Hi everyone! I'm Emma (they/them)

I'm a freshman debater at UNT and have competed in ld, cx, and pf in high school, and currently compete in NFA LD.

yes, I would like to be on the email chain- emmajean1904@gmail.com

every type of argument is perfectly fine, just go in depth on the k and tell me why I should really care about this in terms of debate.

T- MAKE SURE YOUR T IS ACTUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT HAND, a t that doesn't link is a t that I will never vote on, please make sure theres a violation. but other than that I love t!

cp- these are fine as long as they are competitive

therory- most of these are fine but ones like "professional dress" or "no tie on" will not recieve any recignition on the ballot from me.

da- please make sure these link, and you EXPLAIN why they link

im good with any type of speed!! but please say actually words and dont just mumble

write the ballot for me, i do not want to sit there for 30 min just looking at my flow to decide the round

Hello!

I don't like spreading. Please speak with a clear voice so I can understand you, if not, I wont understand your speech.

Thank you:)

Guadalupe Blas 

email: guadalupeblas27@gmail.com

experience: varsity policy debate 2018-2021

2020-2021 HUDL CX Champion (with Angelina Martinez)

CX (Policy) Debate: For policy debate, I look for solid arguments on solvency, time frame, and magnitude. If a team can clearly diminish their opponent's case and extend their solvency, time frame, and magnitude, I will vote for them. Although I look for those three components to cast my vote, the majority of my vote goes on solvency and magnitude since there is no reason why we should favor one plan that starts effectively tomorrow but does absolutely nothing in regard to the resolution. I also vote on "dropped" arguments, for example, if a team mentions topicality or any Kritik at any moment but never mentions it again throughout the debate. If it was clearly diminished in the round, then I will not count it against them. I am okay with spreading, but if it's too fast, I will ask for you to slow down or add me to the email chain so I can keep up as well.

LD: For LD, I vote on their expansion and defense of their framework and morality. I believe that expanding why one's framework and morality should be valued over the other is an effective way for their contentions to hold more ground throughout the debate. Often debaters tend to be on the offensive, and throughout the debate, their case really loses touch. I also vote on the development of their arguments; since LD is shorter in time, the quality of the arguments must be exceptional. 

Hi! I have done policy for the majority of my highschool career and have dabbled in LD debate. If you're here for IEs, I do extemp, prose, oo, and have participated in duo.

General-

-I'm ok with spreading as long as you're coherent.

-I will dock speaks for rudeness.

-I don't flow cross but I do listen. I expect your questions to make sense with the round and future speeches.

-Just have fun! If you have questions feel free to ask. This is all about learning and I am all about making things as fun as possible!

Policy- I am a policymaker. For me, impacts make the round and that what my decision will often come down to.

T- I like a topicality IF IT'S DEBATABLE. Don't throw one in as a time waste. I would much rather see another DA or K that brings meaning to the debate that a time waste T.

K and Theory- This need full, in-depth analysis and if there isn't any, I won't count it in my rank decision. (However, if an aff doesn't fully answer and the K makes sense I will vote neg.) It's the same with theory. I expect you to fully understand what you're saying, not just a time waste.

CP and DA- Again, impacts make the round. If a CP is brought into the round, I expect analysis on what plan is best. If a DA is with it and the link takes out the CP, I won't see the CP as something to vote on.

LD- I prefer a more traditional style, however if you don't do trat it won't be held against you. For trat, though, it all comes down to impacts analysis for me. If your value and crit don't have contentions that align than there's no reason to vote for you.

IEs- I am pretty chill with individual events but there are somethings I will automatically score you lower for. For example: no book tech, unnecessary use of swearing, if you're in extemp or platform then unnecessary walking/ pacing. Pretty much just technical things needed in an event. I don't mark down for stumbling or stuttering (everyone gets nervous). However, how you act in round towards opponents is seen. I expect when someone is performing that everyone in the room is respectful.

(If you are an unfortunate soul that for some reason has me for PF, good luck to us both.)

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Who is this weirdo?

Hi, I'm Anderson! This is my third year debating for Northland Christian School in Houston and I'm a junior. I am a pretty mid national circuit LD debater, and I've done a lot of traditional and progressive LD. I have one career bid round, qualed to TFA State as a sophomore and junior and reached doubles junior year. I have qualed to NSDA Nats 2x in LD and once in extemp. I also made NSDA East Texas in world schools debate.

