Ebarden323@outlook.com

January 13th, 2024

I debated four years at Emporia High School and Washburn Rural High School (Kansas)—class of 1991. I went on to debate at the University of Texas for three years. I suppose I should be considered a traditionalist, but I don’t have any predisposition against more progressive styles of debate.

My judging experience is mainly from policy debate. I expect my approach to public forum debate will be similar. You tell me how I should view the round. I will default to a utilitarian calculus, but it is up to you to define how I should rank competing impacts and values. I view the competing teams as authors of their own worlds, and I must choose which world I prefer.

Debates that demonstrate substantial interaction with the positions of the other side are more interesting than debates that operate in independent universes. Strategically, conceding too much of the case debate leaves you fighting an uphill battle.

I was around during the early days of the kritik, but I don’t have a lot of knowledge of most of today’s kritiks. If you abandon the case debate to focus on a generic kritik with only tangential links to the affirmative you potentially relieve the affirmative of their burden of proof.

Tactics that will help you win my ballot:

Be intelligible. I’m not going to flow the emailed text of your speech. I’m going to flow what I hear you say in the round. Go as fast as you want as long as you are not sacrificing comprehensibility. The goal is to deliver an efficient speech that maximizes word economy.

Explain the implications of the arguments that you are winning. It’s not enough to win the argument. Explain how the argument fits into how you want me to evaluate the overall round.

Specifically counter your opponents’ arguments. Highlight the weakness of their sources, or of the logic of their sources’ assertions. I’m looking for a demonstration of your ability to think independently of your front-line blocks.

Evidence is a tool to support your arguments and analysis. I’ll give more weight to a logical, original analytic than a piece of evidence with thin reasoning.

It’s an honor to participate in this activity with you. Have a great weekend!

Emails for chain:

lasadebatedocs@googlegroups.com

ebarrett.5210@gmail.com

Name the email chain with the format “Tournament name---Round---Aff team XX v Neg team XX”.

Freshmen at University of Michigan. Debated at LASA for 6 years.

Non-negotiables:

---Constructives are 8 minutes, Rebuttals are 5 minutes. Each debater gives 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. I will only flow words said by the person giving the speech.

---Ethics challenges require stopping the debate. I won’t vote on evidence ethics unless you can show that you made a good-faith attempt to notify your opponents before the debate.

---Tell me how to write the ballot. Do not tell me how to assign speaker points.

---I will not vote for an argument that’s new in the 2AR under any circumstance.

---Tech over truth. Arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact for them to matter. If I can’t explain an argument to the other team after the debate I won’t vote for it.

Defaults (Negotiable, Easily overturned)

---I default to no judge kick until told otherwise.

---I will not read rehighlighted evidence you "inserted," so you should explain the lines that go your way if you want me to look at it.

---Theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. "X is a voting issue" requires a warrant to be a reason to reject the team.

---I’ll read evidence, but my evaluations of evidence can be easily overcome with evidence comparison.

Email for the chain: chapo.sophie@gmail.com

Senior at DSHS

TLDR:

Do what you do best - I'll do my best to judge the round fairly, as long as you're not racist/homophobic/sexist/etc. then I will be as unbiased as possible.

Tech>Truth

T:

I don't know much about T, evidence quality probably matters and the definitions should probably have an intent to define but you can convince me otherwise.

I'm fairly easily persuaded by a strong reasonability push by the aff, especially if the definitions are bad.

DAs:

Turn case analysis is really important for both sides - make it and respond to it!

Make sure to do good impact calc, just saying you outweigh isn't enough.

CPs:

Counterplans should probably be textually and functionally competitive, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

The aff should probably try to win a perm - that being said, just saying "perm do both" is not sufficient explanation (at least in the 2AR please!!).

Ks:

General - I've read k's on both sides (mostly fem and set col and cap, but also some others) and they're my favorite arguments. That being said, I will just as easily vote against a k if it isn't debated well, and I'll have a hard time voting for it if I don't understand it. If you have any doubts, opt for overexplaining.

Aff - You should probably have a link to the topic or at least an explanation for why you shouldn't need to. I don't really care how either side debates framework (if it's in the debate at all), but just make sure to really articulate why the model of the aff is good/bad. Also a lot of the time the actual aff barely gets talked about - if I don't know what it does by the end of the round, regardless of the rest of the debate, I'll have a hard time voting on it.

Neg - Like the aff, make sure to explain exactly what is happening with the k. I would prefer for there to be an alt, but that doesn't mean there necessarily needs to be one (that's different from kicking the alt and treating the k as a da, which is also fine for me). Try to have links as specific to the aff as possible, or at least some kind of explanation as to why generic links are good. I love a good framework k, but if you want me to weigh the aff agaisnt the competitive alt that's cool too. Again, make sure to explain why your model is good and really articulate exactly how it is that the aff is harmful.

I've coached LASA since 2005. I judge ~120 debates per season on the high school circuit.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared@gmail.com.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene, even when they claim they won't. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They give poorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision.
• They reconstruct the debate and try to find the most creative and convoluted path to a ballot. I guess they're trying to prove they're smart? These decisions are detestable because they take the debate away from the hands of the debaters. If there are multiple paths to victory for both teams, I will take what I think is the shortest path and explain why I think it's the shortest path, and you can influence my decision by explaining why you control the shortest path. But, I'm not going to use my decision to attempt to prove I'm more clever than the participants of the debate.
• If you think the 1AR is a constructive, you should strike me.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that, when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR.
• On balance, I am worse for 2ARs that impact turn framework than 2ARs that have a counter-interp. If left to my own devices, I believe in models and in the ballot's ability to, over the course of time, bring models into existence. I have trouble voting aff if I can't understand what future debates look like under the aff's model.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• If left to my own devices, predictability > debatability.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structuredspeeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.
• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks often don't matter. For example, the neg extends a framework interp about reps, but only goes for links to plan implementation. Before your 2NR/2AR, ask yourself what winning framework gets you/them.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• Uniqueness only "controls the direction of the link" if uniqueness can be determined with certainty (e.g. whip count on a bill, a specific interest rate level). On most disads where uniqueness is a probabilistic forecast (e.g. future recession, relations, elections), the uniqueness and link are equally important, which means I won't compartmentalize and decide them separately.
• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think that I lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

Miscellaneous:

• I usually take a long time to decide, and give lengthy decisions. LASA debaters have benefitted from the generosity of judges, coaches, and lab leaders who used their decisions to teach and trade ideas, not just pick a winner and get a paycheck. Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility. I've been providing free coaching and judging since before you were birthed into the world. If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.
• I don't want a card doc. If you send one, I will ignore it. Card docs are an opportunity for debaters to insert cards they didn't read, didn't extend, or re-highlight. They're also an excuse for lazy judges to compensate for a poor flow by reconstructing the debate after the fact. If your debating was disorganized and you need a card doc to return some semblance of organization, I'd rather adjudicate the disorganized debate and then tell you it was disorganized.

