I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

As a judge, I highly value the art of oration, emphasizing the demonstration of skill, poise, and the meticulous presentation of detailed evidence. I understand the challenges posed by virtual delivery and expect participants to approach the event with the same level of preparation as they would for an in-person competition. For virtual performances in, I request that the camera be positioned to capture the speaker's full body or at least knees and higher, if feasible.

While I acknowledge the importance of author's intent, I firmly believe that it should not be the sole determinant in ranking a round. Mature material, including the use of profanity or expletives, is acceptable to me as long as it is not excessive and serves a necessary purpose, such as contributing to the climax, character growth, and/or development.

For safety reasons, I refrain from handshakes. As the NCCFA NATIONALS champion for prose poetry and a consistent judge at TFA state 2022, and 2023. As well as the district qualifying competitions from 2018 to date, I have also judged a variety of debate events including Congress, CX, and Lincoln Douglas. My experience has honed my ability to provide students with valuable feedback to enhance their speaking abilities both within and outside the competitive rounds.

I am a parent judge, and the Bowie Lampass Swing is going to be my first tournament. Please keep this in mind in round.

Please don't spread, I won't be able to keep up so don't even try. You can go at a faster than a conversational pace, but don't push it or I probably won't vote for you.

You can run any argument, just make sure that you can explain what it is. Don't just read a bunch of evidence, try and look up and engage in the round and walk me through your arguments and really explain why I should vote for this. I value presentation and just good speaking skills so if you don't make an effort to do that it'll be hard for me to vote for you.

last updated: 3/10

Ammu Christ (they/them/their)

Midlothian '22

UT Austin '26

please add both garlandspeechdocs@gmail.com and graduated@gmail.com to the chain

active conflicts: Garland (2024) + various independents

**Follow the bolded portions of the paradigm if you need to skim.

---

post-TFA State 2024 updates:

The state of LD has always been in a desolate state, but this past weekend has been extraordinarily disappointing. The frequency of judging beyond this point is up to my wellbeing and being compensated beyond minimum wage.

1 - I'm not sure why debaters feel the need to be cutting necessary corners to explain and win their arguments sufficiently well. It disservices you from winning by underexplaining your arguments and hoping I can make

2 - Be considerate when you're postrounding your judges. Many of us are paid well below minimum wage and volunteer/prorate lots of hours into the activity with little to no return in favor of keeping the community having adequate judging. I'll do my best to explain how I reached my decision and answer clarifying questions, but if you expect me to automatically change my decision, its too late, try again next time.

3 - I am not your babysitter and will give you a stern look if you or any person in the room acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Especially things such as grabbing another debater's laptop without their permission and turning it towards the judge.

4 - I hold absolutely no sympathy for individuals that don't make a concerted attempt for disclosure (ie explicitly refuse to send their cases over, not disclosing on opencaselist dot com) and then read some 2000s-esq theory shell saying they are unable to engage with the 1AC. Go argue with your coach, not me.

5 - It should go without saying that if I find out that you attempt to make a structural/ontology claim (or analogously use some grammar of blackness) through cutting a sui**de note as your basis, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will contact your coach either by the RFD or directly. Absolutely ridiculous.

---

I would best describe myself as a clairvoyant when it comes to judging. I have no strong feelings when it comes to how I evaluate arguments, and feel that I agree with a wide spectrum of opinions and debate takes, even the usual divide that exists within educational/“non-educational” forms of debate.

I will vote up anything except anything morally repugnant (see: racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) or out of round issues. Some arguments require a lot more instruction than others in front of me, choose accordingly.

General takes:

• Evidence determines the direction of argument quality - Bad arguments will either have little to no evidence, but it is possible to spin smart arguments from bad evidence. Arguments without evidence is definitely doable, but then again, y’all are high schoolers.

• To win an argument, you need to sufficiently win that it has a claim, impact, and warrant.

• The 1AC will “set the topic” (whether it adheres to the resolution or not), the 1NC will refute the 1AC in any form. I am inclined to vote affirmative if the affirmative world is more preferable than the status quo or a different world proposed by the negative.

• Debate is a communication activity. It may or may not have “spillover” into the real world. I am of the opinion, by default, we probably don’t. I can be convinced either way, though.

• My ballot is solely a decision on which debater was more persuasive. Being persuasive requires a bundle of strategy, tech, charisma, and ballot-painting.

• At bare minimum, I need to get submit my ballot in before tournament directors nag on me. Other than that, do whatever other than being violent.