LD Paradigm

Judging Principles

Tech>Truth to the highest extent ethically possible- judge intervention is inevitable but horrible meaning that my goal as a judge is to give an RFD that minimizes it as much as possible. I hate ideological dogmatism and will eval any arg with these exceptions: 1] If the argument doesn't have a clear claim, COMPLETE warrant, and implication when it is introduced and extended 2] If it makes the debate space unsafe (racism, sexism, etc.) 3] If it is something that asks me to change the LD debate format (6-3-7-3-4-6-3) 4] Callouts - not my jurisdiction to evaluate the actions of a debater that I do not know outside of the round.

Be a bigot and you will be the loser of the round.

I want the doc - email is anderson_hendrix@northlandchristian.org but speechdrop >>>

The state of clarity in LD is nothing short of atrocious. You will want to slow down slightly in front of me. If my writing can't keep up with you, I will certainly not backflow for you. Slow down on analytics, card texts, interp texts, CP texts, etc. Please don't blaze through a 10-point analytic extremely quickly without slowing down, otherwise you won't be happy with your speaks.

Be kind to novices - Do what you need to do to win, but please be reasonable and not intentionally mean. The higher your kindness, the higher your speaks will be.

I am not the type of judge for "this arg isn't specific/is dumb, reject it"- While I obviously enjoy strategies that are tailored specifically to the aff, I also really appreciate generics and they can be very strategic when debated well. I don't share the beliefs of judges that put less weight on generics such as spark, wipeout, process CPs, skepticism, truth testing, SPEC shells, burdens etc. The ppl that label these arguments as "stupid" or "illegitimate" are the worst at answering them.

"Embedded clash" is a no go -please label to me what arguments you are responding to on the flow, in the order that your opponent made them. Long overviews that secretly "answer" arguments will cause me to miss it - prioritize the line by line debate or you won't like my decision.

Open to postrounding as long as you are kind, it increases judging quality, as debaters we should be able to defend our decision (won't be able to change it tho).

Here's my junior year wiki for reference. If all of my yapping isn't enough, I probably agree with Jack Quisenberry, Lilly Broussard, and Jake McCathran on almost everything.

Shortcuts (based off of how comfortable I am with judging them):

Trad - 1 (If you don't want to debate progressive arguments, I would pref me lower bc u will likely go against circuit args)

Policy - 1

Theory - 1

Topicality - 2

Phil - 3 (Util v Phil - 1)

Tricks - 3

K - 4 (cap and setcol are 3, pomo is a strike)

Thought Dump (warning: it's a lot)

NOTE: These are only my thoughts on certain arguments. These are just argumentative preferences that can be overcome by good debating. It's just a blueprint to help you understand how I think about debate.

TRAD DEBATE ---

I am confident with the intricacies of traditional LD and debate it all the time, but am disappointed with it's current state in the debate community.

I will evaluate every traditional debate and ask myself three questions when making a decision. First is framework - I will analyze who is winning the value/criterion and frame all offense through the criterion that is won. Second is offense - I will look at the contention layer in the debate and decide which piece of offense is the most important under the specific framework won. This is where most of my decisions end. Third is speaking - I will only adjudicate the speaking ability of the competitors in the round if there is no offense to vote on or if the round is irresolvable - you shouldn't have to worry about this as long as you extend offense and win the framework debate.

Value/criterion debate is arbitrary. Usually, the debates just boil down to two separate framework debates that don't interact with each other, making the debate difficult to resolve. I suggest either reading one framing mechanism or explaining the connection between the value and criterion.

Saying that the other side's case "doesn't uphold their value/criterion" won't get me to automatically vote for you. You need to explain why your criterion is preferable to theirs and why your offense comes first under YOUR criterion - this is offense that helps you win debates.

Framework isn't a voter. You won't automatically win the round on framework, you MUST extend offense.

If your opponent has the same framework as you, spend more time reading offense and explaining why it matters more under your framework, you shouldn't waste time reading the same framework. Things like "Maximizing well-being" and "minimizing suffering" are the same thing.

The material implications of a resolution probably do have a place in LD, and it will be hard to convince me otherwise.