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

• Look and sound like you want to be here. Judging can be spirit murder if you're disengaged and disinterested. By contrast, if you're engaged, I'll be more engaged and helpful with feedback.
• Argument resolution minimizes judge intervention. Most debaters answer opposing positions by staking out the extreme opposite position, which is generally unpersuasive. Instead, take the middle ground. Assume the best out of your opponents' arguments and use "even if" framing.
• Demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate. If you're reading pre-scripted 2NC/2NR/2AR blocks without adapting the language to the specifics of your debate, you've only proven that you're literate but possibly also an NPC. I would much rather hear you give a 2NR/2AR without a laptop, just off your paper flows, even if it's not as smooth.
• I am usually unmoved by aggression, loud volume, rudeness, and other similar posturing. It's both dissuasive and distracting. By contrast, being unusually nice will always be rewarded with higher points and never be seen as weakness. This will be especially appreciated if you make the debate as welcoming as possible against less experienced opponents.
• Do not steal prep. Make it obvious that you are not prepping if there's not a timer running.
• Do not be the person who asks for a roadmap one second after the other team stops prep. Chill. I will monitor prep usage, not you. You're not saving us from them starting a speech without giving a roadmap.
• Stop asking for a marked doc when they've only skipped or marked one or two cards. It's much faster to ask where they marked that card, and then mark it on your copy. If you marked/skipped many cards, you should proactively offer to send a new doc before CX.

Email chain: david.do.6375@gmail.com and (CX only) hawkcxdebate@gmail.com

Overview

– None of this applies to PF or other formats besides Policy/CX and LD.

– Tech over truth in most cases. I won't evaluate an argument without a warrant, even if it's completely unanswered. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other wholly unethical and derogatory arguments. Additionally, arguments meant to be a meme or joke are inherently garbage. I will give you the lowest speaks for reading any of these arguments.

– I prefer contextualized arguments with specific warrants over anything else. Although I generally prefer high-quality evidence, issues from lack of evidence or poor-quality evidence can be resolved with good argumentation. I do normally read cards, but I leave explanations and comparison of evidence up to debaters. I mostly read cards to give comments/advice on how to better execute/answer a particular argument.

– I’m not the best for teams reading Kritikal arguments. I didn’t read a lot of Kritikal arguments in high school, which means that I don’t understand your arguments as well as most judges. If you do want to read a kritik and pref me, then structural kritiks like capitalism, militarism, and security and identity kritiks like anti-blackness, feminism, and queer theory are fine. Post-modern kritiks are really pushing my boundaries. However, you shouldn't over-adapt. I would much prefer you read arguments you're familiar with and are able to clearly articulate over arguments I understand. I will be able to follow along with what you're saying so long as you're properly explaining key components of your argument.

– I don't often vote on 0% risk of anything. Although I have voted on 0% risk of impacts or solvency in the past, this was mostly because aff/neg teams provided insufficient responses, rather the other side being so good at beating an argument into the ground. In a debate where both sides are sufficiently responding to each other's arguments, I default to impact calculus more than anything else.

– "Soft-Left" affs have become increasingly popular and common. I don't have an issue with these affs in general, but I do have an issue with 1ACs that have a short 3-4 card advantage with 5-minute-long framing contentions that include pre-empts like "no nuclear war", "[x] DA has [y]% risk", and "[z] thumped their DAs". Teams that read these 1ACs seem to have an aversion to debate. I have read these 1ACs in the past, so I understand the strategic utility of long framing contentions. However, I much prefer listening to 1ACs that have well-developed advantage and solvency contentions. I enjoy sifting through quality evidence that came from the topic literature base rather than evidence I can find in my backfiles. Additionally, I have been increasingly finding myself persuaded by aff indicts of extinction first frameworks. High-magnitude, low-probability events have increasingly silly and comical to me. That being said, the aff must still make defensive arguments to DAs and answer the specific extinction scenarios that the neg has made.

– Unlike most judges, I flow cross-ex. This doesn't mean I consider cross-ex a speech, rather I am taking notes of cross-ex. You don't need to go into detail about what happened during cross-ex during your speech. I will understand the reference and evaluate your use of cross-ex accordingly.

Topicality

– I generally default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I err towards reasonability when there isn't a coherent case list, a persuasive link to the limits disad, or high-quality evidence defending the interpretation. Reasonability is about the aff's counter-interpretation, not the aff.

– I'm not persuaded by "plan text in a vacuum". Just inserting the resolution into your plan text isn't enough to prove that the aff is topical. You have to prove your mechanism fits under the resolution.

Framework

– Comparative impact calculus matters more than winning in-roads to the other side's offense. I am more likely to vote on "procedural fairness outweighs maximizing revolutionary education" over "switch-side debate solves the aff's offense." Winning turns and access to the other side's offense increases your chance of winning, but they aren't necessary to winning the debate. These arguments are inherently defensive and, alone, are not enough to win the debate.

– Recently, many negative teams have increasingly gone for clash and education as the impact in the 2NR. I find procedural fairness as a more persuasive impact than clash and education. Members of the debate community approach debate as if it were an academic game, which means the collapse of that game discourages further investment into the activity.

Kritiks

– Like most judges, I prefer case-specific links. Links frame the degree to which the neg gets all of their offense and K tricks on framework, the permutation, and the alternative. The more the link is about the broader structures that the aff engages in, the more likely I am to err aff on perm solvency of the links. I'm a sucker for 1AC quotes/re-highlights as proof of a link.