• As a neurodivergent person, it is sometimes a bit hard for me to follow implications/strategies of things as well as deciphering rebuttals. My favorite type of rebuttals will respond to things top-down in the order of the previous speech and/or group and do sub-debates in specific areas on my flow. Your speed when it comes to the rebuttals should be 70% of the speed of the constructive.

• I care a lot about form and content. The 2NR/2AR must isolate and collapse to one argument (most of the time). I am very receptive to arguments that specifically complicate the reading of multiple conflicting positions in the rebuttal. (See: a non-T aff going for condo, collapsing to multiple Phil positions and a util advantage, etc). This doesn’t really apply if conflicting positions are read before the rebuttals.
• I default no judgekick.

• I think I’m pretty good at nearly transcribing most speeches. My typing speed spikes anywhere between 110-140 words per minute. I tend to flow more and try to isolate warrants since my brain tends to forget immediately if I don’t write down full warrants/explanations for things. Not a you problem, just a neurodivergent thing. In terms of speed, not a problem, just need clarity and will clear you if it is not present or give up not typing anything if I can’t legibly type anything.

• Speaks are based on execution, strategy, collapse, and vibes. 28.2-28.6 is the cume for average. 28.7-28.9 means you’re on the cusp for breaking. 29-29.3 means you’ll break and reach early/mid slims. 29.4+ means you will go deep elms and/or win the tournament. Not all speaks are indicative of this, but normally they will try to follow this guideline.

LD specific takes:

• Pref guide:
• I feel best apt to evaluate K, non-T, policy, Util/Kant debates.
• I can adequately evaluate theory. I find that these debates aren’t impossible, but I definitely will be thinking a lot more harder in these debates.
• Exercise caution around tricks and “denser phil” (anything not Util or Kant). I can still evaluate these, but I find in these debates I need arguments overexplained in terms of strategy for me to follow.

• I default comparative worlds over truth testing. I think offense under either form of argument evaluation is doable, but I need that blatantly explained to me.

• I’ve changed my thoughts on tricks. I think that I was formerly being dogmatic by saying they don’t hold “educational value”. I actually don’t care now. Read them if you fancy these arguments, but I require a lot more judge instruction to understand strategy/collapse.

• As formerly for tricks, I’ve also changed my thoughts on theory. A shell must have a violation to be legitimate. See below in a later section about specifics with theory offense.
• A caveat for evidence ethics theory. I do not find this shell convincing at all. In order to win with this shell in front of me, the alleged violation must prove that there was malicious intent with the altercation of evidence. I will also ask if both debaters would like to stop the round and stake the round on evidence ethics. If the person who read the shell says no, my threshold for responses on the shell automatically goes down to the lowest possible amount of responses. The threshold to win the argument at this point becomes insanely steep.

• If I haven’t made it clear already, please spend more time explaining function and implications of these arguments if you want to win my ballot. I find that I am following these arguments more better than I was like a year ago, but you should do more work to overexplain to me to win. I don’t know to make that more obvious.

• I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater on theory shells.

• I am willing to zero out a theory shell’s offense if there is no real violation. It is up to the person reading the shell to prove that there is either a textual or functional violation in the first place. No amount of competing interpretation justifications will matter if there is no violation to the shell. I don’t care if the violation is textual or functional, I just need one to grant offense to the shell in the first place.

• I find that paradigm issue debates are sailing ships in the night — you should really group them whenever they’re spread across multiple pages. If the warrants to your paradigm issues are the same I’ve heard over the past year and a half, I will flow them as “dtd, c/I, no rvi” (and vice versa when responding)
• I enjoy unique warrants to paradigm issues, but find non-T offs trying to come up with their own warrants sort of fall flat if they reject a conception of debate.

• IVIs need an impact when introduced. Will not vote on these without one.

• I default theory > K >= content FW > content — this is a rough diagram and open to different justifications for weighing.

• You can find any other relevant thoughts on the K and policy here in the archive for December 2023. My thoughts really haven’t changed as much for the K nor policy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KidiW8WJQi0-PWf2lx33GPi9kiRySLl1TbV_fGZ1PY/edit?usp=sharing

You can request a copy of your flow at any point after the RFD is given.

Good luck! :>

Hi! I'm Alex! (she/her)

Pls add me to the email chain alexcoulter512@gmail.com.