THEORY---

There is no such thing as "frivolous" theory, the entire point of a theory debate is to determine if the shell is frivolous. I won't "gut check" shells just because I think or you think they are silly. If you think it is a bad shell, you should able to beat it back.

Theory defaults are DTD, CI, No RVIs, text over spirit, and norm setting model, changed with one warrant though.

Theory shells that don't read a voter (fairness, education, etc.) don't have an impact and likely will be disregarded.

Highly technical theory debates that involve lots of critical thinking are the best.

Reasonability is so underrated. Winning it makes winning the theory debate a lot easier. Brightlines for reasonability are confusing to me, I don't think you need a separate brightline for reasonability bc the brightline should just be the counterinterp???

RVIs are probably an uphill battle to win in front of me. I think it's strange that a debater should win on a random counterstandard because the other debater isn't directly violating a shell, especially if the debater who introduced the shell kicked it? However, if you win it, I will definitely still vote on it.

People should utilize in round abuse model/norm setting model more. Winning theory as a norm setting model means I think about the shell in terms of models of debate. Winning an in round abuse model literally frames out any parts of the shell that the debater who violates the shell didn't commit.

I believe disclosure is good. I read anything in my career from disclose round reports to contact info. However, I will not be happy if you read it against someone who clearly doesn't know what it is or have access to the wiki. Sure, you probably will get the ballot, but don't expect high speaks.

I think that reading evidence ethics as a shell is much better than staking the round. If you decide you do a challenge, I will instantly end the round and there are no takebacks. Winner of the challenge gets the W, loser gets the L.

TOPICALITY---

I also really enjoy a good T debate. Every 1NC of mine has at least one T shell these days.

Some T debates confuse me. People seem to have a debate on the definition layer, and then have a separate debate on the interp/counterinterp layer. I think rebuttals should do weighing and explain the connection between definitions + offense while explaining what arguments come first.

Judge instruction PLEASE. If you are winning your definition, tell me why that matters. If you are winning a limits standard, tell me why I am still voting for you, even if the aff wins their PICs DA.

Caselists are ideal, especially if you are reading a ground standard.

Nebel T confuses me, probably because I am not that smart. I'm sure Nebel is awesome, but I think that reading regular T-Can't Spec or T-Subsets is more persuasive then using cards from a debate blog. It's not that I won't evaluate it, but your bare plurals explanation has to be coherent for me to vote on it.

Having multiple counterinterps on a singular shell doesn't make much sense to me. I think definitions should be used to support one counterinterp against a T shell.

Keep in mind that I evaluate topicality more like LD theory, I probably don't think about it the same as policy debate.

POLICY---

This is definitely what I read most. I'm pretty much cool with anything in this category, and I will give really high speaks for high quality policy v policy debates.

PLEASE do lots of impact calc and judge instruction - pretty much who does a better job of this in these debates wins. Every 2NR going for the DA should have analysis such as "DA turns case" + "DA ows case" etc. 2NRs on the CP should do risk analysis.

Breadth>depth 1NC policy strategies are my absolute favorite. I regularly read 5+ offs of policy, and good 1NC construction can make each argument a viable 2NR in round.

2NRs/2ARs that collapse to the straight turn are FIRE, and speaks will be exceptional if this is executed successfully.

Link specificity and evidence quality definitely improve your chances, but evidence comparison and the way evidence is framed within the debate round matters more.

Cheaty CPs (delay, consult, etc.) are a double edged sword. Substantively, they are really strategic and can easily steal parts of the aff. On the other hand, it likely makes you more vulnerable to a theory argument.

Textual competition is kind of fake tbh, I think you need to explain why advocacies such as Word PIKs provide an opportunity cost to the aff.

People should make more theoretical arguments about competition, make the PDCP about models of debate rather than a singular definition. Explain why basing mutual exclusivity on immediacy + certainty is a bad model of debate.

Default to no judgekick, you should tell me to judgekick, I might forget otherwise.

Case debate is underutilized. Read defense, read turns, do something. Not only does it give you more viable 2nrs, but it also gives the aff more things to respond to.

I love impact turns. 7 minutes of impact turns is a FIRE strat. I will vote on the more controversial impact turns, including SPARK and wipeout, barring racism/sexism/etc good.