– Kritiks that push back on the aff's theory of the world require, at least in some part, case defense. Defense to the 1ACs impacts or solvency claims are useful to disprove the necessity of doing the aff. I'm more likely to be convinced that the aff has manufactured their threats and have engaged in militarist propaganda when you've proven the aff wrong about their scenarios. Absent sufficient case defense, extinction outweighs, and I vote aff.

– K tricks are fine. However, I won't give very high speaks if a debate is won or lost on them. I am not a fan of floating PIKs, especially if it's not clear until the 2NR.

Counterplans

– I absolutely love counterplans that come from re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC. Even if your counterplan doesn’t come from their 1AC author, the more case specific it is, the more likely I am to reward you for it.

– Presumption flows towards the least change. I consider most CPs that are not PICs as a larger change than the aff.

– I will judge kick unless told otherwise. If I believe the CP links back to its net benefit or the permutation resolves the links to the net benefit, I will evaluate the net benefit independent of the CP.

Disadvantages

– DAs that rely on poor-evidence can be easily beaten without the 2AC ever reading new evidence against it. I am much more comfortable voting aff on "your uniqueness evidence is horrible" than 1% risk of a poorly carded DA. I am also very sympathetic to the 1AR making new arguments when the block reads new evidence to defend parts the 1NC that were originally not defended.

– The Economy DA has been incredibly popular in this topic. I'm an economics major, so I will generally understand the macroeconomic factors and theories that your authors are talking about. Just because I understand them does not mean you can simply name drop the theories as a response to your opponent's link or link turn. If anything, my understanding of these links and link turns means impacting out each individual link and link turn is far more important. At the end of these debates, I will still have a hard time evaluating each link and link turn because neither side has sufficiently explained the significance of their arguments.

Theory

– Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument, except for condo. This is especially true when there isn’t any in-round abuse. Theory arguments that such as counterplans without solvency advocates, vague alts, etc. are reasons to be skeptical of the solvency of the counterplan or alt. They are rarely reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments like PICs bad, floating PIKs bad, agent CPs bad, etc. are reasons to reject the counterplan or alt. These arguments can be reasons to reject the team, but only if the neg severely mishandles the theory debate and the 1AR and 2AR are really good on them. The same is true for theoretically suspect permutations.

– Process CPs have become increasingly popular. I generally err aff that Process CPs are bad and severance or intrinsic permutations are therefore justified.

– I think the most reasonable number of conditional worlds the neg should have is two. Three or four is pushing it. If the neg only reads advantage counterplans or kritiks specific to the 1ACs plan, then I lean neg on condo even if their counter-interpretation is an infinite number of worlds. So long as those worlds are both textually and functionally (or philosophically) competitive, then I’m good with it. Obviously, new affs also justify infinite conditionality.

– I don't vote on shotty theory arguments like ASPEC, Disclosure Theory, New Affs Bad, etc. unless they are dropped and properly impacted out.

Miscellaneous

– I will always disclose or give feedback after the round is over. Debaters will only improve if they are given proper feedback and the opportunity to ask questions about the round. I want to watch and enjoy good debates, but that can only happen when debaters improve and know how to effectively articulate their arguments.

– For UIL State, the above is not true.

– Re-highlighted evidence can be inserted, but you must explain what you've re-highlighted and why the re-highlighting proves your argument (or disproves your opponent's argument). Simply inserting the re-highlighted and stating that the re-highlighting proves your argument is not sufficient. You must make a complete argument with the re-highlighted evidence.

– I have witnessed more and more debaters marking multiple cards in every speech they give. There is nothing wrong with marking cards, but excessive marking (marking more than 3 cards in a single speech) is frustrating. I will ask a debater who marks more than 3 cards to send out a marked copy. I will also lower speaker points for such behavior.

– Please start slow before speeding up. It's difficult for me to understand the first few seconds of your speech otherwise.

LD

– If the affirmative is going for an RVI, it needs to be the entirety of your last speech and you must prove in-round abuse. I won't reject arguments or the negative otherwise.

PF

– Just because I judge CX doesn't mean I want to watch a CX debate. Debate as if I'm a parent judge with no knowledge about the topic. This means no spreading, theory, or Kritiks. If you debate like it's a CX debate, I will not give you speaks higher than 28.

– Please set up an email chain for the purposes of sharing evidence/cases. My email is above.

Email – chrisgearing333@gmail.com – chain me up

i will vote on pretty much anything as long as you justify it in the context of the round.

I default to reasonability on procedurals and theory.

Non-CX events: I’ll vote on whatever, cool with speed, you do you.

Tuloso Midway’ 22

UT CBHP’ 26

Hey, I’m Shreya Komire (she/her/hers). I did speech and debate for five years and primarily competed in CX, FX, DX, Informative, and Oratory (+Extemp Commentary in NSDA Supps). I have experienced a majority of speech and debate as I competed on the TFA, UIL, and NSDA circuits for a range of events.

For debate rounds: Please put me on the email chain: heyshre@gmail.com (to make it easier and organized: subject line the email: Tournament XYZ: Team AK vs. Team XK, Round #). I am fine with paper debate if that’s what you do, but please try and have copies for flashing. I don’t count flashing/emailing to prep time unless you spend an extended period of time doing so.

–My paradigm is influenced by: Chris O’Brien and Vada Janak.

Speech and debate was and is a very rewarding activity, but there are a few things I value.

• I expect everyone to not be racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, or have any hatred for any individual for their identity. Everyone has the right to themselves, so please respect one another. Be respectful and mindful of others’ pronouns too.

• Another thing, please be nice. I have been in so many different rounds, especially CX rounds, where debaters are too aggressive. Debate is meant for passion and aggression, but there is always a respectful way to do it. Don’t target one another as individuals, you are supposed to be debating arguments or ideals. Don’t belittle or degrade one another either.

• Enjoy yourselves! I hope everyone in this activity does it because they are genuinely excited to be in it. Have fun and remember your success goes as far as you take it!

If you have a question about anything, ask! I’m here to help you do well in the event, so if I need to clarify or missed something on my paradigm, please don’t hesitate to ask.

For debates, feel free to post-round me, I don’t take offense to it, I want you to get the best experience and critiques out of every round. I’ll do my best to answer any questions.