Westlake 2024 - I've been debating for 4 years

I'm good to eval anything as long as it isn't offensive. Read what you're best at! Just don't be any of the ists, isms, and obics. Please respect pronouns, triggers and be kind!

Fine with any speed but pls be clear with tags/analytics

Have fun and be nice! :)

Ks

Read what you want to read! Please have clear links, rob, and alt. And do not read identity Ks if you do not identify with that identity group! I will drop you with very low speaks.

LARP

I'm good to eval larp. Please weigh and have a clear explanation of your link chain

T/Theory

If you read frivolous theory you should have a clear explanation of the interp and why it is good for debate.

Phil

I have a good understanding of Deleuze, and decent understanding of Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, etc. For dense phil pls understand your fw/ method and be able to articulate it.

Tricks

Yucky! K tricks are griddy if they are warranted

See you in round!

Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol

Tabula Rasa

Debate is a game

K's, T, disads, theory, any progressive args are fair ways to play

I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them

you're probably not winning a generalized theory bad IVI in front of me,

if you think you've encountered bad theory, read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive

default competing interps

speed is fine

feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision

will.erard@gmail.com

For readers:

I flow real good so follow the rules

No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read new framing in final

Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped

If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore

You should frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary

I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech

I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess

FOR LD

tech pf judge

larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise

theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably wont mess it up

T: T is cool

Ks: mostly familiar with the structure but not with the lit, go easy on me, I might mess it up but I'll try my best

fine with spreading

ask specific questions if you have them

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.

I debated mostly LD at Marcus High School in Texas where I competed locally and nationally on the UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. I'm now the coach at San Marcos High School (TX).

TLDR

I've gotten much worse at flowing so please slow down for tags and implications.

I don't have any conscious biases towards a particular style of debate but I'm less familiar with K lit so please explain.

Judging is hard so make my life easier and tell me exactly how I should be evaluating the round.

GLHF

Defaults

ROB - I'm open to any role of the ballot/judge/etc. Open to any theory voter/standard/net benefits/impact/interp including disclosure, afc, offensive counter-interps, meta, etc. I assume I have some role as an educator, that debate is an educational activity, that education requires inclusion (and inclusion is good in itself), and that debate requires some level of fairness unless told otherwise. I'll also assume that my vote and discourse after the round can have an impact on the community. For the sake of coherency, please still address these, but if you're short on time a few words will suffice.

Spikes - If you are vague in your spikes I will lean on the side of caution so please explain what you mean by "prefer aff interps" or "err aff on theory" so I know what to do. Well developed spikes are fine.

Miscut Cards - If it's a severe case of miscutting, especially if the evidence is being used on T or as an empirical link, I will default to drop the arg. If the opponent points it out, I'm open to other impacts/args like drop debater, lower speaks, etc.

Offensive/Rude arguments – I default to drop speaks. I am open to args why I should drop debater. If you are creating an unsafe environment, I will stop the debate, drop you, and report it as appropriate.

Mislabeled turns – If I can see a possible way that this could be considered a turn, I will count it as a turn. If I can’t conceive of any possible way that this could function as a turn (and I am creative), I won’t vote on it.

Lack of understanding – Similarly to mislabeled turns, if I don't understand the argument, I won’t vote on it. To clarify, this would only happen in extreme cases like “Vote aff cause skies are blue”. I have a pretty good breadth on a lot of k lit and random phil so things like that shouldn’t be a problem. If you are running a k that isn't popular or that relies on a lot of jargon and you are worried about it, you may want to work on explaining it. I also pay attention in CX so if you're explaining it to your opponent, you're also explaining it to me.

Dropped arguments – You can only claim what you originally claimed. In other words, the probability of your event doesn't suddenly increase. If you extend a dropped argument and create a new implication with it, such as cross-applying to the opponent's case, your opponent can still attack the new implication. I default to not accepting new arguments but I'm completely open to arguments that say you should be allowed to make new arguments against blippy spikes in your second speech (also open to arguments saying the opposite).

Extensions – Just a single sentence will do. IE: “Extend the fw that we must respect autonomy for morality to guide action” or “Extend Gray that terrorism causes extinction”. Focus on the function of the arg in relation to the round. Your goal here is just to let me know what strategy you're going for and what my ballot should say. If you don't extend I will be very confused and think it doesn't matter anymore.

Disclosing cases before/during/after the round - It's common practice to share your case with your opponent during the round (if not before). Unless you object to this practice (which is also okay, though you may be inviting theory), please be prepared to do so in a timely manner. If you would like to share your case with me during the round as well, that would be much appreciated as it also saves me time after the round.