Soft left affs are cool, my career has been spent mainly reading hard right policy positions, but I have read soft left affirmatives here and there. I think 1ACs should have strong framing arguments that explain why you prefer structural violence impacts and reject extinction arguments.

The best 2AR to the K in my opinion is almost always framework + case OWs + defense to impact and/or ontology.

PHIL---

I enjoy these arguments and find them very interesting, but I am not experienced.

I have a basic understanding of fws such as Util, SV, Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, Contracts, Levinas, Polls, I-Law, Constructivism, Pragmatism, and Determinism. Please explain anything else very clearly.

Probably bad for straight refs debates if it isn't util, but doing impact calc that explains how you weigh offense will decrease your chances of me being confused.

PLEASE go for turns on phil contentions more - no one does debates on the contention layer in phil rds which makes me sad. I would love to see someone concede to their fw and go for the offense debate if its dropped or undercovered.

Process CPs when ran against phil affs are complicated. "Solving the case better" might matter under the aff framework, but most net benefits of CPs are consequentialist. I am not ideologically biased towards one side of this debate, so I will probably vote for who is doing the better judge instruction.

I don't see how epistemic modesty is viable without framing it in that specific round and doing lots of weighing/risk analysis.

Good for util vs phil debates. Have been on both sides of this debate and really enjoy these when they are executed well. I am a big fan of calc indicts and TJFs.

Fill in a little more gaps for me if both frameworks in the round aren't consequentialist.

TRICKS---

Apparently I am known as a tricks debater on the circuit now??

Fine with them as long as they have warrants - won't pull the trigger on them if the warrant isn't complete.

Don't love one line blips that are in huge blocks of text - persuaded by ableism ivis

The Truth Testing NC is highkey fire - even if it's solely read as a time suck.

Most paradoxes are bidirectional and should lose to a "non-unique, also applies to their side" argument.

Lots of tricks just have zero implication on the round whatsoever when they are read, new implications in later speeches justify new responses to those implications.

I don't know very many aprioris, so good explanation is key - I am perfectly comfortable giving an "I don't get it" rfd - if I can't explain it back, I won't vote on it.

PLEASE don't overdo it - I don't want to see a 120 point underview and would like if the aff had something other than tricks?

You probably won't be able to explain trivialism to the point where I am going to understand it.

K---

Iffy judge for this at best. I have struggled with these arguments throughout my career and won't able to adjudicate these debates well. I have a VERY surface-level understanding of cap, setcol, security, and wilderson, but I pretty much never read kritikal literature.

I know Ks aren't CPs, but if you are going for the alt, your best bet is to explain the alt to me like a CP. Explain why it solves the links of the k, why it solves/turns the case, what it looks like etc.

Independent analytical links and links that quote lines from the 1ac are super strategic.

K 2NRs usually have too much embedded clash, which can be difficult to follow. Debating in a very line by line structure increases your chances of me knowing what's going on.

I will weep mid speech if you introduce brand new framing args (ROTB, Framing interpretations, etc.) in the 2NR.

K Affs---

I just read T-FWK and PIKs against these so I don't know much about them. Please explain what the advocacy does and why it's important, otherwise I will be extremely persuaded by a 2NR presumption push.

Non-T affs should have ballot key warrants and explain why debating the topic is bad.

I personally believe that affs should be tied to the topic in at least some capacity?

T-Framework---

I want to say that I will be 50-50, and I will try my best to do that, but I realistically lean more towards framework, because I have really only debated on this side.However, I will attempt to put dispositions behind me when evaluating these debates.

I think fairness and skills 2NRs are equally viable. You just go for what you are good at and what is best given the 1AR.

The best framework shells diversify their offense by linking it to different impacts and warrant why each impact is important.

2NRs going for T are probably screwed if they concede case/TOP.

I would be impressed if you could get me to vote on "fairness is just an internal link".

If you are answering T-FWK, please just explain it to me and why it ows the neg arguments. Defense against standards is also important to me. You'll wanna explain your arguments to me like I am a preschooler, because I am not at all familiar. I'm probably missing a lot of things so just ask me.

Speaks!

