CX: Spreading is something I can handle but only to a certain extent. If I can't flow a point or evidence quickly enough due to too much speed however, I am going to consider that point or piece of evidence dropped. Emphasis on stock issues is vital. If you want to get outlandish i'll go in whatever direction the round moves, no theory or framework being too wild. 

Public Forum: Spreading isn't ideal here. Speak clearly and not too quickly. Outside of that i'll judge the round based on whatever framework is provided. If none is provided, I will be keeping close track of what points and pieces of evidence are carried from the beginning of your case through to the last rebuttal. 

Lincoln Douglas: Framework and impacts are entirely what i'll judge the round on. It doesn't matter how outlandish the framework or impact is, if you can prove a framework should run the round and provide impacts to back it up then you win my vote.

Ronald Carnes

I would consider myself a traditional-style LD judge. Argumentation on Value and Criterion: I will judge hard on those. The team that shows me the most substantial arguments will get my vote. I also seek the best speaker who gives me good eye contact, tone, etc.

For other events, the best speaker will typically get my vote as long as they follow the criteria for said event.

I did speech and debate all four years of high school and went to state. I have judged for local meets UIL speech and debate. As well as at the district and regional levels for LD, exempt, and poetry.

LD - I lean towards a more traditional LD Value/Criterion debate. I'll listen to progressive argumentation, but I feel that you'll have to do more work for me to go for it. I think voters are essential.

CLASH

Make sure you signpost arguments

Overall, I would rather you do you and I will flow it.

Hello!

My name is Andy Glenn and I am excited to judge your round. I have recently started judging and coaching debate but I have been evaluating speakers and mentoring since the early 2000s.

In a round, there are three simple rules for me.

1. Communicate, I will not draw conclusions on my own, make your connections clear in the speeches. I also value good speakers. If you are able to keep my attention and the attention of others in the round then that is key. Absolutely no spreading. This is NOT communicating.
2. As long as you have the facts to back your argument I will accept it. Don't make a claim without evidence. What type is up to you whether it be cards or analytical. If you make an "I Feel" argument or one backed up only by emotion then you have lost the round.
3. Have fun. It's a very select group of kids that enjoy and do what you do, so enjoy it and respect each other. I'm fine with having a good laugh in a round as long as it doesn't take away from the key parts.

In regards to politics, I am a pastor and lean politically to the right BUT, as I said before, as long as you back up your claims with evidence I have no issues.

If you have any questions or would like to add me to email chains it is

aglenn@ferrisisd.org

Blessings,

Andy Glenn

Ferris High School

Head Coach Speech and Debate

My background is in theater, and I am relatively new to forensics. Treat me like a lay judge, but know that I will be flowing and I am learning. I am an ASL Interpreter and work in public health. As such, accessibility is very important to me. I am not a fan of spreading or arguments that are ableist, racist or sexist (even if unintentional).

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round! Like I said before, I am still learning.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.

I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.

LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case

CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.

I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.

Contact info/email for docs: isabellagracelocicero@gmail.com

If there are any accessibility needs that you want before the round, let me or tab know so that I can ensure that your accommodations are followed.

I'm currently a CX debater for Baylor University, but used to compete for Tyler Junior College in Parliamentary, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and IPDA debate. I placed nationally in all of them for TJC in 2023. I debated for North Lamar in high school, where I competed in CX, extemp, congress, and occasionally interp.

For CX:

I'm very much tech over truth - this means that it is important to me that you maximize the amount of offense that you're putting on the flow.

I will evaluate any argument as long as it's not racist, sexist, trans/homophobic, etc.

Putting your analytics on the flow for me would be nice, but it is not required by any means. If you're not going to do that, slow down or at least "pop" your analytics.

I debated K and policy in high school.

For LD:

No tricks, please. If it isn't an actual argument, I can't evaluate it.

I'm fine with speed, K, theory, or the traditional criterion debate. Do what you do best and I will adapt.

I would prefer to have the evidence in front of me, so use speechdrop or email if you can.

For PF:

If you're going to run theory, please let there be an actual violation. If you want to critique the norms of the debate, that is a kritikal argument, not a theory argument.

Please use speechdrop or email to show me the evidence.

I will evaluate any argument that you put on the flow, but please generate clash. I've had so many debates where I'm scratching my head because there just isn't anywhere that you're actively debating on the flow.

For Extemp/Speaking Events:

Content is just as important to me as presentation, so make sure you have your sources and evidence.