Speaks - Evaluated on the basis of where I think you are in relation to the rest of the pool at the tournament with an average of 28. I say clear or slow if I'm completely lost but I try not to. I will give bonus points to you if you challenge my view of something or teach me something new, or if you show respect and kindness to your opponent. Some debaters feel that if they are paired with an opponent who is new to the activity, they will have less of a chance to show how good they are and their speaks will suffer. However, if you use the opportunity to show a mastery of the fundamentals, as well as kindness and inclusivity, your speaks will reflect it.

Accessibility - If there is something making debate inaccessible to you that I can help with please let me know! This is especially true if it can be resolved (or mostly resolved) within the round such as having debaters slow down if you are learning English.

If you have any questions, please feel free to talk to me!

Enjoy yourselves and have fun!

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

This is now my second year judging. I've judged both speech events and PF and am comfortable with both. I'll be extending into LD this year.

I am a widely-informed, reasonably well-read person. That being said, I do my best to put my personal biases aside and base my decisions on the quality of what is presented.

I place a premium on clear communication. The best arguments in the world are meaningless if they're too full of jargon to be understood by non-experts, too fast to be comprehended (no spreading please!), or too disorganized to support each other. However, if English is not your native language, do not fear — I will not penalize you for not being a native speaker. 

I follow the news religiously and have done so for a very long time. I'll ask to see your evidence if it sounds suspect to me.

I am very sensitive to unsupported claims, and to efforts to distort evidence in order to make a rhetorical point. I am also turned off by straw-man arguments, and by putting words into your opponents' mouths. I am annoyed by hyperbolic claims not justified by evidence. Make a strong case while sticking to what your evidence actually says and to what your opponents actually say, and you will win me over. 

I am fond of conciseness and precision. I enjoy contentions that complement each other so that the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. I appreciate good humor, but it has to effectively serve your argument or undermine your opponents' — it shouldn't be just a flourish.

I respect emotion — we are humans, not Vulcans. Emotion is a powerful rhetorical tool. If you use it authentically in a well-constructed argument, I will reward it. However, keep it civil — demeaning or derogatory comments directed at your opponents will alienate me. You can savage their arguments, but not their character.

When asking questions, give your opponent space to answer without interrupting. When answering questions, say what you need to without filibustering — if you're filling the time with rubbish (to use a more polite term), I will know. I admire incisive follow-up questions.

I look forward to being convinced!

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms being a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might read and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feelings about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

Synthesis

1. Paragraph - you lose. This does not need to be an argument in the debate.
2. Read tags that is some like ….” Therefore.” I won’t flow it
3. Read a card that does not include a read warrant. This is meaningless in the debate.
4. Claiming a card says something that it clearing does not 25 spk loss. This does not need to be an argument in the debate. I will intervene period as you have no ethics for an activity that I care deeply about.
   
   

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally to your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

I'm a Master's student at UTHealth Houston. I did LD at Westwood High School from 2015-2019, then coached/judged actively from 2019-2022.

Since 2022, I did not judge nearly as often and therefore have not critically thought about debate since then. My debate brain processes information at a fairly slower speed than it did before and therefore is not good at translating new acronyms or hearing debaters blitz through scripted monologues at top speed. My best advice for you is to slow down (at least a little bit) on things you want me write down on the ballot and explain things you deem important.

Email: trumantle@gmail.com

I've shortened this paradigm because it was very lengthy, but the full one from the 2021-2022 season can be found here.

Main things:

1] I am most comfortable judging policy-style debates and T/theory debates, though the worse the shell gets, the more unhappy I am. I am comfortable judging phil and kritik debates if they don't get too advanced for my brain (pomo, Baudrillard, existentialism, etc.). I am not comfortable judging tricks debates, and though I will still evaluate those debates, I have great distaste in that debate and my threshold for answering those arguments is much lower than other arguments.

2] My views on debate have mostly been shaped by Rodrigo Paramo, Morgan Grosch, and Jugal Amodwala. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. I also agree with Rodrigo Paramo on evidence ethics and trigger warnings. Detailed specifics for ev ethics is below as well.

3] My threshold on tricks is if the more I believe the argument is used to avoid clash the less I like it and the less likely I'll vote on it. This seems to exclude a lot of arguments debaters tend to read now, including but not limited to "evaluate the debate after the 1AC," indexicals, tacit ballot conditional, and various other paradoxes/1AR restart strategies. This is in large part because I just don't understand these arguments, but also because of my belief these arguments are not beneficial or educational to the activity. If you're not sure whether an argument is too tricky to read in front of me, err on the side of caution, or just email me pre-round.