Policy:

Note: I did policy debate starting my freshman year, made three different TFA state appearances, and was the 21-22 UIL CX State Champion and received a top speaker award: I have a traditional/progressive mix, but I am not someone who lived and breathed progressive/K debate. I know and understand K’s/K Affs (in terms of literature and functionality, but I also don’t read K lit on a daily basis, so if it’s not the normal K’s, you may need to do some explanation), but am not familiar with PIKs. I am, on the other hand, well versed in traditional debate, anything with T’s, DA’s, and CP’s was my cup of tea. But also don’t feel like you need to adhere to my paradigm to the T, do what you do best and I’ll do my best to be right there with you in the round!

Evidence/Ethics Challenges: Not-so-good experiences are related to this, so please know exactly what you are calling someone out for and be ready to explicitly prove it. This is serious, not just for the team calling out someone else, but for the team that is getting called out. It gives them a moment to learn and understand if they truly didn’t know what was happening. Don’t clip or misrepresent evidence on purpose, that’s unethical and bad education/debate. I will take this challenge seriously, don’t use it as a route to a free win/clout.

Tech > Truth, unless an alternative framework is provided, but I hope if you are technically winning, you are also truthfully winning (but it doesn’t really affect my judging, just take it on face value: tech over truth).

I am a tab judge, but default policymaker unless told otherwise. Tell me how to view the round and how to vote in the round: write the ballot for me. Keep the debate organized, muddied rounds make everything more complicated than it should be for both me and your opponent(s), so signpost, slow down on tags, say “and” between cards, etc. I flow on paper, so speed is fine, but don’t overdo it. On a scale of 1-10, with one being incredibly slow, and 10 being extremely fast, I’ll rank at a 6/7 for speed. On analytic, theory, standard, or block debate (basically anything you don’t normally think to put in a speech doc), slow down a little to give me time to process the argument and flow too. But as a preference, just send me a speech doc with all of it in it, if you wish to do so. If you are worried about me keeping up with your speed, ask to give me a test run before the round, that way I can let you know.

I won’t evaluate a round-based off on CX, but I’ll definitely do my best to listen to it. I think the CX period sets up the upcoming speeches in some sense. Don’t talk over one another, don’t be rude, and don’t be condescending either.

Speaks: I did a number of speaking events and found lots of success with it. In policy debate, I hardly ever walked out of a room with under 28 in speaks, and always went for 30s (and I found a lot of success with that, with both speaker awards and even sometimes breaking merely because of high speaks). That doesn’t mean I want you to live and breathe being a perfect speaker, but I take importance in clarity of speech. I will evaluate speaks with as much rigor as I evaluate the actual debate part of the round. Although I won’t sit here and tell you debate is a communication event, learning and improving your speaking ability is what is most important in the real world, outside of debate, no matter what you are talking about.

Few more important general things:

1): explain the claim, warrant, and impact to every argument- this helps me evaluate a round as effectively as you want me to

2): be clear in your position, I debated a lot, but that doesn’t mean I know/understand every argument in existence: I’m confident in voting for politics DA’s and common T’s, CP’s, and K’s (ie. USFG T, States CP, and Cap K), but for something that is a nuanced case-specific DA, T, or CP, please explain.

3): a comparative analysis is important, that’s how I can weigh your argument

4): persuasion and passion matter too, it’s easier for me to vote for you if you are truly convincing me to do so because debating includes speaking as well

5): tell me how to vote in your rebuttal speeches especially, and tell me how and why you win

6): please mark your own cards, and send the doc if asked to do so

In-depth (Policy):

T’s-

I was a T debater (obviously read in tandem with other arguments), but T was always the easiest part of the debate round for me. As the aff, I would always jump at the opportunity to answer T and would sometimes solely talk about T in a rebuttal on the neg. I have full confidence in going for a T and winning the round, I’ve done it multiple times before, so because of that, I have full confidence in voting for a T in the 2NR. The same goes for a T against the K aff.

On the aff, I firmly believe T has 7-9 parts in its answer. I have watched teams take T as a joke and not answer it diligently and lose the round for something that can be answered effectively and efficiently. T should be answered with we meet, an answer to the violation, a counter definition, a counter standard for every standard provided, its own voters, and reasonability.

If you are going for T, it should be the only thing in the 2NR and be explained clearly without being unnecessarily repetitive.

Quality of definition matters, make sure your definition has the intent to define, is from a source contextual to the topic, and is specific to the topic at hand. It makes the debate more favorable for you and prevents an unnecessary time suck.

DA’s-

I loved PTX DA’s, and a majority of the neg rounds I have won were because of the PTX DA solely. Granted, DA’s as a whole can be and are a strategic argument in policy rounds. I am confident in voting for politics DA’s any day, given that you answered it or debated it properly. Aside from politics DA’s, I understand most DA’s pretty easy, but if it’s an incredibly nuanced DA, give a few sentences of explanation to make me and your opponents feel more comfortable in hearing it.

Case-specific links are always better to debate, but generics are perfectly fine and winnable too. Focus on the link debate, given that it inevitably shapes the winning status of the DA. That doesn’t mean ignore the uniqueness, as it is equally important. Explain internal links and show how the impact actually happens, not just because the cards say so in the tags. Say “DA outweighs the case” + your reasoning why, and on the aff say “Case outweighs the DA” + your reasoning why, it makes it easier for me to vote and more persuasive.

Turns case arguments give you an advantage in any round, given that you aren’t countering yourself and are reading them correctly. Turns case arguments don’t mean I automatically sign the ballot for the negative, but it’s a convincing argument.

Specific impact calculus is important to me in weighing your DA. Be as reasonable as possible and tell me why everything leads to nuclear war, not in a large-scale, not probable way, but in a specific scenario.

CP’s-

I am familiar with the common CPs, but tell me how the CP works, why it’s mutually exclusive, and how it solves the aff and avoids the DA, (talk about net benefits too). If there are multiple planks to the CP, explain the viability and importance of each one. For me to vote for the CP, if the aff doesn’t perm or give me a reason as to why the CP doesn’t solve, I’ll vote for it. Obviously, the perm debate is the most important with CP’s for me to decide who outweighs in argument. Feel free to give multiple perms, but unless the other team doesn’t attack any of the perms, consolidate in the rebuttal speeches to a perm.