My range of speaks that I give is from 26-30, and I start from a 28.5 and move up or down for there. I give speaks based on clarity, strategy, execution, and critical thinking (not reading off a doc for 13 mins). My speaks scale is like this:

30 - Omg I'm inspired, winning the TOC

29.4-29.9 - Fantastic debater, will reach mid to late elims

29-29.3 - Did a great job, early elims

28.5-28.9 - Did good, Bubble round

28-28.4 - Getting up there, possibly bubble round

27-27.9 - Can be improvements to your strat, but you have potential.

26-26.9 - Probably not ready for the event/division

Lowest speaks I can give - isms/phobias/ev ethics/clipping/stuff of that sort

Additionally, sitting down early/using less prep time will be rewarded with higher speaks, you have to win the round for this to apply though.

email chain/questions: samiah517@gmail.com

I did PF and LD at the Woodlands High School for 4 years. I am currently a college student who judges fairly frequently. Essentially I am a flow judge. Please follow TFA rules.

Some notes:

-generally, I am ok with some speed but make sure you have really good clarity of you are going to spread

-please don't be rude to your opponent, I will dock speaks for rudeness

-I don't flow cross examination at all so keep that in mind

- I value well-warranted evidence

-impacts are important

- I value clear link chains

-weighing in the final speech is really important

-have fun! I'm chill so if you need to ask any questions or anything feel free to do so

I've been a part of the activity for a little over a decade now and have judged pretty much everywhere. I'll briefly summarize how my thought process breaks down when I'm judging debates so that you have a pretty straightforward route to the ballot.

Framework

I always start by asking what we use to frame the debate (aka Framework). I'm pretty liberal in terms of my views on Frameworks that are acceptable in debates and will typically allow debaters to tell me what framing matters in each debate. The only exception of intervention would be frameworks that I personally find morally reprehensible (basically if your framework would advocate the removal/elimination/discrimination/otherization of groups/subjects I'm not going to be for it). I think a framework can take many forms and I am open to whatever that form takes. It can be theory args, Phil framing, Role of the Ballots, Larping, etc. As long as you can explain why your framing is the one that should be used to evaluate/weigh offense then I will accept it as my primary determination of offense.

After Framework, I look at the case or your Offense when evaluating my decision. I try to keep my biases out of debate but, admittedly, there are some arguments I am fond of and others that I'm skeptical of (this doesn't mean I will automatically vote for you if you read what I like or vice versa, it just means you might have some degree of difficulty or ease in convincing me to buy your f/w and arguments). I'll just make a list of what I like and dislike here and my reasoning for each one so you can see what arguments you want to go for:

Phil Positions: I'm pretty neutral to these positions and will accept nearly all of these arguments. I read a little bit of some Phil positions and have had students read authors such as Kant so I'm not too unfamiliar with the positions. I will certainly judge and accept these arguments as long as they are well-defended and easily explained. I have a fairly moderate threshold to responses towards these arguments and expect debaters to clash with the analysis and foundations of the arguments rather than just reading blocks of evidence and not making a good comparative analysis.

Ks: Admittedly, my favorite position. I love any argument that challenges any underlying assumptions being made by either the debaters or the topic. And I enjoy these arguments b/c I believe that they provide a level of argumentative flexibility and uniqueness to the positions. That said, I am not a fan of lazy K debate and will be able to pretty easily sniff out if you are reading arguments that you have no underlying understanding of (aka reading policy backfiles) vs. actually knowing the literature base. You should always make sure you explain the arguments effectively and why your position would resolve whatever harm you are Kritiking. Do that and you should be in good shape.

I also am a fan of performative responses to other arguments made in the debate. For example, using the K to clash with theory and claiming K comes prior is an argument that I enjoy seeing and have voted on more times than not, if it has been well explained and defended. This will be a good way to get extra speaker points.

Larping: I have a policy background so I am fine with people reading policy args in debate. Plans, CPs, DAs. I'm familiar with and can understand them. I'm not a huge believer that PICs are legitimate arguments and do have a fairly low threshold to answer these arguments. Just make sure to explain your internal links and your impact analysis and you should be good.

