I am open to everything and I will not limit you on what you do. However, if you are spreading or you know that you talk quickly then please slow down during important information like tags, authors, plan text, and anything that you want me to consider heavily in the debate. I don’t mind a little bantering and tension because that’s what makes CX fun, but still be respectful to everyone in the debate. Arguments that the other teams text is outdated compared to yours and anything specific to the evidence is fine, but I will never base a win around that reason. I love topicality arguments not only because it introduces two different perspectives of the resolution, but also it proves that both teams understand what they are arguing and whether it is connected to the resolution. (You do not need to run a topicality argument just because I said this.) The most important thing to me is that both teams are able to improve their skills overall in debate regardless of the outcome. If you want me to choose your side to win you must convince me in your final rebuttal speeches and state every reason why you should win. It is up to you to convince me. If you want a bonus speaker point tell me a joke and if I laugh you’ll get it, and if at the end of your time for your final rebuttal if you say “we the (neg/aff)” slayed that” then you will get 2 extra speaker points.

I use She/Her pronouns. I competed in Public Forum for 4 years in high school, as well as Congress and duo interpretation, briefly. I have a decent amount of experience judging speech. I now compete in CX at Trinity University.

Add me to the email chain if there is one: mmalvarado04@gmail.com

Debate & Speaks:

-You will get good speaks and do well if you have comprehensive, clear overviews at the top of every flow and present your arguments with consistent organization.

-Indicate that you are switching from on-case to off-case arguments etc.

-Spreading is fine

-tech > truth but you need to explain why your arguments matter otherwise I’ll have a hard time voting for them

- dropped arguments are presumed to be true but do yourself a favor and explain what the original warrant was anyway and why it's important

PF Specifics

-blank slate when it comes to impact weighing in PF, so do not assume I will weigh anything unless you articulate it and defend it. A lot of debates always under-focus on impact weighing

-If you have similar impacts, like climate change and extinction, weigh probability or magnitude because I can't do anything if you just repeat your impacts.

-Both speakers need to take into account your summary and final focus. I pay the most attention and consider both speeches heavily as I think the summaries are the most important in the round.

-You do NOT need to address everything they dump on you, but summaries should address two or three major voting issues. I prefer that you address major voting issues and prove why they are important over spending 10-20 seconds on every single argument of the round.

More Specific Args relevant to CX/ potentially LD

T-It’s probably jurisdictional but you’d be more persuasive if you made that argument. Fairness can be a voter but try to show proven abuse in-round, otherwise, I feel more comfortable evaluating it as an internal link to education. Predictability is also important.

Theory/Procedurals can be very useful and fun when utilized properly. They can also be incredibly annoying. Disclosure is important, provided aff isn’t breaking new. Vagueness can get dicey but if you tell me why specifically you’re being harmed I’ll be able to evaluate. Condo is annoying, but again, if you tell me why it’s harmful in-round I’ll evaluate it.

DA/CP-I tend to be a little suspicious of the link on politics DAs just because they need to be frequently updated, but that won’t affect my ballot unless Aff brings it up. I think CPs are great and the perm is usually pretty competitive.

K-I love a good K debate and have a working familiarity with Cap, Security, Militarization, and SetCol. If you run something different, that's fine, just make sure you have good overviews and explain the moving parts. Link and impact debate are critical for me. For aff, perms are very competitive.

Winston Churchill '21

University of Texas '25

debatejudgedocs@gmail.com

he/him

Timeliness = higher speaks.

Prep stops when email is sent.

Top Level:

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.

Do what you do well. i prefer good debating over anything else. My favorite debates to judge are ones where debaters look like they want to be there. Make the debate interesting and have fun. Those rounds are always better and usually get better response out of me for both teams. Have a strategy in mind and execute it. Debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

"Most judges render hundreds of decisions over their time judging. Debaters are not entitled to the same privilege. There are a finite, limited set of tournaments they can participate in during their careers. It is blatantly disrespectful to take a debater's participation at a tournament for granted. Each debate should be treated as a debater's last. Thus, unlike the many judges I've had, I do not care at all about "rep" or how my ballot will be perceived by others. I will not use my ballot to attempt to "teach" debaters anything and will always apply the same criteria of evaluation for both teams. My sole consideration is how well debaters technically execute arguments in their speeches. Other concerns will be addressed in the RFD following the decision. Debaters deserve no less from their judges." - Arnav Kashyap

Logical fallacies are called such for a reason.

i flow CX. It's obvious, but this is where you're winning and losing your speaker points. Debaters should act accordingly. One comment i find myself handing out most often is "you had a great CX moment on [thing], but it never made it into a speech."