In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized cards or speeches. I also value communication. If you talk too speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.

IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.

And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.

I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.

Good luck, all!

I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.

Analysis should be on topic, important, workable, & on-balance advantageous. Prefer conversational pace. Logic & reasoning are highly valued

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

If you need to reach out, my email is hunterparrish460@gmail.com. The order is going to be high school CX, college parli, high school LD, and high school PF. As I judge more things, the list will get longer. I did CX for four years in high school and parli for three years in college. In CX, my highest achievement was octafinalist at UIL state and in parli, my highest achievement is second in the nation.

High School CX

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make. It is your round and I am simply here to see how good you did.
2. Tech over truth.
3. I like to see teams that can collapse to their winning arguments. You should not be reading everything from the first constructive in the last constructive.
4. Please don't reread cards. I heard you the first time.
5. Framework is not negotiable. I need to know how you want me to vote. I need to know what impacts are the biggest. I need to know what to do, they did not tell me in tab room.
6. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments with what I think about them.

A. Policy affs - 5/5 - The bread and butter of being aff. I don't have too many notes on what I want or expect. At its core, I think you should be identifying a problem and how you fix it. Some framing about why your problem is really bad never hurts. Remember, as the aff, this is your only offense, and therefore, you should be protecting it like the precious baby it is.

B. K affs - 5/5 - Sometimes the topic is problematic and you don't want to be associated with the state. That's OK, you can be untopical. My only prerequisite question is why are you untopical? If you have a good answer for that, then your k aff is welcome and will be evaluated fairly. This doesn't mean I won't vote on T, so make sure you are ready to defend that answer to that previous question.

C. Disads - 3/5 - I have nothing against the disad, but it can't win alone. You either need to prove the aff can't solve, outweigh the aff, or solve the aff through a CP. The disad alone is like a ship in the night, and guess what, it is passing other ships. With that, I don't think any negative policy strat is complete without it, it is truly a filler for the ages.

D. CP - 4/5 - I don't have anything against the CP, but I never really read it. I went straight from defending the squo in high school to being a radical k reader in college. With that, I am willing to vote on the CP and have no hesitation doing so if it is competitive, solves the aff, and avoids net benefit offense. With that, net benefits can be a form of competition. In regard to all CP theory, check out what I have to say about theory.

E. Theory - 5/5 - I love theory debates because they alleviate crucial burnout by giving debaters and judges the ability to hear something other than the topic again. With that, however, a theory argument is like any other argument in the sense that it has parts that can't be ignored or neglected. Too many debaters think it's ok to simply say "this is abusive" and think they deserve the round. I need you to create an interpretation, show a violation, give standards to defend your interpretation and give voters for me to care. Without this, you're just wasting time you could use to read more disads.

F. Topicality - 4/5 - It's just a theory. I'm voting it lower, not because I'm less likely to vote on it, or even that it is bad. I simply see too many teams decide that they don't have to do the work of voters, and that being untopical is simply enough. It is not. If the affirmative is hypothetically solving all poverty, I don't care if they cheated in a debate round. I need you to make me care, by saying why education and fairness are actually super cool.

G. Kritik - 4/5 - I like the kritik. I think more people should read the kritik. With that, you have to know how to run a kritik and what your kritik is about. If you don't know the four parts AND you don't know at least the basic level of your kritik literature, don't do it. Otherwise, I'm really cool with the kritik.

College Parli

1. I am tab. I will vote on any argument you make, but warrant analysis is where these arguments should really be weighed.

2. Tech over truth.

3. Framework and collapsing to a win condition is not an option. I need to know how to vote and I need to know what a vote for either side actually means, not options for what it means.

4. I think I'm ok with speed. 7 or 8 out of 10.

5. I'm now going to go over the different kinds of arguments and what I think about them.

A. Policy affs 5/5 - I think policy affs are good. I don't have a lot of notes on them. Usually, framing in the PMC, be it impact framing or round framing, helps me know what the aff is supposed to be doing for me.

B. K affs 4/5 - Slight preference for policy, but I'll vote on them no doubt. I read them more than policy affs myself. I just think that in a world with a new topic each round, you have to have a good reason to read your k aff. If you don't have strong topic links or links to standard debate, then that TVA is going to be fire against you.

C. Disads 2/5 - I don't hate disads, but they are useless on their own. Case defense, impact framing, or a counterplan is required to make them work. I need to know the aff doesn't solve, your impacts are larger, or that you can solve the aff, otherwise I just have to pick the impacts I like.