Theory: I believe that education is the internal link to fairness. That doesn't mean that you can't win otherwise, but I am biased in believing that the educational output of the activity is more relevant than the fairness created in the activity. That being said, I will evaluate theory and weigh it under whatever voters you make. My threshold on the responses to shells will flip depending on the interp. If the interp is clearly a time suck and designed to simply throw off your opponent or abuse them then I have a fairly low threshold for answers towards it. If it is a legitimate concern (Pics bad, Condo) then I have a fairly middle ground towards responses to it.

I default on reasonability unless specified otherwise in the debate.

I default RVI's unless specified otherwise and not for T (unless you win it)

Some other random items that you might be looking for:

Extensions

I need impacts to extensions and need extensions throughout the debate. For the Aff, this is as simple as just giving an overview with some card names and impacts.

When you are extending on the line by line be sure to tell me why the extension matters in the debate so I know why it's relevant

Speed

I am fine with speed in debate. I would prefer that both debaters understand each other and would ask that you spread within reason and be compassionate towards your opponents. If you know that you are debating someone that cannot understand the spread and you continue to do it bc you are going to outspread your opponent then you will most likely win, but your speaks will be absolutely nuked.

Tricks

Tricky args like permissibility and the args that fall under these, I'm not a fan of. I think that these args are fairly lazy and don't believe that there is much educational value to them so I tend to have a low threshold to responses towards these args. And, if you win, you're not going to get great speaks from me.

Speaks

I give speaks based on strategic decisions and interactions with your opponents as opposed to presentation and oratory skills. I usually average a 28.5

Disclosure

If you're at a local tournament, I don't expect there to be disclosure from debaters and don't really care too much about disclosure theory. My threshold is really low to respond to it. If it's a national circuit or state tournament, then I would prefer you disclose but will always be open to a debate on it.

I do not disclose speaks but will disclose results at bid tournaments. I will not disclose for prelim locals, for the sake of time.

Email for chain is: jacob.koshak@cfisd.net

Individual Events:

Judging will be based on the overall performance of your piece, not the topic of your piece. Concerning performance, a clear speaking voice and distinct characterizations through body language and/or voice changes are essential. Concerning original works, a well-written piece is essential in addition to performance techniques. At a minimum I look for an introduction with a good, relevant hook, a clearly formed body with distinct points of discussion that uniquely support your introduction, and a conclusion that loops back to your introduction. I also llok for limited repetition and audience engagement.

email: jake_mccathran@northlandchristian.org

hi i'm jake (he/him) and i'm a third year debater at northland christian school who does mainly ld. contact me before round if you have any questions

LD:

basically just debate how you want, i will evaluate any arguments with warrants. i'm more of a tech over truth judge, but please extend your arguments, even if your opponent drops them, or i will not flow them. weigh your offense, i don't care how many arguments you're winning in the round, it means nothing to me if you don't weigh. in terms of framework, explain why you winning framework matters, if it means the opponent has no offense, explain to me why. too many times i see debates over framework that have no impact on the round whatsoever. i have my progressive related paradigm at the bottom but before you even consider it, please make sure your opponent is ok with it, if you spread against someone who is inexperienced, your speaks will be tanked. also if you're gonna spread, add me to the email chain.

things i like:

• collapsing to one contention
• good weighing
• highlighting your cards in light blue
• being respectful to your opponent
• clear voters at the end of rebuttals

things i don't like:

• being unnecessarily rude
• stealing prep
• talking too quiet or just being unclear
• new responses in the 2nr or 2ar (for pf, no new args in the final focus)
• being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. (please just use common sense)

for speaks, i'll usually give them based off good speaking, being polite, and having good strategy such as strategically collapsing, good extensions, and good weighing. another good way you can get speaks from me is making the round funny. seriously if you just take 5 seconds out of your speech to make a joke, i laugh at a lot of things and you can definitely get a boost by making the round entertaining. a few good ways to get your speaks tanked include clipping cards, stealing prep, being totally unclear, and being disrespectful to your opponent.

for y'all progressive folks:

larp is very cool and probably what i'm most comfortable with judging as that is what i have gone for almost all my rounds. plans, DAs, CPs, all that stuff i'm fine with but without weighing, i'm a lost man. pls weigh. impact turns im very much fine with. counterplans i love, especially abusive counterplans, but u better be ready for a theory debate if it's too abusive.

theory is also very cool and i couldn't care less how stupid your shell is, just make sure u have actual warrants in your standards. default to DTD, competing interps, and no RVIs. 1ar theory is cool but im open to that debate.