Content Considerations:

Policy v K: The negative must have a link that is contextual to the aff. Examples will be rewarded highly. Impact calculus on framework is imperative on both sides. The affirmative should have link offense and/or defense, as well as explaining it in context of the permutation/why your args problematize the rest of the negative strategy. Floating PIKs legit unless aff says otherwise. Zero percent risk of the K is possible.

K v K: Both sides need to differentiate their theory of power and explain that theory in context of the opposing one. Make sure you're connecting the dots in terms of the permutation and why the alt or just voting negative can resolve some portion of your offense. Affs should get creative with their link turns and permutations and not be afraid to explain args in a new way than the ones we're used to in debate. Perms should be carded. If they're not, the threshold for 'good' explanation becomes very high. Examples, examples, examples.

v K Aff: You are well suited to go for framework in front of me. Negative teams are best served thoroughly explaining their impacts in context of the affirmative impacts/offense in favor of calling their impacts "intrinsic goods." You are also better suited to NOT rely solely on enthymematic posturing or fancy vocabulary to construct your arguments, as I am less inclined to fill in the blanks about "SSD/TVA solves the aff!" Whether each side needs to defend a model is up for debate. Point out contradictions and nonsense. If it's not great FW strat vs not great k aff, I will likely end up voting aff. Go for presumption. Don't be afraid to take the aff up on their claims; I don't dislike negative shenanigans. If they say fairness bad, read a DA in the 2nc idk. Just have fun with it.

**note to k affs: please do not just read a variation of a successful K aff from 2-3 years ago. Be original. If i see a 1AC that has a different team's initials/that was clearly stolen (especially if you run it horribly), you will get lower speaks than the other team, even if you win.

Truth v Tech: i find myself frequently deciding close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates; i find myself much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

Evidence v Spin: Good evidence trumps good spin. i will accept/treat as true a debater’s spin until it is contested by the other team. This is probably the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and perm ev for kritiks.

Speed vs Clarity: Not flowing off the doc but i'll probably peruse the cards read in a given speech during prep. If I don't hear/can't understand the argument, it won't make it to my flow. I'll say 'clear' if i can't understand you for more than 2 seconds.

Things that will Earn Speaker points: clarity, confidence, organization, well-placed humor, being nice, and well executed strategies/arguments.

Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, bad jokes/poor timed humor, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand/just reading blocks

Misc: racism good/death good = L 25. vast swaths = 30. i don't know you, so why should i have to decide if you're a good person or not for things done outside of the round? Mark your own cards and take it upon yourself to send them out later. Everything is up for debate. Joke args are fine unless executed poorly. Still waiting to judge a good baudrillard team...

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

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

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

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

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

Meta Issues:

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

Framework:

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

Topicality:

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

Kritiks:

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

Counterplans:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Theory:

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

Miscellaneous:

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

Ways to Increase/Decrease Speaker Points:

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

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! :>

Winston Churchill '23- UT '27

I want on the email chain! cpepperdavis@gmail.com

they/them

Top level

I'm down for anything! I love debate, I love judging and doing debate, and I will do my best for my argumentative biases not to influence my decision.

Don't over-adapt or change your strategy after you read this- it is merely to help you understand the way I understand debate!

I will look upset as I flow, I am not upset! I am thinking!

Affirmatives

Read whatever aff you want!

--policy affs

The better your internal link chain, the better chance you won't lose on case. Case debates are probably my favorite to judge when paired with an impact turn or some sort of offensive position. I love case debates.