D. Counterplans 5/5 - Really cool way to create advocacies with direct competition to the policy aff. Needs a net benefit.

E. Kritik 5/5 - Negative kritik is a great way to question the aff.

F. Theory 5/5 - Meta debate is fun and I feel comfortable analyzing it. Frivolous theories aren't great, but the staples (condo, be topical, multi-actor fiat, spec, etc.) make great debate when done right. Make sure you have standards and voters, they are not the same.

G. Topicality 3/5 - I don't dislike it, but in an event where only half the community reads the topic, someone who is getting there deserves some leeway.

6. Based on what I've been told in round, I will paradigmatically vote against any white debater who reads afropessimism. - Thanks Arjun!

For CX and LD:

I am primarily Stock and Policy. I.e. Framework, evidence, why this outweighs, clash, etc. I'm not a big fan of Kritics, but it's a case-by-case basis, and I'll still flow it. Give Voters!!

Seating isn't too important, but I prefer Aff on my Left, Neg on my Right. (Your Right and Left respectively as you're facing me.)

Speed-reading is okay as long as it isn't 1000wpm. If you do spread, at least slow down for taglines.

You can keep your own time if you'd like, but I will be timing as well, and my timer is final. My timer begins on your first word. For Prep Time, I will give 30 second intervals unless told otherwise. Be sure to tell me to "Cease prep time," otherwise it will continue to run.

Please ask "Judge/floor ready?" before you start, I may still be writing or getting my timer ready.

Framework/going down the flow is important, and sign-posting is much appreciated. If you jump back and forth from On/Off case, I may get lost and mistake your attacks for your defense and vice versa.

Off-time roadmaps are preferred, but not necessary.

I personally will not join your Speech Drops or take a copy, what I hear is what I write. This is so I'm not reading ahead of what you say, or adding in any cut portions. You can still share your speeches with your opponents if you'd like.

I'm not great at disclosures, but everything will be on the ballot and hopefully helpful to your learning experience.

For Extempt:

One person in the room at a time. Hand me your topic when you're ready.

The timer begins at your first word. Starting from 7m, I will start hand-signing at 5m-1m, give 30s (horizontal, extended index finger), 15s (half, horizontal, index finger), then hand-sign again from 5s-1s. For practice tournaments, a 10 second grace period past 7 minutes will be given, but you will not be in first place. I apologize ahead of time if I'm too engrossed in writing that I forget to hand-sign.

My scoring criteria is as follows, in order of importance:

Speech. Introduction (Attention grabber, topic, answer, preview of key points), Body (Key points with sources to back them), Conclusion (Restate topic, answer, closing statements.)

Body language and voice. Any or lack of: swaying, stepping into points, hand gestures, eye contact, stutters, changes in pitch, rate, pauses. Essentially, confidence. If a notecard is being used, are you reading it word for word, or are you just glancing at it?

Time. This isn't as important, because if the rest is done properly, a 2 minute speech could be better than a 7 minute jumble of words. Was each point given an adequate amount of time? Was it over the time limit?

I am a tab judge.

I will vote on whatever issues you want me to, but you have to tell me. I am fine with most arguments as long as they are well structured. I do not like K affs for policy rounds. Other than that I am fine with Ks and CPs as long as you structure them well and understand them. Speed is fine. If you have other questions just ask.

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I'm a stock issues judge (I know, don't hate me). I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (anna.m.rhea@gmail.com). I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must.

I do require debaters to give me voters and impact calculus. Good clean clash and arguments.

Rebuttals are very important.

I hate speed readers and spreading. You must articulate. You are learning how not only to be be great debaters but how to be the best public speakers possible. If I can't understand your point of view why on earth would I vote for your point of view.

Most important: Be respectful.

I am mainly a stock issues judge.  I will listen to and consider almost any argument, however, as long is it is presented clearly. I do not mind debaters speaking rapidly, but I must be able to understand what you are saying. 

i’d say i’m a tab judge, i’m fine with any args and spreading is fine as long as i can somewhat understand you. my main thing is to be polite!! i will not tolerate unnecessary rudeness and arrogance as there is too much of that in the debate space. my only other thing is i like to see direct clash between the args. don’t just spread cards at each other, i wanna see that you’re actively participating in the debate and you know what’s going on (even if you don’t really know lol). just have fun and be nice! and good luck!

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.