know what you're doing. Also it's cool with me if you time with your phone as the P.O., just make sure it does not become a problem through using it for communication or if you have tons of notifications that can be distracting.

World Schools Debate:

Just refer to the Speech and LD/PF portion of my paradigms as that is how I generally judge speakers and how I view a round is supposed to look. I do have experience in Worlds so I am pretty aware on how the event runs. Just be well organized, clear, and articulate. As a side note: avoid using more progressive arguments (theory, topicality, k's, etc.) as they are not to exist in worlds in my opinion. Overall, just provide clear impacts and weighing throughout the round and you'll be fine.

CX Debate:

I have no experience in this event and should not be judging it unless you like relatively traditional PF judges.

He/Him

dallasocoggins@gmail.com

I did PF at James Bowie HS for 3 years.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. or I will vote you down.

Tech > truth

Everything you say in Final focus should be in summary.

I’m not going to outright disregard progressive args, but you’ll be fighting uphill battle. I didn’t do much of them and feel like you might as well be doing CX if you want to do K’s and stuff.

Theory should only be used when there is some harm/unfairness/abuse in the round.

I’m not going to dismiss K’s though because if they are logical, well warranted, and good I’m willing to evaluate them.

I like framework debate, but default to cost ben analysis.

Clearest link chain usually wins.

Debate isn’t really about education. It’s about having fun, engaging yourself with the material, with the clash, with the arguments, with everything that comes up. Fun is the ultimate goal.

Have fun :)

I debated PF at Westlake High School.

Constructive

- if your going to use a framework it must be warranted, and you'll need to extend the framework in every speech along with its warrant if I'm going to evaluate the round using it.

Rebuttal

- second rebuttal must frontline turns, but doesn't have to rebuild case (you should still be getting to the important parts of your case obviously, but I'm not going to drop your case if you don't get to every piece of defense).

- I love when a weighing mechanism is set up in rebuttal (if it's applicable to the round so far)

Summary

- if it's not said in summary, it's off my flow except for defense from rebuttal that was not responded to (sticky defense)

- in my opinion it's never too late in the round to call out misconstrued evidence, but indicts and evidence specific responses to need to come before first summary just like any other new response.

Final Focus

- collapse and weigh

- still need warranting, even if it's brief

General

- PLEASE WEIGH

- I'm not going to vote for you if you just tell me you win on timeframe or probability etc. Your weighing needs to be warranted, and it will help you even more if it's consistent (same weighing used in summary and FF).

- develop a narrative, if you and your partner appear to be on the same page it makes my choice a lot easier.

- Theory was not very big when I debated, but I understand the need for it when something offensive has happened in the round. If theory is conducive and topical to what has occured in the round I'm all for it and I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability (if you get up and spread disclosure theory against an obviously way less experienced team your best case scenario is a low point win. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory especially when ran by big schools; in my experience judging and debating I've only ever seen big schools run it who a. have the resources to prep out disclosed cases and b. are typically just using the fact that not all PF debaters know theory well enough to stand a chance, and I dislike that.)

- I'll do my best to evaluate more progressive arguments but I'd prefer that they're topical (plans, CPs, Ks, etc) but you need to do a good job of explaining/warranting them since I never debated them. Again, it should be topical to the round/topic.

PF Paradigm at the top, LD at the bottom. I approach the events in a completely different manner. I wouldn't apply what is in the PF paradigm to LD.

PF Paradigm

I am a coach that has been involved with debate for a while. At the most basic level, I will evaluate the impacts students have access to at the end of the round using the weighing/framing mechanisms provided. You should be weighing in the back half of the round. Here are some notes about the details.

-I am listening but not flowing crossfire. While I'm not voting on anything that is said here, I am judging your knowledge of the important args and the topic in general.