--k affs

I think affs should be in the direction of the topic, but if you win a persuasive reason why that's not true I will vote on it. I read K affs and policy affs. Assume I don't know your lit base, I probably don't and therefore will not know what the aff is talking about.

when you are aff vs framework, I don't care what strategy you will go for. Make sure there is offense in the 2AR.

know what the aff says, it makes it easier to leverage your impacts as offense

Topicality

I think T debates are underrated and (when done well) are really persuasive. However, I'm more likely to vote aff if you recycle generic fairness blocks rather than explaining offense about THIS topic being good.

I default competing interps but can obviously be persuaded otherwise. I don't want to hear your generic reasonability blocks and move on, tell me why your aff is reasonable under their interpretation.

You are likely to win my ballot if you have a good defense of what a season of debates look like under your model, and offensive reasons why theirs is bad.

Yes, evidence quality does matter. Yes, intent to define matters.

---framework vs k affs:

I have been on both sides of these debates frequently, I don't particularly lean either way, I will vote for the winner.

aff teams: utilize your aff, you have a built in answer to their offense.

neg teams: TVAs and switch side debate are the most persuasive arguments and more convincing than fairness.

A good explanation of why their aff specifically can be read on the negative > a pre-typed fairness rant

both teams need a solid defense of what their model of debate looks like, but emphasis on aff teams defending what that world looks like under the counter interp.

Counterplans/Disads

Not much to say here. I'm a 2A, so I have some biases towards theory args (process cp's, condo) but it comes down to the debating!

Idk read a link and be competitive!

K

I love a good K debate!

The more specific the link, the better your offense! Pulling lines from the aff, indicting their authors, etc will help you a lot!

My partner and I last year went for the K 60-75% of our neg rounds but read a very policy aff.

I don't really care what K you read or your defense of framework, debate better than the other team and you will win.

Misc.

Death good, suicide good, etc will be L and the lowest possible speaks the moment it is read.

Don't misgender people, don't shrug off misgendering people!

Be nice:)

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

For any further questions about rounds/ email chains please email me at haldebate25@gmail.com

For anything involving judging opportunities, please email me at hdivalentone04@gmail.com

I was a 4 year policy debater and extemporaneous speaker, who also dabbled in interp events once or twice , I have experience mostly in the UIL circuit, so my judging style reflects that. I currently compete in the collegiate circuit and have seen many different styles of debate, so if you can run a type of argument, I have probably seen it before.

~Policy/CX~

Yes email chain :D

Decorum is one of my highest priorities when it comes to rounds, if you decide to be rude to your oppponents during rounds I'm not going to reward you with a win; this includes being racist, homophobic, sexist, or talking down to your opponent in any way.

If I had to label my judging type it would be a tabula rusa judge. When it comes to the actual content of the round, I dont mind if you run new in the 2, I dont mind the usage of theory like Kritiks, CPs etc, if its argued effectively and not just used as a timesuck. Anything can be game IF argued effectively.

This also goes for dropping arguments in rebuttals, dont just throw it out because you're not arguing it effectively, if your opponent still won the argument its going on my ballot, unless you can provide a good reason for why that argument doesnt matter in the realm of this specific debate.

If you're going to bring up a stock issues argument, please understand what the stock issue means, i.e dont run a "my opponent has no harms" argument if you dont know what a harm is.

Persuasiveness is also a huge thing for me, you can have all the facts and evidence you want but if you cant create a believable argument I have no reason to vote on it.

I know that disclosure is becoming a huge thing on the national circuit, but I wont vote on if someone does or does not disclose, since part of debate is the premise that you will have to think on your feet, and people have been debating without disclosure for decades, however I do feel that if you are going to stand there and emphasize disclosure and how it is effective for the education of the round, I think you shoud be reflecting those same qualities on your own end too.

I dont do spreading, I think its detrimental to the art of debate and your speaks will be docked for it. I wont flow anything that is being spread, and if its up to your opponents to tell me what youre saying, then thats what im gonna have to put on the ballot if its the only thing that is being spoken clearly. If you choose to spread, you get a single verbal clear, after that I will not be flowing and your speaks will be docked. I think there are much better ways to have a productive debate without exclusionary tactics, that being said I am fine with speed if you are speaking coherently and without excessive breaths in between every word. At that point you waste more time attempting to catch your breath than you do speaking, and its not productive.