I’ll kick the CP only if you tell me to. Unless told otherwise, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K’s-

Although I understand the fundamentals of this debate, I was not a K debater in high school. I occasionally debated K’s, primarily the Cap K. I am familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything besides that should be explained. I’ll try to catch on as quickly as possible as I have read K literature, I just never ran them in round aside from Cap and Neolib, although I have debated against them. K vs. Policy rounds are easier for me to judge because I have the most experience with these types of debates. K vs. K aff debates aren’t out of the blue for me, just not something I lived and breathed during my debate career.

If you are reading a K you think I might be unfamiliar with, I probably am, so explain the thesis of the criticism and how your K resolves the links presented. I vote on the K based on framework then the K proper. Don’t card dump or analytic/block dump in your speeches, be clear and efficient in your argument.

The link debate and alt debate frame how I view the K in the round. Tell me how the alt solves/happens, what the ballot does for the alt, and who engages with the alt. On the link debate, use resolution or case-specific links and tell me how each and every link actually interacts with the aff, not just saying “there are 8 links the aff doesn’t answer,” without being explicit about it.

Although I understand what floating PIKs are, I don’t quite fully understand how they function in a round just yet. So if floating PIKs are your thing, don’t pref me. I’m not a fan of them because I think they skew the debate and deck education/fairness in the round, but if you get away with it, I’ll vote for it.

Aff’s-

I love plan-based policy affs, as I am more familiar and understanding of how arguments interact with this type of aff. I read the EB5 aff on the immigration topic, Taiwan aff on the arms sales topic, Sentencing Guidelines and Secret Service on the CJR topic, and the Columbia River Treaty aff on the water topic (it’s obviously what I know best). I’m fine with K aff’s, but it comes down to the framework debate for me here. I have no problem voting for the neg on K Aff Bad T if the debate effectively leads me to do so. The framework debate is the debate I am most comfortable with here and is what I enjoyed the most. I’ll definitely need K aff’s to be explained more throughout the flow of the round and probably have them read at a slower speed. I am unfamiliar with performance affs completely, I haven’t interacted with one in a debate round for me to tell you to read one in front of me. I understand how they function, but I also do know they have a number of nuances to them too, so if you want to read performance, don’t pref me.

Theory-

If you have a legitimate reason to run theory, go for it. Don’t use it as a time suck, it makes the debate a drag. Having discussions about how a specific action detrimentally affects the debate space is a good thing. I’m fine with condo bad, especially if you are reading more than 3 counter-advocacies. My vote depends on the amount of in-round abuse happening. Be clear in interpretations and analysis.

Debate (in general):

Disclaimer: I have competed in World Schools Debate and Congress, but not PF or LD.

Practically everything in my policy paradigm applies here for PF/LD.

WSD-

I’ve had some experience in this event, but I only primarily competed in this my freshman year.

Style-

As an extemper myself, I’ll be focusing on the extemporaneous parts of this event more. Tone, persuasion, speed, and passion matter for you to maximize the number of points here. There’s no reason to spread in WSD or to be condescending or rude. Reading off of the paper does me nor you any good. Be personable and logical in your presentation.

Content-

Your analysis in tandem with your sources will determine your success in this area. Don’t source dump in your points, explain the viability of your argument, analyze the different parts of each point, provide credible definitions, and give specific/contextualized examples.

Strategy-

As any debate/speaking event goes, your strategical approach will take you far. Setting up your points effectively, asking POIs that help you, and explaining why you outweigh in your argument (why you win and they lose), give you the upper hand in the debate. Organization and logical approaches will help you take away as many points as possible.

POIs-

Ask as much as is necessary, don’t overdo it by interrupting your opponent every 15 seconds, but don’t let them talk uninterrupted for the full allotted speech time. Taking advantage of your opportunity will help you garner more points. Don’t ignore every POI, but you don’t have to answer every single one either. There is no reason to be rude in your POIs.

Congress-

Be mindful of your verbal and nonverbal language, be respectful, and have fun!

Speaking- Clarity comes above all for me, being clean and articulate in your arguments and general speaking will give me more reasons to rank you high.

Argumentation- I look for unique points of contention/support. Every argument you make should be evidentially true, sources only add to your credibility and persuasiveness.

Refutation- Don't degrade your fellow congresspeople's arguments, there is a way to refute the argument without targeting the individual or their abilities. Rebuttal the arguments and points the opposing side's representatives/senators make, and prove your viability.

Questioning- Ask questions, it establishes/maintains your presence in the room. As always, be respectful and polite when asking questions, there is no reason to be condescending or overpowering.

I hate rehash, please be as unique as possible in your argumentation…the round becomes a drag for everyone when everyone goes up and says the same thing for three hours.

Extemporaneous Speaking:

(I always looked for my judge’s paradigms for speech too because it helped me feel more comfortable with my judges and speaking, so if you are reading this, good luck!)

Note: Extemp was my primary focus during my junior and senior years. I was in state and large tournaments out rounds for FX and/or DX (TFA, UIL, NSDA), so I think I have a strong background and experience in it. I also coached extemp after I graduated.

I value analysis above all, I think the only way you prove your skills is with your knowledge of the topic. Don’t give me 7-9 sources and leave the speech at that, for every source, I look for a few sentences of analysis, that comes from you, as well. I’m not asking for you to tell me your opinion and political leaning, but dive deeper into the tagline of each source and tell what the background of “x’ issue, what the impact of that is, and how it affects “x” thing.

AGD’s and mini AGD’s make you more personable and charismatic. That doesn’t mean solely making jokes throughout the speech, but tell me something interesting, exciting, and/or surprising. Keeping my attention means I follow you through the speech and your other judges will likely feel the same way.

Clarity in your speaking style is the most important. When you are asked to form an answer to a contentious question, keeping the speech organized will make it easier for you to give and for me to follow. I suggest following a specific structure in every speech, and in prep just fill in the blanks to each part of the outline, that way you always become a clearer, stronger extemper. I will do my best to write as many critiques as possible on your ballot, there are always things to improve in every speech. Read those critiques and try to implement some into your next speeches, you’ll level up every time.

Speech/Interp:

Note: I did informative and oratory religiously throughout high school.