-I am not tab. The best description of my judging style is a critic of argument. I want to vote for the best debaters, and to that end, I feel this activity is at its best when students explain warrants. I will vote on consequential drops, but I almost never vote on unwarranted blippy claims, even if they are carded. So for instance, if Smith 20 says "the economy will crash in two months," and that is the end of the story; for the purposes of the round I am not assuming the economy will crash in two months. You need to explain why Smith thinks that and contextualize its importance within the round. If Smith doesn't give a reason you are comfortable explaining, or you don't understand why Smith thinks that, this argument should not effect the RFD. My bar for a warrant that I will accept is very low(often I disagree with the warrant but still accept it), but the bar does exist. Just give me something that makes sense. The top competitors warrant and do all this naturally, so I don't think a lot of adapting should be going on.

-I prefer a brisk but understandable pace in the rebuttal/summary speeches, offense in the FF needs to be clearly extended (preferably weighed) throughout.

-I view debate as a game that teaches essential skills, and will vote for the students that in my opinion win the game. Using offensive arguments or not respecting the dignity of your opponents will lead to you losing the game.

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on theory. I am ok with paraphrasing but prefer direct quotations. I do not expect disclosure (full text or otherwise).

-There is a zero percent chance I will vote on a non-topical K. There is a zero percent chance I will vote for a K that links into the topic in general. If the K has a strong link into the opponents advocacy, I will consider it, but probably still vote against it.

-Defense is not sticky.

-You should frontline in 2nd Rebuttal.

-Sell terminal defense, I have a higher bar for granting access to the impact then a lot of judges.

-There is no reason for a plan or CP.

-I don't like politics DAs, in policy rounds they work as a net benefit to a CP decently, but as independent offense in PF I think it is poor in general. The only way I'm voting on it is if it the other team severely mishandles it or has no offense I can comfortably vote on.

-If you want to see cards have the names ready and say them immediately after the speech. The 1st speaker for each team should be ready and adept at sending cards. I am not ok with a stream of asking for cards one after the other stretching out the time. The PF round should end in roughly an hour.

LD Paradigm

The PF paradigm above doesn't apply very much here. I debated LD in high school, but that was a long time ago. In LD, I'm resigned to being tab and voting on execution. I will try my best to reward the better debater, so if you can go fast and clear that is good.

I prefer debate on the topic and I view this activity as a game, so my natural inclination is to expect the resolution to grant both sides with ground, although the specifics can be debated. In general, I don't like to vote on blippy drops. I rarely vote for non-topical affs. Framework debate is ok and I will vote for the debater that executes their style the best. I enjoy judging debates with clash, and reward developed arguments which clearly link to the core issues of the resolution. I will vote for Plans, CPs, DAs, Ks, Theory, and framework. You are not winning the round in cross.

I don't have a problem with speed, but if I can't understand what your saying I will not connect the dots for you. A brisk speech that is clean is preferable to a faster pace in which words are mumbled and there are many noticeable stumbles. I keep a detailed flow and if an argument is dropped it matters. I like to hear voters during the final speeches.

email me emmaguan@utexas.edu

i am out of debate and if i’m back in and judging please call my therapist before round for 30 speaks. 734-394-7138

collapse weigh comparatively and don’t be mean

I'm a Junior Math and Finance major at UT Austin. I did not do debate at an American high school, but I've been judging PF (and extemp) in Austin and am very familiar with the structure.

First half of the round:

- If you choose to provide a framework I will evaluate the round using it as long as it's warranted well and you extend it

- 2nd rebuttal doesn't need to rebuild

Back half of the round:

- Weighing is the easiest way to get my ballot, especially probability: in most cases the magnitude of your event is only significant to me if you prove that it's probable.

- If your opponents bring up new evidence in 2nd summary or 1st final focus, don't assume I noticed, point it out in your speech

General:

- I'm fine with speed (but not spreading) as long as you are clear; I will dock your speaks if you don't speak clearly

- I expect that you're keeping track of your own prep and speech time, unless you ask me otherwise

- I'm not familiar with theory/K's/plans/counterplans but I'm not opposed to voting for them as long as they are well explained

email: teresa@luo.com

i debated for westlake for 3 years (graduated 2021), and i did pf and some extemp.

i would consider myself to be flay leaning tech.

1. WARRANT. i need more than just jargon.

- this goes for everything in the round (responses, weighing, etc).