~PF~

I am pretty comfortable judging PF, and I have quite a bit of experience doing so. While I never actually competed in the event, part of the philosophy behind PF is that it is supposed to be an accessible event for all, thus my judging philosophy upholds this.

One of the biggest things about PF is that, more so than Policy, this event should have no spreading what so ever, as it defeats the purpose of the event entirely.

In Public Forum, a lot of your arguments should not be evidence based unless you have something that specifically counters the evidence given by your opponent. I think that this is a super fun event to sit down and judge, but debates over evidence are kind of meaningless in this event. If you are able to attack your opponents arguments logically and with tact persuasion, then I believe there shouldnt need to be a huge amount of cards that support your case if there is a logical conclusion. For example, if your opponent is saying to ban all baked goods because they are unhealthy, and your logical refutation is that banning all baked goods will put small business bakers out of a job, thats a lodical conclusion that doesnt necessarily require a lot of evidence.

You should also be respectful during crossfire, no matter if it is regular or grand. Little quips or comments are not appreciated, as decorum is something that is supposed to be emphasized in this event, yall arent policy kids, so dont act like it.

~LD~

I am all for technical arguments in LD such as Kritiks, but I think that CPs and DAs should be used disparingly since the whole premise of LD is the moral question of should we or should we not pass this resolution, so sometimes Disads and CPs work and sometimes they do not, keep this in mind.

As is with my philosophy in all events, I believe that decorum and communication come first, without these two mutual things there is not a physical way possible to have a productive round. If you both chose to disregard this, your speaks will get docked.

Another thing that is crucial for me in LD is defintely the framework of the round, it is preferable when both sides present a strong framework for their cases, complete with philosophical reasons to prefer. Definitions are neither here nor there unless theres a really good reason to prefer one definition over the other. Overall, LD is one of those events where I dont judge on the same thing every time, just because I vote on one thing in one round doesnt mean I will vote on the same thing the next round. I try my best not to bring background knowledge into this event, but if you are presenting something that I have reason to believe an average person would reasonably know, then I can bring that into the round and use it in personal decision.

I also enjoy when rebuttals are clean cut, and well organized, as it helps me fully emphasize points on my ballot.

Overall, have a good debate, dont be a jerk, and good luck

Senior at the University of Texas at Austin '24

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

Overview

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

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

– I prefer contextualized arguments with specific warrants over anything else. Although I generally prefer high-quality evidence, issues from lack of evidence or poor-quality evidence can be resolved with good argumentation. I do normally read cards, but I leave explanations and comparison of evidence up to debaters. I mostly read cards to give comments/advice on how to better execute/answer a particular argument. I also don't want card docs. If you send a card doc, that email and doc will sadly be ignored and left unread in my inbox.

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

– I have listened to debates on T-Taxes. I generally err aff that "fiscal redistribution" implies taxes or transfers. For the neg to win, the aff must either mishandle the Topicality debate or the neg has a spectacular reason that deficit spending should not be aff ground. I have yet to hear a spectacular reason that deficit spending should not be aff ground.

Framework

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

Disadvantages

– DAs that rely on poor-evidence can be easily beaten without the 2AC ever reading new evidence against it. I am much more comfortable voting aff on "your uniqueness evidence is horrible" than 1% risk of a poorly carded DA. I am also very sympathetic to the 1AR making new arguments when the block reads new evidence to defend parts the 1NC poorly defended.

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

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

– For UIL State, the above is not true.

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

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

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

LD

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

PF

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

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

lasa 24

email: dollingerjack21@gmail.com

- i am fine with any arguments.

- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

- don't be mean.

have fun!

LASA 25

Email for the chain - chiefbeef121@gmail.com
Email for questions - bilofmsu@gmail.com
- don't use this email for the chain - if u do your speaks will be equal to Alex Huang's (height). (she's short) (like really really short)

do your best unless you don't want to.

Good luck bread getters!