Info/OO-

Most of my extemp paradigm applies here. Be clear in your speaking style, be personable, and make your speech impactful. As any event in speech and debate goes, there’s always meant to be a moral, a story told, or an issue addressed, keep that in mind for your speeches. Although I take full entertainment in a speech about magicians, tell me why your topic/issue affects everyone, why it matters that I listen to this speech- basically, leave a resounding impact on me after your speech, it makes me more inclined to give you a higher rank. In terms of boards, I will not dock you for your quality of boards, your boards only add to your speech. Don’t rely solely on the boards, but instead interact with them.

Interp-

I was never an interper, but I am an incredibly techy judge. Your voices, emotions, binder movements (if applicable), physical movements, facial expressions, and attitude will determine how I rank you. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote you up because your blocking is good, it’s just cumulative. Don’t take it personally if I’m not crying during your performance, I’m not a crier, but I promise your piece will be impactful to me.

If there needs to be a trigger warning, please be mindful of others’ experiences and mention one. If you are questioning whether or not there should be, just put one in case.

DEb8 don’t H8.

Quick run down: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and have fun. No one wants to spend their Saturday feeling bad about themselves.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed just please slow down on tags, authors, and analytics.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. A long overview explaining the K would be helpful, but if you feel that you can do a good explanation in the line by line with a shorter overview, then im good with that too.

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

My email is ferry4554@gmail.com for the email chain.

I usually leave issues of Impact calculus and framing to the teams, however, if not provided I default to policy-based decisions. Please try to make voting issues clear and carry arguments throughout the flow. I am okay with spreading as long as the tag lines are clear. Please name acronyms the first time you say them and explain the relevance of your cards to your argument. I'm also a fan of specific links if your links are generic take time to explain their relevance to the specific team you are debating.

T: I usually vote based on competing interpretations also please take the time to explain why your interpretation is better for the debate generic lines like “they take up too much ground” are not enough

Disads: I'm fine with generic disadvantages but I like specific links and if impacts are hyperbolic NEG needs to be specific to the team they're debating. Also, dont be afraid to point this out if your AFF

K: I'm a big fan of K's, generally speaking, I'm familiar with all the major ones ( Imperialism, Capitalism, Neoliberalism, nihilism, etc) but I know a lot of students are not so taking the time to really explain your K's as it makes for a better debate round

CPs: As long as a conversation about why your CP is mutually exclusive, how it solves or doesn't trigger the DAs, and the gained net benefits is happening I'm okay with CPs. Multiple perms are okay as well

Aff: I dont really have a problem with this but I prefer small policy-based Affermatives with specific solvency

General Advice:

• I like when teams attack evidence and its relevancy. If you can, take the time to consider your opponent's evidence and where it's coming from

• Mark cards and arguments

• Rember this is an educational exercise so be respectful of your opponents

• No Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, or any other form of hate speech or microaggression will be tolerated if I notice this happening I will stop the debate

General

Add me to the email chain -- colbymenefee@utexas.edu

I'm a tab judge but default to an offense-defense heuristic.

The best thing you can do to win my ballot is provide very explicit judge instruction. Tell me explicitly what to evaluate and how to evaluate it. My goal is for you to be able to debate in the way that you debate best.

K

I'm more comfortable evaluating policy v. policy and policy v. k rounds than k v. k rounds, but again, I want you to debate however you debate best. Assume that I am probably not familiar with your specific K literature; provide a clear explanation of the thesis of the criticism.

I expect a coherent explanation of how your alt resolves the link. Again, this explanation should not be contingent on me having background knowledge on the specific literature you're reading.

Topicality/theory

I default to competing interps but will evaluate the reasonability argument as it's given.

I have a very high threshold for RVIs -- unless the neg is reading a truly absurd number of frivolous t/theory shells, this is just an argument that I am not likely to find persuasive.

If you have a question you don't see the answer to, ask me.

Gordie O'Rorke (he/him)

- University of Texas '26 -- not debating

- Winston Churchill '22

- Put me on the email chain -- gordieororke03@gmail.com

TLDR:

- I do not know this topic. Please explain acronyms accordingly. I am willing to listen to any arguments that aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.

- I am tech>truth. You still however need to extend arguments completely even if they're dropped.

Other Relevent Things:

- I prefer word docs over google docs and pdfs.

- Don't say "see-pee".

- Disclosure is good -- send your ev.

Topicality

- Ok for it. I lean towards competing interps. Have an impact.

Counterplans

- Wildly arbitrary process cp's aren't my fav but I guess if you're good at it. Not good for intricate cp theory debates.

Disads

- No unique thoughts here. Love turns case args.

Kritiks

- Not familiar with niche lit bases and args. I prefer if you have an alt, but not necessary. I default to weighing the aff.

K Affs/FW

- Be in the direction of the topic. Love SSD and TVAs. I might get lost in deeply theoretical K v K debates.

LD/PF

- I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these events. RVIs are a non-starter. I don't know what tricks are and I am not voting on them. I will regrettably vote on disclosure theory, but if you use it as a cheap shot against debaters who obviously are unfamiliar with the argument or national circuit norms, you will not like your speaks.

PREP TIME ENDS WHEN THE DOC IS SENT. PLEASE INCORPORATE DOC SENDING INTO YOUR PRACTICE AND DRILLS. YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS AFTER STOPPING PREP TO START THE SPEECH OR ELSE I'M STARTING YOUR PREP RIGHT BACK UP. IF YOU'RE OUT OF PREP THEN I'M STARTING YOUR SPEECH TIME.

I EXPECT ROUNDS TO START EXACTLY AT (MAYBE EVEN EARLIER THAN) THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF YOU START THE CHAIN AND SEND THE 1AC ~2 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START TIME WE'LL BE GOOD.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR FLIGHT 2 DEBATES STARTING LATE BECAUSE OF DEBATERS. YOU HAD AN HOUR EXTRA TO PREPARE/START THE EMAIL CHAIN/PRE-FLOW.