- i am tech over truth (excluding offensive arguments), but you need to warrant everything out.

2. collapse and extend too.

- defense is not sticky; pls extend.

- i will only evaluate what has been extended in summary AND in ff. don't bring up new stuff in ff.

3. an argument is dropped if there is no response to it in the next speech.

4. be respectful to everybody in the round.

feel free to ask me questions before or after round! :)

he/him

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 4 yrs, graduating in 2019.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. Don't just say the words extend + the card author. Please actually extend argument. If you don't, I will look to vote elsewhere. Weighing is very important. Please give me a way to evaluate the round.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. For online debate, I think its good practice to send speech docs prior to constructive given connectivity issues. If an email chain is used, I would like to be added.

I'll attempt to evaluate any argument you read in front of me, but I am more comfortable with standard stuff. I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round!

Lastly, please be nice to each other.

If anything in here was unclear, I'm happy to answer your questions!

I'm a lay judge, I'm a parent. This is my first tournament that I'm judging.

I'm fine with speed, but speech docs would be helpful if you decide to spread.

feel free to ask me if you have any questions.

You can add me to the email chain at getjagan@yahoo.com

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Congress:

I rank POs. If I didn't rank you as a PO, it wasn't because you weren't considered. I presided often when I competed. This means that I know parli procedure/RRO well, but it also means that I understand the struggle.

Break down what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and sponsor/author. I haven't always had time to read it. Even if I have, it's not nice to assume.

I care most about the content of a speech. You have to clash/extend if you are the fifth+ speaker. Additionally, make sure that your extensions aren't just rehash. This means you have to introduce new information and strengthen the argument. Too many Congress competitors have unclear or missing links. If you don’t follow a link chain through, it will be very hard for me to see your argument as good or thoughtful.

You are also judged based on your kindness/fairness in recesses and before the round begins. Equity is very important to me. I don't care how many speeches you give, unless you a) don't participate at all or b) are rude to someone else in order to give additional speeches.

I don't like cheesy AGDs. Although I don't think Congress should be 100% roleplay, at least try to give serious introductions. This applies x10 if the bill is about something serious. This means no song lyrics/movie references etc. I did Congress, so I know all of the canned intros as well as you do. Don't use them.

Allow me to get on my soapboax: I am really bothered by the recent trend of calling people 'Ms.' or 'Mr.' instead of representative. Look, I understand that it's fewer syllables. I get that it makes it easier to transition from house to senate and vice versa. Too often, people will call male presenting speakers 'Representative' and female speakers 'Ms.' If you do this, it will negatively affect your ranking. It genders speakers in a way they may dislike (Zoom update: online, people can share their pronouns more easily. Some people use this as reasoning to use titles, but just be careful). TL;DR, avoid using gendered titles. If you use them, at least use them consistently instead of using them as a way to devalue female-presenting speakers.

I really like Congress, and I hope everyone has fun with it!

IEs:

I only did extemp and oratory if that contributes to your strikes.

I don't really have a paradigm for prepped events because y'all have been working on them since last July. Just make them yours.

Insofar as extemp, my most important request is that you answer the question. Don't do anything fancy, just lay it out for me. Ideally, I will learn something from your speech. Additionally, I like to know that you understand what you're talking about. You have the internet to search nowadays, use it!

Also, I hate that this has to be said, but...don't make up evidence. It's usually obvious, and even when it isn't, it's unethetical.I care most about content of a speech. Too many debaters have unclear or missing links. If you don’t follow a link chain through, it will be very hard for me to see your argument as good or thoughtful.

PF/WSD:

Mom judge. Flay. Be nice.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal, but it's not required. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. This means I should hear the warranting behind the complete link chain (just repeating the taglines or solely extending the impact is not sufficient.)

Please collapse in the back half of the round. If you go for too much, you won't be able to extend the complete link and impact story for any singular piece of offense. Weighing should be present in summary and final focus. If there is no good weighing I will default to the team with the most coherently fleshed out link chain.