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TFA STATE 2024 UPDATE: I feel like at this point in the season, judges should outline specific preferences that align with the topic, given they've judged a considerable amount thus far. I have developed a few of those preferences. First, because this is an economy centric topic, I need you to isolate a market indicator that should frame the direction of the economy. Whether is the CPI, Stock Market Projections, BizCon surveys, etc. Absent this specification, it makes it hard to judge econ uniqueness in debates. Second, the central T debate is Taxes v Deficit Spending. A lot more time needs to be allocated to the predictability standard when going for "you must tax". There are tons of taxes the aff could choose, only one way to deficit spend. Finally, is evidence recency. Though I believe dates on cards matter less than the warrants themselves, when debating the ever-changing economy, the most recent analysis is more likely to sway me. The same can be said for politics scenarios. We are deep into an election cycle, Super Tuesday is 2 days before tfa state. Please update your evidence.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

PF

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

esther (she/her)

policy at wichita east for four years, first year at Texas

please put me on the chain: eliu.debate@gmail.com

I will judge whatever arguments made in round but I do know that everyone has argumentative ideologies that may unintentionally affect the decision. So, here are my thoughts:

T -- I went and still go for T a lot. Competing interps is probably best. Caselists are helpful and so is describing what your world of debate looks like vs the aff's and why it's better.

CP -- "Cheating" counterplans are legitimate until brought up for debate. Condo is good.

DA -- Specific links are great and impact calc can take you far.

K -- I am the most experienced with Cap, Antiblackness, SetCol, and Fem IR. Regardless, debate as if I don't know the technicalities of your critical theory. Links to the plan are more persuasive than links to reps.

K-Aff -- I have only ever been neg in these debates. I find ones that are in the direction of the topic most convincing.

In a method debate, I am the most experienced with Cap.

Misc:

Please leave pen/typing time, spreading through analytics at top speed means I will inevitably drop arguments. Assume I am not following the speech doc.

Read re-highlightings instead of inserting them in the doc.

Note for econ topic: It'd be helpful if acronyms and certain terms were spelled out and explained earlier on in the debate.

Mercedes ISD (2013-2019) 2A/2N

UT Austin (2019-2023) 1A/2N

__________________________

Short Version: Tab

I'll vote on anything as long as its impacted and developed well. I think debate should be about the engagement between teams' arguments and what they ultimately mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other.

Don't be racist, sexist, ableist etc...

Any mention of Sexual Assault, Self Harm with any language requires a TW - I'll dock your speaks if you don't

email chain: benjaminnoriega9@gmail.com

__________________________

"Long" Version:

1^st year out, take that as you will…

People that influence the way I think about debates: Sammy Healey, Zach Watts, Pia Sen, Will Coltzer, Brendon Bankey, Azja Butler, Will Baker, Texas DK, Jose Alaniz, PJ Martinez

My own thoughts:

I think debate can be a lot of things, but at its core it’s a space for teams to have interesting and impactful discussions about differing perspectives. That being said, I believe that it’s important for teams to demonstrate their ability to explain a clear narrative and deploy that narrative to generate offensive arguments against their opponent’s position.

I think there are a few things that teams can do to grab my ballot:

1.) JUDGE INSTRUCTION: I think it’s to your benefit to explain to me what I'm supposed to do with the things you have said. There are questions that I need answers to (What does the aff do? What does alt/cp do/why is preferable? What is the role of ballot and how should I use my ballot? Etc.) I also think attaching offense to your judge instruction can be useful in swaying me a particular way, especially for K teams. Clearly define what action I should take given the comparison of impacts and offense in the round.

2.) FRAMING: I was a big FW debater and think that winning the FW debate coupled with clearly articulated judge instruction is a slam dunk for me most of the time. Framework determines how I evaluate other portions of the debate, so even if I think your winning some compelling arguments, you need that FW push to justify prioritizing those arguments. A 2AR/2NR centered around what voting for your framework and evaluating the debate through that lens means in the broader sense paired with an offensive comparison of the arguments on the line by line proper will help me gravitate towards voting you up.

3.) OFFENSE: Forwarding a few key pieces of offense with a clear explanation of what they mean in terms of you're opponent’s arguments is necessary for me in terms of impact calculus. It’s also important for you to recognize and problematize your opponent’s arguments and not let this portion of the debate become two ships passing in the night.