IF A TIMER IS NOT RUNNING (speech, cx, prep time) YOU SHOULD NOT BE PREPPING (looking at docs, typing, writing) THAT IS STEALING PREP

Okay enough yelling. Sorry I'm getting grumpy.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little Policy. Had a short stint for Northwestern debate (GO CATS). If you're reading quickly before a round, read the bold.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Line by line > Overviews but the best debaters will/should combine contextual overviews with intricate line by line

- Judge instruction is axiomatic. The best rebuttals start and end with judge instruction.

- Assume I know very little about the topic, your author, the norms, the meta e.t.c. This means (for the most part) you do you, extend and explain your position and I'll do my best to objectively evaluate it

- If its a Policy throwdown, please slow down a bit in those final speeches. Remember I'm probably not familiar with the topic. This is mostly for LD since shorter speeches/rounds means less time to explain those [internal] links.

- I'm not flowing of the doc - I believe that judges flowing off the doc incentivizes ATROCIOUS clarity and rhetorical practices. Won't even glance at the document unless absolutely needed (1/10 debates). It is YOUR job to extend and explain your evidence, not my job to read it and explain it for you. Clarity is axiomatic.

- PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SLOW DOWN on analytics, tags, interpretations, plan/cp text, theory. You can go as fast as you want on the card body. Remember speed can be a gift or a curse.

- Debate whatever and however you want. Go all out and do your thing, just DO NOT be violent or make the space unsafe.

- Frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. No one wins their framework anymore. Its a shame. It would make debates atleast 37% easier to decide.

- Errr on the side of explanation and slow down a bit for dense [analytic] philosophical debates. I do not have a PhD in philosophy.

- Bad theory debates get more annoying as I get older. I promise you no one is thrilled to decide on a debate on "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" be forreal. You still have to respond to bad theory arguments though (shouldn't be terribly hard)

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will auto-lose for evidence ethics violations

- A good speech consists of judge instruction, overview, line by line, and crystallization (and obviously strategy). Good speeches = good speaks. Rhetoric and Persuasion is important.

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you must justify your practice. This is your activity not mine. I'm simply here to give feedback, decide a winner, and enjoy the free food from the judges lounge. If you think fairness is an impact, defend it. If you think skills matter, defend it. If you think defending USFG action causes psychological violence, defend it.

- One thing to note for "non-T" affs vs T, I need you to account for/interact with your opponents impact. If I am simply left with a fairness/skills impact vs the impact turns and no interaction between the 2 and no Top Level framing issues, I will be forced to intervene. (This is bad for affirmatives because I think that fairness is *probably* *somewhat* good )

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out.

- If i'm judging Policy debate, just don't assume I know some jargon, norm, or innovative strategy and err on the side of explanation.

- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to *AND justify* why I should.

- No you cannot "Insert re-highlighting." Are you serious? Why is this even a thing? If its not read, its not on my flow.

- Don't get too **graphic** on descriptions of antiblack violence (or any violence for that matter). Trigger warnings are welcomed and encouraged.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Michigan vs Berkeley debates" I simply do not know or care about these teams

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

• Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

Email: johnharrisory@gmail.com

Speech/IE

Delivery and content. Be confident in your voice and smart with your analysis. For Extemp, have a structure that is balanced in time, has distinct points, and has background information that sets up your impacts. For Congress, you must debate and discuss, not give an isolated, unconnected speech, and be persuasive in your delivery.

Policy Debate/CX

I am a policy maker judge first and foremost but will appreciate stock issues and K merit if done exceptionally well. I will give the most value to pragmatic arguments with a real-world basis, be it historical or empirical evidence. That said, persuasive and strong arguments will win the round, regardless of truth, but it is best to keep things grounded in discussing the policy at hand.

For the Aff, I will have more confidence voting aff if the case itself is carried through the round and you discuss your plan. Don't forget to talk about your plan after the 1AC. Plan texts that actually pass a policy measure are key; I do not like broad, squirrely plan texts without specific policies. Stress solvency.

For the Neg, I do not particularly prefer Ks to be run, but if you do, properly explain how the K links. I will have the inclination to vote aff if the K link is muddled. On-case arguments are the strongest. Provide quality clash and blow up important weaknesses in the aff. One good DA is better than three that barely link.

In CX, I'm cool with some aggressive questioning, but make sure you're actually asking questions and not stating arguments as sentences. Keep it polite and fun.

I do not like obnoxiously fast spreading. I understand it can be important in time crunches, but if you have maximized jamming cards into an 8-minute 1AC or flooded the 1NC beyond readable comprehension, that's a bad idea. This is a speaking event, too, and I find better speakers more persuasive.

Above all, enjoy yourselves and have fun. Keep things chill, make smart moves, and we'll have a great round.

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him. I don't check this email when I'm not at debate.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including if you want docs from rounds I've judged) email me at apulcine23 AT gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me.

Speaks: To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize is PLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.

If you can win using just the needed speech time (you probably don't need all your speech time to win a dropped disad vs team that dropped the aff after 1ac) speaks will be better, but if you end up losing or undercovering stuff speaks will go down.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed.SLOW DOWN on analytics!Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card.

Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo, but you tell me. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc in tiny text with no verbatim heading.

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.

K Aff: I didn't read planless affs in hs, I'm going to have much less experience in these debates than you do. I don't judge these debates too often (probably due to the tournaments I judge at and people reading my paradigm), so come into the round knowing that. For the most part, same thing as K section, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

LD:

for larp / k everything above applies.

trad - Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect.

Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit. I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. If you want my ballot reading phil stuff, break it down and impact it out like policy / larp. If it is the end of the round and I still don't really know what you do / what we are talking about, youre probably not getting my ballot.

Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T. If the argument isn't contested, not much I can do about that as judge. Don't be surprised if the round doesn't go as you expected if I'm judging a fully fleshed out trix round.

She/Her

Email: annemarie.smith2003@gmail.com

UT Austin 2026 | Shawnee Mission South 2022

*Glenbrooks: I don't have extensive topic knowledge this year (didn't work at camp last summer)- just make sure to explain acronyms; I'd appreciate a little more explanation with generics than other judges who've judged more on this topic*

General Stuff

• I'm primarily a policy oriented judge
• Don't steal prep and try to be quick about sending the doc
• Email chain is best
• Wiki/Disclosure is good
• Be organized with your flow
• Slow down in the rebuttals

DA

• Existential impacts are fine, but I think that the aff can and should make a probability push
• Case turns and outweighs is good

CP

• Affs should always read a perm, but you don't have to go for it
• Perms you go for should be functionally and textually competitive, but it's up to you to make that argument
• Internal net benefits are fun and good
• I like theory on CPs (50 state fiat, process CPs, etc.), but it probably won't write the ballot
• Tell me to judge kick things

T

• I'm not the best judge for a high-level T debate.
• With that being said, if a team is obviously not T, and that's the best argument to go for, go for it.

