Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Former Head Coach McNeil HS

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC, UTNIF, U of H for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while, but am currently not coaching just judging.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and graduated in 2017. I am currently a full-time social worker, so I don’t judge as much as I used to, which means that my topic-specific knowledge isn’t super high this year.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky. If you want me to vote on it, I need to be able to track the argument from speech to speech.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

I have nearly two decades of judging experience, primarily on the UIL policy circuit. I am a policy maker judge and will look for the most pragmatic and real world situations in round.

It is the role of the negative to provide sufficient clash, and I'll vote on most issues in the round if you are believable and persuasive. Feel free to run any argument and make sure you provide impacts to weigh on the ballot.

I am okay with speed in the round but will signal to you if I am unable to flow. However, I am ultimately not concerned with the number of arguments in the round. I am looking for quality, depth of understanding, and educational clash. Make sure both teams are listening to arguments being ran in the round and respond accordingly.

Above all, be respectful to each other.

Disclosures: hensleyca@cfbisd.edu

Should Debaters use Rapid Delivery (spreading)?

No. I don’t like it. It isn’t good public speaking, and it certainly isn’t persuasive.

How Should Debaters Approach Constructive Speeches?

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually.

How Should Debaters Approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters Approach Evidence?

Citations after article introduction are preferred.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical, but a highly persuasive philosophical approach can potentially work just as well.

Kritik (K) arguments:

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support: as in every criticism needs at least one "For example" or at the very least a thorough clarification with a credible, referenced source.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. Avoid paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person’s style or flaws of method.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?

Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. This is especially important for Policy and World Schools: teams will lose points for whispering audibly during their opponents' speeches; learn to communicate with your teammates by writing!

I will value whatever I am told to value.

However I will default to T above all else, then Impacts.

No 'new in the 2'.

Make sure to signpost.

She/herI don't tolerate transphobia. If you have an issue with this, strike me.

Affiliation:

Debater: Wylie HS '18, Rutgers-Newark '18-20

Coaching: Technology HS '19-20, Dallas Highland Park CB '23 - Present

Contact: landrum.alex42@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

TL;DR

"When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously

Do what you want. I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things"

-Michael Antonucci

Don't be a bigot, you'll lose. If both teams are bigots, I'll flip a coin

I'm skeptical of the utility of these things at the HS level since it seems that no one listens to them beyond "yes I am ok if you read a Kritik". But here we are

I will do my best to evaluate the round exactly as presented to me while leaving my personal opinions about arguments and ideas out of the RFD. However, for those of you who want to know, I do have some specific thoughts on certain matters. This is not to say that you should take my paradigm as gospel though. I try to keep an open mind and will listen to most arguments and strategies. So you do you. There's a reason I continue to edit this page.

I've run everything from politics to afropess. My preference when I debate leans heavily critical, but I've run and judged strict policy strats too. I can judge whatever you want to throw at me and despite my personal argument choices, I am just as happy to judge a good DA/CP as I am to judge a K v. K debate. I’d rather you do what you’re good at.

I may ask to see evidence after the round if it is a legitimate point of tension in the round but other than that if I have to look at the evidence to evaluate the debate you're most likely making me do too much work.

***Full Paradigm***

K affs/nontraditional affs- Affs should probably defend something, although my interpretation of "something" is flexible. I'm good for these affs but the explanation of these arguments is important since I'm probably not as well-read in your literature as you. Assume I don't know what you're talking about. Because even if I do I still need to parse out the specifics at 400 wmp.

In all the time I've spent debating/judging/coaching K affs I’ve come to believe that most of them don’t actually do anything. I think that your aff should be doing SOMETHING. Explaining a theory of power and how it links to the res is not an aff. Presenting pure structural critiques of the res is not an aff. Your aff should do something but my leniency for what this something that your aff does is fairly high.

K - I mostly debate the K, but that means I generally have a higher threshold to vote on it. My biggest deciding factors in the majority of K debates are the Link and framing debate. You should have links engaging the actual implications of the 1AC (more than a state link). The more specified and contextualized your link work is the more heavily I will weigh it. Impact out your links. If the only impact work I'm looking at out of the 2NR is your 1NC impact evidence then you've probably not done enough work. I'm also not a good judge for ROB-type arguments. I find it hard to be convinced by them since they are almost always self-serving and usually read more as just "vote for me" than actually giving me any kind of directive for how to evaluate the round.