4.) This is me (ask anyone) but BE PETTY: I am here for the spice, and you will be met with bonus speaks. You’re there to win, and you should let it be known. This is also super helpful because moments like these can open opportunities to exploit your opponent’s reactions and the way they articulate responses to these moments. Read my Wiki, you’ll see how out of pocket I was, there really is no limit to the things I will vote on.

Random things about me that may or may not be useful to you and your ability to adapt to me:

1. I was mainly a K debater, read policy in High school, went for Cap for like 9 years and was a Policy 1A for a little under 2 years in college…don’t really keep up with ‘TIX updates, read a lot more K lit.

2. Mainly went for Cap, Racial Cap, Disability, Frame Subtraction, Petty RVI’/IVI’s, and PIKs.

3. I flow on paper…’cause that matters to some people.

4. Truth over Tech

5. Once again, check my wiki – your judge’s wiki tells you a lot.

Random thoughts about certain positions:

Framework/T USFG – Been in this debate many times, and I think for me, it centers around a question of offense against your opponent’s model of debate. If at the end of the day your model of debate may have some imperfections, if you are able to problematize your opponent’s ability to resolve the offensive questions you have posed, and set up some defensive explanations about how maybe your model of debate could resolve to some extent the questions that may linger, even if only partially, I should default to your model of debate because of the risk you demonstrated is associated by voting the other way. I think big picture explanations are much more conducive to the way I think about these debates, however judge instruction and framing mean I’m pretty open.

K – Most familiar and preferred argument – lots of K tricks that can generate offense. Main questions I need answered are 1. What is the link? 2. How does the alt/permutation function? 3. How should I evaluate your arguments and what does it mean for my ballot to endorse one side over the other? You should articulate a clear link and impact story that allows you to generate a beneficial narrative to push in the final rebuttal. K debates can also be benefited by being observant and reading the room, generating performative links, taking note of people’s reactions to things that are said, or using what people say to demonstrate your link arguments allow you to take the debate to a different level or mitigate your opponent’s offense by demonstrating performative inconsistencies.

DA – Not too many thoughts – DA turns the case when your Neg, Case o/w when your aff. The Link/Uniqueness portion becomes super important and should be coupled with in depth impact calculus. For a CP/DA combo, demonstrating the magnitude of the DA allows you to sell the “any risk of the net benefit” line better.

CP – The permutation is my main area of focus when it comes to these kinds of debate, no functional or textual competition probably persuades me to vote aff…that being said “perm do the cp” is cheating and lame. Net benefit work also needs to be done to the extent that I am willing to dismiss any risk of the aff, otherwise the permutation probably resolves any residual offense.I do need a little more help and explanation in intricate Process CP debates

T – Not my favorite debates, I think they become fairly generic by the final rebuttals. That being said, I have a couple thoughts:

1. Predictability is the internal link to all your terminal impacts, not a terminal impact in and of itself.

2. I am less persuaded by the Limits and Ground DAs as terminal impacts – I think limits controls portions of the internal link to ground and ultimately is a subjective notion…like is there really NO ground or just not the ground you want (Aff’s you can back file check and replace two or three cards).

3. I can be persuaded that risk of the case should come before T.

Random things that people may or may not like:

1. I’m totally cool with using CX as prep, it’s your time.

2. I think Condo is probably a good thing but that’s not a set-in stone notion.

3. CX is binding – these are things you have said to explain and defend your position, they can and should be used against you if you open the door.

I have some other random thoughts so feel free to ask questions.

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

Gordie O'Rorke (he/him)

- University of Texas '26 -- not debating

- Winston Churchill '22

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

TLDR:

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

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

Other Relevent Things:

- I prefer word docs over google docs and pdfs.

- Don't say "see-pee".

- Disclosure is good -- send your ev.

Topicality

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

Counterplans

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

Disads

- No unique thoughts here. Love turns case args.

Kritiks

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

K Affs/FW

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

LD/PF

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

mount pleasant '23 | texas '27

email chain/questions: aoorellana535@gmail.com

*please ask your coach to reach out to me

- - -

TLDR - too long, didn't read

debate how you debate. be strategic and organized. judge instruction is very persuasive. don't make flowing your speech hard for me. have fun and treat people with kindness!