4] I believe in open-source disclosure. I think most disclosure arguments that go beyond this are bad (contact info, round reports, actual tournament name, etc.).

5] I give speaks based on how far I believe your performance would get you at the tournament I'm judging at. 28.5 generally means I think you'll break, 29.5+ means I'd expect to see your performance in late elims. Yes I will disclose speaks if requested.

6] I require much more explanation for arguments than you think I do. Many 2AR's that I've judged go for a 3-second argument in the 1AR that I did not catch/have an understanding for, and many 2NR's that I've judged blitz through overviews of the theory of power/philosophical position that I cannot keep up with. Either slow down or be clearer in explanations.

7] Slow down please, especially in online debates. You will not be happy with my RFD if I don't catch something because you're blitzing too fast.

8] I am extremely visually expressive. I know it's hard during online debate to see my face when you're reading through a doc, but you should almost always be able to tell if I like something/find something confusing.

9] I don't know anything about this topic. Err towards overexplaining and try not to use too many acronyms.

[Evidence Ethics]

I perceive the following to be cheating (or check Rodrigo's paradigm):

- Clipping

- Cards starting or ending in the middle of a paragraph, or leaving paragraphs out (yes this includes the "they continue" stuff

- Miscutting evidence

- Misrepresenting the date of evidence

I would much prefer debaters stake the round on evidence ethics claims. I will notice clipping without debaters pointing it out, though you should still do so to make it easier for me. If there is an evidence ethics violation, it will result in the offending debater getting an L 25. If there is not a violation, the accusing debater will get an L 25.

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.

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

I'm a flow judge.

I guess it's not fair to say I'm tabula rasa, because I won't evaluate discriminatory or hateful arguments, but that's pretty much it.

Ask me any questions you have before round in terms of my criteria, and I'll be happy to answer. If you work in a good Taylor Swift reference into any speech, I will give you full speaker points.

Hi! I'm Cale- I've been coaching and judging for 8 years (PF and LD, some policy).

Email- cale@victorybriefs.com

Affiliations: Del Norte, Magnolia, Director of PF at VBI

Former: Westlake, Flanagan, Corona del Sol, Brophy, Quarry Lane

General:

- Read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. However, keep in mind the coherence of my RFD will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. You'll be much happier with my decision.

- I will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. Instead, I encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- Extend your arguments. Something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- Keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. I will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

Policy:

I'll judge kick the CP. I am good for your competition-based or process CP. Most often, teams would be better served engaging in a competition debate rather than reading a blippy theory argument. Default limitless condo (won't hack for it, but it's a strong default).

Zero-risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero.

I am happy to judge critical debates, but please engage in the lbl and err against being too overview heavy- especially true in the case of a planless affirmative.

LD:

Policy- What I judge most. Above section applies, I'll just add that a. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm and b. Limitless condo less strong a default given speech times in LD- still think you're better off engaging in a competition debate, but more open to cp theory claims.

Theory- A lot of what I judge. Always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. Far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable.

K- I frequently judge & cut a variety of cap & setcol arguments- external to that, I will need more judge instruction/won't be steeped in your literature's jargon. Please lbl clearly: I find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere.

Tricks- Requirements for me to vote here: 1. It has a warrant & implication 2. It is delineated in the doc (not in the cut of a card or hidden in a tag) 3. You're not being intentionally obtuse in cross 4. You slow way down in the rebuttal speeches and make the extension + application of the argument exceptionally clear. With all of that being said, I have no predisposition against voting here, particularly if you're reading triggers for a fw, skep or p&p.

Phil- I have next to no experience save for a lot of Kant, I mostly judge tricky weird stuff. Need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything denser, but happy to learn.

PF:

Extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. Otherwise, read what you think is most fun and educational. This can include theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF- I only ask you don't read these positions just for the sake of doing it. Read them well.

Come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). The only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

I debated varsity LD throughout High School and will be familiar with most anything that comes up in an LD round. As long as you can justify it in round and it isn't blatantly harmful/problematic, any cases and arguments are fine. Unless the rules of a particular tournament prohibit it, I prefer to be included in email chains. I'm generally fine with spreading, but I might not be able to understand the fastest spreaders- keep it intelligible and slow down a bit for important points and taglines. 