Solidify your plan before the 2nr. If your plan is to go for the floating PIK, utopian fiat, kick the alt, whatever. Set that up in the block. If your opponent is surprised by it in the 2AR, I am also usually surprised by it. I am in general a good judge for these kinds of spins but I am prone to protect the 2AR if these are not properly set up beforehand.

Don't ever assume that I know what you're talking about. I’m reasonably up in the lit on afropess, queer theory, Marx/cap. Anything else I have not spent extensive time understanding. Regardless, you should debate in a way that ensures EVERYONE in the room understands what you’re saying.

"Assume I don't know what you're talking about. Because even if I do I still need to parse out the specifics at 400 wmp"

On the cap K. I have always said I will listen to just about any argument and vote on almost anything that is well-argued. An amendment to that is in order though. I will still vote on Cap-Good arguments if they are won totally outright but I will think you sound EXTREMELY silly and have a very high threshold for being convinced this is true :/

DA - Make SMART disads. explain the internal link story. The more specific to the aff the better. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. Line by line. Analytics. Ev comparison. DA 2nrs almost always sound ridiculous because they devolve into two ships passing in the night. Both have evidence that says different things. And neither makes an effort to convince me which one is correct beyond simply asserting that you're right and your opponent is wrong. Meaning I feel I am often forced to intervene in these decisions and without some very serious work on the case flow, I err towards aff. Give me warranted reasons to prefer your explanation of the status quo. Do that work for me.

CP - CPs have the potential to be cool. Make smart cps. specific net benefits and concrete competition.

T - I have to admit, I like a good T/FW debate but there are a lot of mistakes made on both sides that make this kind of debate difficult. The Aff usually forgets to extend their aff but odds are the 2NR will forget to extend a terminal impact anyway. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise

Also, I do not believe debate is LARP of roleplaying. You're lying if you think we're RPing in round. I play dnd, LARP, etc. I know what RP and LARP are. Debate is 100%, not that. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it but you're fighting an uphill battle to convince me that this is true.

Case - Case debate is underutilized. I think most affs are bad. Not to say you shouldn't ever flip aff, or I will never vote aff. I just think that affs always have some sort of fundamental contradiction/fallacy etc. that is inevitable in an event where we simulate or engage in praxis. Neg teams need to exploit that on the case page, and aff teams need to be ready to answer larger questions of solvency.

Theory - I actually really like a good theory debate. I think one of the most interesting things about debate, is your ability to debate debate. However, I hold a high threshold to vote on it in the 2NR/2AR. You HAVE to extend terminal impact calculus though (which means shells like disclosure theory AND SKEP are rarely ever voters in my eyes).

LD SPECIFIC - I don’t like frivolous theory, I will likely never vote on it because I don’t think it has an impact or a point other than a “gotcha” in debates. You can try to prove me wrong if you wish. I’ve said I’m always open to changing my mind and you should absolutely read what you’re best at. This is a PSA though

UPDATE TO LD THEORY - I really think LD frivolous theory is dumb. Starting the 1AC with a laundry list of random blippy spikes etc. is not where I ever see myself voting. If you read 8 spikes at the top of the AC, none of them are ever well warranted, and certainly not impacted out well. I fail to see the utility in these, and they are not

Random thoughts

I am a nerd. I like puns and sci-fi/fantasy references.

Speed is cool. Clarity is cooler. If I can't understand your tags/analytics/line-by-line I have no way of flowing it

Once I've signed the ballot the round is over. No returns or refunds. DO ask me informational questions about the RFD. If you disagree with the decision, ask about it. I'm more than happy to explain my thought process but DON'T argue with the decision. If it's a paper ballot I'll just start taking off speaks

Long overviews are OK. The same way I look at speed applies here. If I can't understand you, or your overview is a total mess I won't be able to evaluate it to its full potential.

I try not to read evidence. However, I will if I feel it is absolutely necessary to resolve the round. I will default to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence unless otherwise contested.

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

dmarshall36@gmail.com

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."


i love debate.


tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.


whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.


keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.


ihate"perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get a 30 and 29.9 by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.


im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.


im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.


i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.


please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.


High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.


PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.


im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.


here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up."

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.

T

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

I am timing, my time is the time. You should still time yourself. I do not give signals during speeches, CX, or prep.

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

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

During my high school career I competed in CX Debate, PFD, Extemporaneous Speaking, Student Congress, Poetry Interpretation, Original Oratory, One Act Play, and a handful of writing events, with both State and National appearances and rankings. During high school and the year after, I assisted with workshops and judging (also judged in LD Debate). Additionally, I was top speaker in college at Model Organization of American States--Political and Juridical Committee 2008. After nearly 15 years of being out of the game, I've recently re-entered the circuit as a judge again. As such, there is a component of brushing off cobwebs.