FW

• I think you should read it and it's a good strategy for K affs in front of me
• You should not make arguments that K affs don't belong in debate; I think it's more persuasive to read DAs on the T flow or argue that debate isn't a healthy space to discuss specific issues

K (Neg)

• Read them, but make sure to explain anything that's uncommon
• A good alt explanation when compared to the aff plan is convincing- especially in the rebuttals
• The aff gets to weigh the plan

K (Aff)

• I have no experience reading K affs and some experience answering them, but I'm normally just taking FW (on the negative)
• I can flow, but probably require more judge instruction when it comes to the rebuttals
• The aff should probably have some relation to the resolution; if it doesn't, I think there should be an explanation as to why

Condo/Theory

• I dislike evaluating theory debates
• I default that you should get to kick positions, but there is such thing as too many off case positions (9+?)
• I think that 6+ off- case positions justifies condo in the 2AR, but if it were impacted out I would vote for it either way

LD

• 3 years of high school LD experience
• I did very traditional LD in high school
• I still think my policy experience makes me able to evaluate mostly all types of LD (just be sure to explain anything odd)
• Please don't do tricks. I will not like them or understand them
• You're welcome to read DAs, CPs, and Ks- explain anything that isn't common

Debate is a uniquely adept at developing critical thinking skills, fostering open-mindedness, and sharpening articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thought as well. It’s far more important that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any argument as long as you can tell me why you win it. I’m good with Ks, I’ll vote on T, do whatever you want as long as you can defend it. (Seriously, I ran extinction good regularly, a counterfactual aff, delay CPs with international politics scenarios nearly every round, a Taoist performance K, Zombie apocalypse scenarios, and a Burkian pentadic rhetorical analysis of 1AC as a piece of literature, etc.) It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events.

Good line-by-line and organization is extremely important. Don’t frustrate me with careless and sloppy speech structure. If you dont answer an argument, it is conceded. If you dont extend it, it’s not extended.
Dont spread analytics like they’re cards. If I don’t hear it, you didn’t say it. And if I can’t write it, I might forget you said it. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency is how you make up time, not by being faster than you are clear. If you’re super super quick and also clear and easy to flow, then by all means. But most of you ain’t.

I want good overview and synthesized analysis in the 2Rs. Draw me a blueprint of how these moving parts connect and interact one another to make your win machine. And then do good line by line.

I debated CX on the national circuit in high school, and policy and international parli in college. I have judged tournaments for 18 years in debate and also contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools.

she/her

Colleyville '22; UT '26

I did policy for 3 years and PF for 1

Yes I want to be on the email chain: zhujudy280@gmail.com

Speaks/Notes

I start at 28 and go up from there based on strategy

I appreciate humor and assertiveness, but I'll dock points if you're being straight-up disrespectful to your opponents. 25s for homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. debate is toxic but it doesn't mean you have to be :)

If you can make the round enjoyable for me/make me laugh, I will boost your speaks

Spreading is fine. I will tell you to clear if I can't understand you, but if I have to do it more than twice my flow will start missing arguments

I don't flow cross so if you want something on the flow, you should mention it in your speech

Policy/LD

Run whatever you want, but I tend to get annoyed with some tricks/theory in LD so proceed with caution

Condo is good

Frame/weigh, please. Tell me what impacts/flows are important and why

Ks--I mostly ran Ks and K affs when I did policy. I understand most of the lit bases that are read, with the most experience in Asian identity, racial capitalism, the fem k, and I understand queer theory, afropess, and academy/university ks pretty ok.

I'd like to know what the alt actually does. However, if you can win framework and articulate why that means that you don't need an alt, I guess it doesn't really matter.

Specific links are preferred, but if a generic link isnt answered and is extended through the 2nr, I'll vote on it

line-by-line>long overviews

Aff gets to weigh the plan, but I also really like good reps links and framework debates

K affs--I like these! I do recommend that you connect it to the topic/resolution somehow. just because I like k affs doesn't mean I'll evaluate T/FW any less; I actually like creative framework debates a lot, but more on that in a second

It's really crucial that you win solvency here--your burden of proof is higher than just winning framework on the aff--so please explain in detail how your advocacy works. I tend not to buy mechanisms that rely purely on your speech act; while I think there's truth to the argument, it's not going to hold up very well against well-developed framework teams, so I recommend complicating your solvency beyond that

I really like historical examples! Use them to explain your solvency mechanisms or in your framework debates about the history of the activity, I find them very persuasive, and maybe I'll learn something from you too

T/FW--I enjoy debates about debate because I do believe that this activity has some impact on our personal lives and how we think about the world; everyone takes different lessons from this activity and we should talk about it. this is also why I tend to weigh args about education, skill-building, etc. above pure procedural fairness arguments, but I also like when teams entangle them; is one a pre-requisite to another?

Caselists are very welcome

Contextualize your blocks to the round please

PF!

I like "progressive" debate, but don't read straight-up Ks in PF. They are almost always generic, the advocacy underdeveloped, and there's not nearly enough time in the round to have the in-depth discussions that the literature deserves, so proceed with caution.

Weigh! Final focus should mirror summary and make a cohesive narrative that way, so don't get too bogged down in the line-by-line at the end of the day. also please talk to me about soft-left/structural violence framing. I wish more PF debaters went out of their way to incorporate diverse impacts in every pf topic; it helps you win rounds and also expand your perspective as a person.

If you paraphrase, I'll dock speaks. If you still choose to, your cards need to be ready to present to the other team once they call for it. This does not mean that you show them an article and control f for the section that you summarized, it means everything's cut and cited properly. If it takes more than a minute for you to find the card, I'll start your prep.

If you do an email chain and actually keep up with it (sent constructives and speech docs for the cards you read in the speeches after) I'll boost your speaks.