First time judge with background in engineering, not debate. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Anything you can do to make it clear what you are about to speak about, values, criterion and contentions, etc, would be a great help as I am just starting out. Looking forward to meeting you all and good luck!

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.

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!

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.

I am a litigation attorney, with both JD and post-graduate degrees in law. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas (as well as foreign extemp) in HS and college. Still, don’t use jargon and don’t spread please (or speak very clearly at least).

Howdy, I'm Hunter Sharp my experience as a competitor is I did Congressional and Extemporaneous debate for 4 years in high school, and am currently on the UNT debate team in Extemporaneous and Persuasive.

Congress Paradigm:

Speakers- I focus more on content than delivery. Clash, crystals and questioning is my favorite please do it. I expect at minimum 2 sources (publisher, month, year) per point. Please avoid repeating arguments and if you're a late speaker I expect crystal.

POs- The smoother you run things the better. keep minimum down time and good order.

Extemp Paradigm:

2 sources per point minimum (publisher, month, year). I care more about content than delivery. Make sure that you connect everything back to the question.

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

Hi,

I am a first year student at UT Austin. My pronouns are he/him. I did Ld debate for four years in highschool so that's what I'm most familiar with. In terms of other events like pf and extemp, I am pretty much going into it with an open mind. Feel free to ask me any questions in person in case I forgot anything in my paradigm.

LD - So I did varsity LD for four years but never really got into the high level debate. That being said, I am much more comfortable with phil and larp arguments. You can run tricks and theory but I can't promise anything. I'm fine with spreading as long as you slow down for your taglines and card names. If you have an email chain, I would like to be on it.

Overall, clarity and articulation go a long way for me. As long as you're confident and respectful you should be good!

I also give out perfect speech points if you make a reference to breaking bad, one piece, and the McRib. Good luck!

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.

I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.

I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)

Specifics

CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? Which other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash. (Flush out your ideas.)

LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.

Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.

Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.

Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.

read my paradigm. i'm a pretty standard tech judges but i have strong opinions on stuff that will be pertinent to the round (eg speed, docs, tws, etc.)

PLEASE GET READY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE!

flex prep perfectly fine by me just don't abuse it--the tournament is running late enough

IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND SOMETHING say goodbye to it. if your opponents do not extend something please say something!! and then u don't have to respond to it.

conceded defense is sticky. don't know why this is even a question

PLEASE TIME YOUR SPEECHES. i hate timing speeches. stop your opponents if they go 10+ over. ik its scary but do it queen

things i like:

• speech docs/disclosing (speech docs TO ME are required)
• prereqs/link ins/etc
• the bears trick
• weighing and collapsing early!!!! quality>quantity and the more u debate the more u will realize that i promise
• cool responses and arguments
• reading progressive arguments WELL
• polls arg
• impact turns!!! AND GOING FOR THEM DON'T WASTE MY TIME
• aff presumption warrants
• plans/cps

things i don't like:

• reading progressive arguments poorly
• most IVIs (IVI a random piece of ev sure. i get that it's not always suitable for a shell and all that. or IVI if they do something super offensive absolutely. other than that, u should check below)
• going too fast for me (wont end well for u)
• signposting poorly
• racist or otherwise offensive arguments
• the liar's paradox
• the neg ag argument. you should know that i hate the arg. won't intervene on it and have voted on it but i do not like it. if u decide to read it anyway i will eval it like a normal arg i just want you to know that i hate it
• tricks that aren't big in the doc (like if ur gonna read one then at least try to establish speech docs. for me, i need to see it in the doc for sure.)
• not doing speech docs. if ur opponents doesn't want speech docs u don't have to send them, but if ur the team saying no speech docs i will think ur lame.

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years (graduated 23) and qualled for TOC 3 times (kind of). very mid career with very few standout points (like going 1-6 at toc)

email cheriewang835@gmail.com

send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but if u and ur opponents don't decide to share cases just send to me). If i don’t get docs from you i’m giving 26s

general things

tech>truth basically always, it'll just be reflected in ur speaks. i don't give a lot of low speaks because i feel bad but every tournament i get less patient with teams reading arguments badly

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow. if u go too fast (especially if i'm tired) could be ggs idk what to tell u. i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me just because the other team didn’t respond to it. for reference u should top out ~900 words in constructive and thats being pretty generous. I DO NOT FLOW OFF DOC.