Ks really aren't my jam, but they are cool when i know what's going on. i really only know cap ks, set col, afropes, and anything else NEEDS explanation. i think i lot of people miss it when people say your Ks needs explanation because i still never see good explanations in round. do not assume i know your K. also make sure your alt is clear in what it does.

phil is pretty fun, i love kant and util, and can judge rawls, structural violence, and hobbes, but also explain these!!! slow down on analytics, i like tjfs, and meta ethics are also cool.

tricks are definitely a thing. they can be funny and smart if executed correctly, but i will not vote on it if it doesn't have a warrant. also be accessible when running this sort of stuff such as novices because i would really hate to vote off a one line ivi that went conceded by someone and it's like their second tournament. just be mindful about that or speaks go downnnnn.

other debate events

my ld paradigm cross applies for the most part, but for events such as pf, worlds, etc, please don't spread or run crazy progressive positions. i also don't know the topics, so treat me as a pretty lay judge.

IEs

i don't do IEs very much, but i judge based off how well you present yourself, your clarity, and the content of your speech, such as having good sources and analysis. also, make it entertaining. a lot of speeches just talk about politics and get boring fast, so throw in some jokes and i'll be more likely to be engaged and rank you higher.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Highlighted Qualifications:

I graduated high school in the spring of 2020. Throughout my 4 years, I was heavily involved in my school’s speech and debate organization. My competitive experience is in interpretation events, though I made sure to become as well-rounded as possible in order to try to keep my school’s team alive while I was a student there. I was also very involved in the school’s theatre program as an actor, participating in 10 school productions.

Moving into college, I participated in the Lone Star College Honors Research program and a Chancellor’s fellow, taking honors level speech & English courses, taking part in LSC-UP Honors National Model UN, alongside taking acting courses and acting in UP Drama Department productions.

I have been judging local high school debate tournaments since 2022.

General Paradigms:

Presentation is generally very important to me across the board, I think catering your presentation of pieces and information to be as affective as possible in your given setting is a very important skill. I also value the creation and maintenance of interest in any given presentation. Regarding content, I want it to be recent, relevant, consistent, and well summarized when needed.

Regarding debate events:

I’m not a fan of spreading or excessive speed in debate rounds because it does not show mastery of many communication skills that are applicable outside of a competitive debate context. I think part of the challenge of these debate events is being able to curate your research to the point where what you are bringing to the round is the most relevant and effective subjects on the given topic. The superior debate student is articulate enough to need only the given time in order to sway judges to their side and present detrimental information in a clear and concise manner, while maintaining good presentation practices, without the need to speak too fast to be understood.

I am also always on the look out of solid logic, lines of reasoning, and contradictions within a case.

Progressive debate strategy is fine by me, as long as it is not presented in an overly- abusive manner.

Regarding speech/ interp events:

In performance events I look for intentional choices and character building that contributes to an overarching meaning or theme of a piece. I strongly value variation of voice, emotion, and other performative elements in order to show progression throughout a piece and to keep the audiences attention.

Experience: I have competed in Public Forum for 2 years prior to graduating High School and then I have also judged PF for the past 2 years.

Speaking: Speak as fast as you want but it might be better to speak coherently and clearly so both I and the opponents can understand the arguments.

MISC:

1)If evidence/arguments clash, you need to explain why I should value your evidence over the opponents. Properly weigh/impact evidence out.

2) Remember to extend in final focus and not just summary. If arguments are not stated in final focus, I will not count them.

3)Be respectful!

What must you do to win? :

In order for your arguments/side to win, you must properly extend and impact evidence. Follow these two rules and you will win my ballot. Good luck and remember to have fun!