Unless the piece of evidence is literally made up, I am never going to vote off an evidence call. It will just make me grumpy.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. So, you're probably better off not running these arguments in front of me unless you do a really god job making it sound lay.

Include me to any email chain please! travis.tiffany95@protonmail.com

(this paradigm template was borrowed from another paradigm on tabroom, thanks for making writing mine easier!)

Debate to your strengths, don't feel intimidated by me as your judge, I am in no way "above" you. These are my paradigms, not a rule book. I don't want anyone to 'feel' like they need to adjust to me - I want you to debate comfortably but competently.

I would say that I am willing to listen to just about any argument so long as it has warrants that are legitimate. I was a Policy debater in High School, but enjoy and am comfortable with LD and PF.

Housecleaning issues:

1) Case extentions!!! I look at debate like a football game. If the team decided to not show up for the second half how are they supposed to win? Same is true here, extend your offense to give me a reason to vote for you. With that said, even if your points go conceded, extend your offense - I need you to also not drop your own arguments.

2) Obvious one, I don't flow new arguments in rebuttals. This should go without saying, but regardless of if your opponent acknowledges the new arguments, I will not vote on them.

3) Be respectful and have class. My biggest pet peeve is a great debater hitting someone not as good and the great debater being confusing or not helpful. You were there once, don't be a jerk. If this happens, I cannot justify giving you a loss, but don't be surprised when your speaks suck, so please be conscious. I am a coach as well, so keeping this event educational and fun for everyone is of upmost importance. So respect this event that has done so much for you by just being respectful and classy.

4) Disclosure, please comply with your opponent if they request for you to disclose your case. With that said, I only evaluate disclosure theory if there were attempts to request for disclosure and your opponent refused. DO NOT read disclosure theory on novices with stock cases. I won't vote on it.

When evaluating any round the first thing I look to is framework. You can lose the framework debate and still win my ballot, your impacts just have to be weighed in the framework that won the round. However, when it comes to how to win framing issues, I want you to respond to the clash if it exists. For example, util and Kant don't see eye to eye on much so if these two frameworks are competing, I expect some sort of weighting analysis as to why one or the other should be used to evaluate impacts in the round. Keep in mind that my understanding of philosophical concepts is pretty solid. Thus, don't be surprised if you lose for misrepresenting a philosophical idea, your opponent doesn't even need to point this out for me to get upset about this. I'm not super picky about this unless it's a gross misrepresentation. I cannot justify giving you my ballot when you're misinforming yourself and your opponent on the merits of particular philosophical ideas. With that said, please do not be scared to experiment with positions, I enjoy unique debates, just know what the author of your cards actually advocates for and we're gravy.

In rounds where pre-fiat issues present themselves I default to Topicality first, theory, Kritiks, and then substance, unless the debater argues why that order should be reorganized. With that said, I am not a fan of theory as an out, so read paradigm issues. Notice tricks aren't on that list... I don't vote for tricks :). Oh and if you haven't listened already, if your opponent ask if you read any a priori and you try to deny this, yeah congrats now you get an L and lowest possible speaks, hopefully you read this paradigm and this isn't an issue.

DAs: Not a fan of generic DAs, will vote on them though. Make sure your uniqueness is clear as well as the link.

Ks: Not a fan of generic Ks, will vote on them though. The link is of upmost importance for me to evaluate the K. The alt should be feasible and clear. Illustrate why perms don't work and how it better solves the framing issues presented in the K. When judging kritiks I often lean towards the Link vs Perm debate - I assume that the kritiks impacts are true unless you argue they aren't.

AFF Ks: I ran this position in policy and I'm comfortable with 'weird' stuff. That being said, as a coach I default to education as the priority issue in every debate. If an opponent makes a convincing argument you're bad for debate - I can still be persuaded.

T and Theory: Yes, when needed. Go for RVIs they're cool. You can also argue against them, I'm just a coach - if a particular AFF or NEG should be in the topic persuade me.

1AR Theory: Please have a more thought out shell if you do go this route. 5 sec shells tend to lead to new in the 2s like 99% of the time. But go for 1AR theory!