docs are not an excuse to go faster than i can handle and then get angry about the decision later. if i missed something i will not add it to my flow just because it's on the doc.

be nice or get 25s.

read whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it

signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost signpost

i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact then, they are all equally meaningless to me. if u don't tell me where to flow it then how am i supposed to evaluate it

u r EXTREMELY welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late then try to keep it short) or via email. i will not be mad i think education is great. i am always happy to answer questions about strategy/the decision/etc.

random things

when u point out a lack of a warrant for something please also read a counter warrant or else it is not an effective response unless completely dropped! debate is about arguments not about technicalities

if u read turns can u read impacts please

if u read turns can u read weighing please

if u read turns can they not be Your Case Pt. 2 But The Card Names Are Different please

overviews are awesome. very strategic. something that makes them NOT strategic is if the overview is just your case again.another thing that makes overviews not strategic is if you re-read it as a contention level response on each contention that it applies to. doing things like this makes me think that u don't know what anything ur reading means and that u don't understand how responses work.

hege args need real warrants too. also i will not like it if ur hege warrants start getting racist. and i will make sure u know it when u look at ur speaks.

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like those ones. generally speaking i like bears)

above most other things i hate teams wasting my time and making me flow things that aren't useful. like i would rather hear analytics than random turns u won't go for or 8 pieces of ev that all say the same thing in rebuttal. similar to my thoughts on overviews, doing these things makes me think u literally don't know how debate works. i'm all for a rebuttal off a doc or a prepout but ur brain shouldn't be turned off while u read. know what ur reading.

weigh or make extra implications to pad ur time instead of reading useless ev. i would literally rather hear u pause and think than flow pieces of evidence THAT SAY THINGS I'VE ALREADY HEARD. remember, flowing=work and i don't want to do work that is not valuable to evaluating the round, so don't make me flow the same response a bunch of times.

i don't believe in TKOs. assuming u won't mess up for the rest of the round is too bold and i will never do that for any team no matter how far ahead u are in the round.

i don't believe in 30 speaks theory.

trigger warnings. they're getting their own section now i didn't know the shell had returned in its worst form.

u don't need to read this section if u aren't reading/hitting tw and don't need a tw for case--generally, i believe trigger warnings should be read for graphic arguments that talk about traumatic subjects, that's all u need to know.

trigger warnings should have an opt out dont just list a bunch of triggering things and then talk about them for 4 minutes that makes no sense.

trigger warnings have real impacts on safety that are key to preserve the balance between people reading arguments about serious issues and people not being triggered in a closed room for 60 minutes. i feel very strongly that they should be read. if you read something graphic i will be extremely sympathetic to tw theory against u.

if tws don't have an opt out that does not cut it. i would be very down to hear tw theory on someone who gave a warning with no opt out.

this is one place where i feel very strongly about theory being used properly. i couldn't care less about friv (u can see my section on that if u want).performative theory that pretends to set a good norm and does a bad job of doing so is the strongest example of 'reading prog poorly' to me at the top of my list of things i don't like. doing a bad job with a new form of argumentation is totally understandable and educational for u. reading something serious like tw theory in a round where it doesn't make sense is bad for education and sets a bad norm that destroys the value of trigger warnings.

as usual, not an issue i will intervene on in round in the decision. but when i feel strongly about an issue it is only logical to assume it will make me a little biased in a way that's out of my control.

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. if u don't frontline a whole argument the defense sticks. i would love to see some collapsing in this speech.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. presuming with a coin flip is lame. i will do literally everything i can think of to avoid presuming if no one tells me to presume, especially in a substance round.

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF AND WE HAVE STARTED ALLOWING PPL TO READ THE WORST IMPACTS I'VE EVER HEARD. take it upon urself to fix this by reading impact defense when someone reads a terrible impact

because of something cale mccrary made me read i would also really enjoy seeing teams experiment with responding in second constructive but thats just a thought. im pretty sure no one will do this but if u do i will pad speaks for having a cool strategy. would love to see like a 2:2 split that would just be so funny.

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one because that's so much cooler) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times it isn't going to trick me into thinking you read more than one response. give a real rebuttal if i wanted to hear 5 pieces of evidence about one thing i would go read it myself. i cannot stress how much it annoys me to hear a bad rebuttal.

and i don't mean like you haven't heard the argument before and it wasn't your best rebuttal. i mean not making obvious analytics and reading unstrategic responses and not putting your heart into turns. i should be able to see the strategic value in every response you read.