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day (AFA , IPDA , NFA) ... currently I'm a consultant teaching IE's at the university level (AFA/NFA)

• PLZ treat your opponent and judge the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate or toxicity in debate
• I prefer speechdrop, google docs or NSDA file share .. unless you're a debate coach or tournament director or prospective employer... you don't need my email
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• I mainly judge College IE's and HS nat circuit PF - these are my absolute fav's
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DON'T want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
• IF USING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (whether debate or public speaking event) , you need to address the 5 C's of historical analysis ... if not then this is for you ---> L
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

PO's: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

^^ To the PO's, if you don't establish your gaveling procedure almost immediately I will have no problem ranking you last - non negotiable

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO A LONG WAY IN THIS EVENT

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Usually Tech, however it all depends on what you run, if you're going to say things that are absolutely not true (holocaust never happened... etc) STRIKE ME - because if I have to go Truth I will have no problem telling you you're wrong and will make an example out of you

I better see clash

IMO, Condo and anything Fiat should be left to LD/CX - but I will evaluate it I guess

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

I value good strategy and refined rhetoric, if you have this you'll most likely get my ballot

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

IMPACT CALCULUS is your best friend !!!

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - HECK YEA

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory/Performance - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX, but I am getting back into the groove.... best way to describe me when pertaining to policy is Game Theorist

Now in days no judge is really Tab - lucky you I'm all about Game Theory

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

If any debate round is near impossible to judge (terrible evidence, round going in circles, no clash, toxic behavior, challenges... etc) I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2024-2025 season!!

Hello, my name is Tommie Sanders, I debated (CX) at Columbia HS (TX). I currently teach Art at Klein HS.

CX/Policy

Please include me on the email chain - tjsanders1@kleinisd.net - just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Overview

I debated in HS back in the stone age before everyone had a laptop. I write fast, and I type fast, however I need to be able to understand what your saying in order to write it down. Your speech and argumentation needs to be 100% clear throughout the round. If you give a roadmap please follow it, arguments need evidence and must be impactful to win. I do not have a preference as to the type of arguments you run, as long as you can back them up with evidence. 

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine as long as they are not vague or inexplicit. 

Counterplans

Counterplans are fabulous when they are unique and provide a creative point of view compared to the AFF.  AFF is responsible for determining if/why a counterplan should not be allowed, and providing adequate information to this respect. 

Speed

Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand what you are saying. You must be clear. 

Demeanor

This is an academic environment, respect is a must. If you feel your opponent is not abiding by this, explain your position adequately and why you believe it is a voting issue for the round. 

My main preference is no spreading. Oftentimes students can be hard to understand when spreading not only because of the speed but also because enunciation gets blurred and speech itself becomes muddied. If I cannot understand you, you will lose points or maybe even the round.

IE: I believe that whatever you can bring to your speech or performance that is unique and authentic, while drawing an audience in to be fully present with you displays a certain kind of creativity and skill to be appreciated.

Speech: Structure and content are in focus with an appreciation for originality when possible.

Interpretation: Flow of storyline, depth of character, authenticity, as well as the minute details you’ve added throughout your piece displays how much effort and thought have gone into your performance.

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense.

I debated (mainly policy, after a very brief foray into LD) throughout high school, back in the debate dark ages. After a decades-long time away from the activity, I have more recently begun attending tournaments again, assisting my wife with coaching responsibilities and judging for her Houston-area school team. I've had many years to appreciate the skills that speech and debate helped me begin developing in high school, and the importance of seeing those skills develop drives my judging paradigm more than anything.

In short, I'm a traditional judge that considers debate to be a communication event above all else, with logical argumentation and researched evidence being a close second and third. I value clash, and I will always go back to my flow of the round to determine a winner in a close round. I don't mind hearing obscure contentions if they are well prepared and presented, but I don't appreciate outright tricks, excessive speed, or anything else that comes across as abusive or generic.

In LD debate, I expect a value debate and not a discussion of plans and counterplans or other concepts borrowed from other formats. In PF, I want to see that you've done the research and that you understand the tradeoffs between pro and con, so weighing is important to me. I grew up with stock issues as voters in policy, so those arguments are most comfortable to me. In any of these formats, if you’re taking a different approach than what I’m describing, know that you’re taking a risk, and be sure to take me with you.

Speaker points are based on professionalism, persuasion, and polish. Rudeness and disrespect don't belong here or anywhere. If you came to my paradigm primarily to see if I can handle spreading, I suggest you don't test that in round. Even if I can keep up with you, I don't want to, and it's tough to persuade me to vote for you if I can't follow your logic or if I'm annoyed that you've ignored my paradigm. I appreciate the need to hurry things along, particularly in the compressed rebuttal time, but quality of argumentation will beat out quantity every single time.