Speaker Points: So I evaluate speaks pretty systematically, speaking skills are important, but some are more naturally gifted in this aspect than others so it's not the end all be all for me.

30: You should win this tournament.

29.9-29.5: You killed it, I probably signed my ballot immediately following the round. Round was clear.

29.4-29: You won, but it wasn't obvious.

28.9-28.5: Messier but I knew how to give you the ballot.

28.4-28: You may or may not have won, the round was messy and hard to evaluate.

27.9-27: Really messy and there's no clear picture for me to give you the ballot.

26.9-26: I wanted to cry watching this, or you're probably new here.

25: Reprehensible, you were a complete jerk in the round.

Earl Warren '19

UT Austin '23

Email: morgan.tucker02@gmail.com

I primarily competed in Congress primarily but also did LD, DX, and IX.

Overall, I'm cool with just about anything. Do what YOU want, but do it well.

Congress Paradigms

Please engage in clash if you're past the 3rd speaker. i mostly give 4-6 rankings for speeches. i'll normally rank the PO 4-8 if they didn't mess up big time.

LD and PF

- don't be mean.

'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework, meta-weighing, kritiks, plans, cps, disads, and (kinda) theory. trix are bad but I am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.

Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through, then, it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extend what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.

Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two arguments, then I will default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing, I will be forced to make the decision on my own.

Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow, but keep in mind that I have never been the best at flowing. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' three times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down.

Team cases are the worst, I prob won't be very happy to hear and judge a case that I have heard before and will likely give lower speaks. Team cases ruin the integrity of debate and make me sad :( -- The purpose of debate isn't to win, it is to develop yourself and your cognitive reasoning. Case writing and research is essential to that.

Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.

I competed in public forum and extemp, and occasionally congress, for three years in high school. I've judged tournaments both online and in-person and am familiar with the format both ways.

Public Forum

I am fine with most types of arguments and will flow them in round. State an off-time road map outlining your speech prior to reading it.

I am not flowing/voting off of crossfire, but rather listening for knowledge of your own case and ability to ask questions to minimize confusion in round (clarification, contradictions in evidence, etc). Note that crossfire is not the time to continue an argument, but rather to ask and answer.

I am great with any speed. I flow contentions, impacts, extensions, statistics, and weighing of the round. Make sure you have a warrant and extend your impacts throughout the round. Know when to drop certain aspects of the round, and hit hard on why your team wins by weighing in final focus (mag, prob, time, etc).

Theory is fine, but if competing against novices, think twice about its usefulness before bringing it up in round. Don't bring up new arguments in summary or final focus (general rule), especially if there's no direct connection to any of the arguments carried throughout the debate. Use prep time if you're going to ask for multiple cards in round.

LD

I did not debate LD in high school and have only judged rounds. Explain technical lingo when using it and I will judge similarly based off PF. I will also look at how your framework fits your case and encourage clash with your opponent.

Send cases to dishadots@gmail.com.

I am a parent judge, please do not go fast, speaker points will be determined by fluency and clarity. Make sure your arguments are logical. Have a concise and effective conclusion. Make sure you weigh. Be kind and respectful to your opponents. I will not disclose, please refer to the ballot for critiques. Time yourselves. Have fun!

Hi! I’m Georgia, I’m a junior at St. Edward’s University in Austin. In high school I competed in mostly PF but also did info, oratory, extemp, CX, and world schools.

For the debate side, I would consider myself a tab judge. I’m fine with speed, counterplans, turns, etc. I also am fine with using more logical arguments than cards, as long as you utilize both. I’m more so looking for which side can uphold their own case while successfully hitting the other’s in a respectful way, as opposed to who has the most techy case.

For the speech side, I don’t have many paradigms other than to be respectful to others when they are performing, be engaging, and be thoughtful in what and how you are presenting.

Thank you!

Since I am an English teacher, I care about the organization of your speeches. If I have a hard time figuring out your argument, I will be more likely to dock speech points. I absolutely do not tolerate any discrimination in my rounds. I prefer hard facts that are relevant and up to date, and if you lie or exaggerate/understate your evidence, I will vote that down.