IVIs

other prog stuff is below this. i need a section for IVIs sorry.

like i said above, IVIs on ev that is kinda messed up are totally fine. IVIs because they did something genuinely offensive are totally fine. would love to evaluate both of those actually. BUT U NEED TO ARTICULATE THEM CORRECTLY. if u want me to care about an issue and independently vote on it. u should care enough to build up that issue as an independent voter. it is not that complicated. what did they do wrong, why is it bad, why should i down them. turn your brain on to read IVIs. they are not a cheat code.

the two scenarios i described are the only ones i can think of where it makes any strategic sense to read an IVI instead of a shell. do not read disclosure in front of me and call it an IVI. do not read spec as an IVI. do not read T as an IVI. T is T. these arguments have developed to take on structure and that i find helpful for engaging with and evaluating those arguments. it is dumb to read those as IVIs. i feel very strongly about this.

i also believe that IVIs are often used as a way of basically doing more performative theory with less risk because it's an IVI and not a shell so it gets around RVIs which has become very easy to win. i hate performative norm setting. i hate it even more when it's with an IVI.

theory

i love judging theory but that means when it's bad, i hate it a lot more than mid/bad substance. i will take mediocre substance over bad theory any day. however do not be afraid to read theory in front of me if you are fairly new to it because i love seeing people experiment and learn about progressive/new argumentation more than i hate hearing a bad theory round. all i'm saying is your brain should be on when you read theory no matter how advantageous it might be for you.

theory is great including friv but if u r being funky, u must also be fun. otherwise its just kinda terrible for everyone else and no one wants that especially not me (and u dont want that either because u won't like ur speaks)!

if u read friv and do a bad job at reading theory ill be mad cus why are u wasting my time and everyone else's

all parts of theory need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals (but if u want to make the argument that a rebuttal extension is necessary, go for it--it's just not my default). if u forget to extend something important like DTD and they point it out u will probably not be winning off theory!

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan for os disclosure and am very open to hearing arguments for disclosure, os, misdisclosure whatever i don't care what the nuance is. my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

tricks

don't really know what i'm doing but these are fun and i'll vote on them

don't really like paradoxes that much. i think polls is funny. i think eval after 1nc/1ac is funny although it's technically the one argument where what i do is strictly intervention. idek other tricks. do what u want

i need to see them on the doc

Ks

i'll judge anything as best as i can (which is not very well)

k's are out of my area of expertise so run at ur own risk--i don't mind hearing them and i'll try my best to eval but idk the big words. on top of that speed will absolutely make my brain fold in on itself and implode. if u want to read one u should probably gauge my experience w them and talk to me before round

i need a lot of judge instruction and a minimal amount of buzzwords for k's (as in i will not understand buzzwords and need full explanation in their place). personally im by far the most familiar with cap but every time i learned about wrote or debated k, all the knowledge went in one ear and out the other in like a week

topical k's are obviously way easier for me to follow and eval--nontopical k's are so out of my realm of understanding ur lowkey asking me to flip a coin.

again, BE NICE. especially if ur reading progressive args on novices.

James Bowie '23 / TrinityU '27

Contact - nweerako@trinity.edu

My exp is I competed in LD for one year, senior year, and qualified to TOC and TFA state, primarily reading the K and phill

LD

[ pref shortcut ]

1 - K v K / K v Policy / K v Phill

1/2 - Phil

2/3 - Trix

2/3 - Policy

4 - Theory

4 - Friv Theory

not voting on ad homs

K

Read the K (unemployment) on both sides, familiar with most literature bases, and if not, I can probably catch on if it is explained well.

2NR should probably win some case defense, but it is not necessary

you can kick the alt and go for links as disads, but I need judge instruction

K Lit as Phill /Topical K affs

primarily my style of debate in HS on the aff

Non-T

Implicate what the aff does if I affirm, non T often loses to good presumption pushes.

Phill

I am familiar with Phill on a knowledge level, I read A LOT of Phill in my free time, though I haven't watched too many Phill debate rounds.

Policy

Do Impact Calc/Link Weighing

Trix

These are funny, and I'll evaluate them to the best of my ability. That being said, I never encountered these kinds of debaters in high school and, as such, may not be very knowledgeable about the interactions and how these debates play out. However, I'm familiar with most tricks in a vacuum through explosion, condo logic, triv, and paradoxes.

Theory

I can evaluate them. This kind of debate is just very boring to me, however, and probably what I am least experienced in

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.