As a judge, I am fairly open to most all arguments and positions, as long as it can be properly explained/linked. I don't particularly like spreading, purely because I wasn't exposed to it too much while in school, however, I can follow it as long as it isn't too excessive. If you spread, please slow down on tags/linking arguments. If you see me set my pen to the side of my paper, and watch you speak instead of writing, it means I can't follow and you may want to slow down. 

I'm a big fan of roadmaps prior to beginning of speeches and will never count a clear roadmap as part of your speech time. On that note, I'm a big proponent of using all your time, in all areas. Make use of your full speech times, CX periods, and prep time--all should serve to make the round as full and educational as possible. 

Please be courteous within rounds. I don't have a high tolerance for rude comments or personal attacks that aren't relevant to the subject matter, and will reflect in speaker points. You can be firm, even performative, but not rude. 

I'm not hugely familiar with CPs, and Ks, but have no problem with them being run--just be sure you have a well structured argument and can sufficiently link them within the round/rebut them clearly. 

I understand now that laptops are able to be used in rounds and that access to evidence is nearly unlimited, however I value the ability to make and link clear arguments. It is apparent when evidence is read, but not understood by the speaker. If you're making use of your laptop and the evidence within, be sure you can freely link the evidence to the appropriate argument. 

More than anything, I want to enjoy the round and hopefully come out of it having learned something. I enjoy the game of debate and like a wide variety of approaches. Have fun and be courteous and don't forget, you're speaking to the judge--guide me through the round and try not to leave arguments to me to make a judgement call on. 

POLICY: I care about the stock issues. If done well, and related directly to the Aff. case, then I will accept Neg. Kritiks and counter-plans (CPs are expected in most arguments). If you spread incomprehensibly, you will lose points. Do not use theory based or alternate world cases. I will not allow open CX. Also, answering, "my partner will answer that" is not an acceptable response--know your case. Your analysis should be supported by “tangible” evidence. Substance is more important than quantity, and fallacies in your argument will cost points. No new in the 2!

LD: I am a traditional value/criterion judge. No value, no criterion, no good. If you mention a plan, solvency, start spreading, etc... you will lose the round. No new in the 2.

EVERYONE: Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.

Jimmy Smith has over 45 years of coaching and is a 5 Diamond Key along with a very proud member of the NSDA Hall of Fame. Over the 45 years he has been honored to 9 students on the Final Stage with one National Champion. After retiring in 2017 Jimmy re-entered the classroom because to quote him, "this isn't work, it's fun"

Hello! My name is Thomas Thompson but you can call me Tommy if you would like.

E-mail: thompsondebate22@gmail.com

As a judge I don't just want to tell you what's wrong, I also want to tell you how to improve as a debater. I've put my email in my paradigm because I feel passionate about debate and want it to grow for generations to come. Don't be afraid to send me a message and ask questions! I want to help you as much as I can. 

I have competed in LD, CX, BQ, Extempt, and Congress.

I've also qualified for the National Tournament in International Exempt, and Congress, the UIL State tournament for Policy (2x) and Congress, as well as TFA State in Policy.

Two things I do not tolerate across the board are racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or any other discriminatory language or action in the round. I also do not suggest giving up during a round/forfeiting. I've judged so many rounds where teams believe they've already lost and just give up hope, even though they could have come back and won the round with just a little extra work. 

THIS ASIDE! I will not, and should not have to tell you what to do in the round. I will listen to anything, however, this does not mean I won't consider a truly bad argument as bad. It is up to the opposing team to tell me that the argument is bad, and not just assume I already understand that. Tell me explicitly. 

LD/PF Paradigm:

I love LD debate for its philosophical aspect. I'll vote for whoever is the best debater in the round. I'm not doing the work of deciding a winner for you. That's your job as a competitor.

I enjoy impact calculus and voters during a round.

Kritiks- I'm fine with k debate. I don't have a full lexicon of all the languages but I am very familiar with many. Still, ask me before the round.

Spreading is fine but if it's just gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.

CX Paradigm

Do whatever you want. I'll vote on anything if you keep up with it through the round and prove the point best.

K- I enjoy K debate, I myself enjoy running kritiks.

I enjoy and actually would prefer to hear impact calculus and voters in policy. Not required but highly recommended.

Spreading is absolutely fine but again if it's gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.

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.