STOP SHADOW EXTENDING. good debaters extend arguments thoroughly.

i will try not to do any work for anyone. i try to be as transparent as possible in my flows and decisions. the more work you make me do, the lower your speaks go and the chances of getting my ballot. if you have any questions, feel free to ask me after the round or during the tournament.

- - -

CX – cross-examination or policy

do whatever you know best: traditional stock issues, contentions, etc.

2A's should STOP card dumping and start strategically using the 1AC to make creative responses.

the 1AR is not a constructive speech. just don't make it a constructive speech.

the 1NR should not be using prep time after the 2NC. instead, use the time prior to have enough time to strategize in the 2NR.

the 2NR should be condensed down to the main winning arguments. 5 off and case in the 2NR is not a flex.

framing is important but winning framing (structural violence, util, etc.) is not synonymous with auto-winning the round.

for k aff's:

prefer to have some sort of tie to the resolution ... i have a hard time envisioning why a model that rejects the resolution is good for debate.

go for a clear impact/model comparison debate and blow it up.

explain the impact of my ballot on any rob/performance claims. i can't weigh anything if i'm not told when and why.

don't make it messy for me. this only makes me not want to flow the round and i will be sad.

- - -

LD – lincoln douglas

everything above applies.

winning the value criterion/standard is not synonymous with auto-winning the round.

calling out concessions doesn't mean auto-win either. explain your well-developed arguments and go for what you know!

extend, explain, and weigh your impacts! i find impact weighing and comparison very persuasive.

please condense in the 1AR ... the speech is way too short and you'll spread yourself thin.

definitions frame the debate. if conceded, i will assume such definitions as limits within the debate.

don't read trixx. it's jargon to me. don't do it.

- - -

T – topicality/theory

i hate messy t/theory debates. make the flow as clean as possible.

i won't flow theory shells that have no applicability to the round.

i will more than likely default to competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise.

i love some good, warranted, definitions debate.

if there is no violation, i won't vote on t/theory.

- - -

T - FW – framework

i typically buy into the impact/models debate in these rounds.

again, i have a hard time voting for k aff's that have no connection to the topic because it's hard for me to envision why a model that isn't related to the "topic" is good for education, etc.

explaining why t-fw is bad, resolution is bad, etc. and proving another model that exports "x" education, etc. gives me another route to the ballot.

- - -

K – kritiks

i know the common literature (set col, cap, fem, abolition, etc.) but i'm not too familiar with complex literature.

i won't evaluate death good, or anything in relation to supporting the death of people.

try to answer the higher theory of power ... if i can't disprove ontology, how am i to weigh material implications against it?

explain the impact of my ballot on any rob/performance claims.

cool with generic. the more specific, the better. that's just better for nuanced debates.

aff probably gets to weigh the plan against the K or the K's framework.

2A's should determine whether a big case OW push or a link turn/perm/alt fails push works best.

explain the alternative. big fancy words aren't a substitute for an explanation. if i don't know what the alternative is, who resolves the links?

- - -

DA – disadvantages

da's should probably tell a story.

include case turns and impact weighing analysis.

cool with generic. the more specific, the better.

i think evidence comparison, especially in ptx debates is pretty important.

reading taglines and hyperlinks without proper cut evidence is NOT evidence ... i won't flow it.

- - -

CP - counterplans

explain how the CP is preferable. and there has to be some competition between the CP and the affirmative plan.

if using an internal/external net benefit, explain why the CP solves and outweighs.

explain the permutations to the CP in the 2AC, don't just say perm x.

intrinsic perms go crazy!

- - -

speech - CONG, EXT, PRO, POE, DI, HI

do whatever you want! i'm here to evaluate your performance and rank! just be yourself and everything else will get taken care of!

treat others with kindness ... talking over others, being rude and rolling your eyes is NOT persuasive or convincing whatsoever.

Hey Guys, I'm Akshath I've been involved in debate for over 3 years, I was heavily involved in policy but have decent experience in other forms of debate. Please include me in the email chain, my email is akshathprasad05@gmail.com. Spreading is fine, just make sure the taglines are loud and clear for me to follow, but it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. Please please please read analytics very very slowly and clearly so I can understand, if you don't I simply will not be able to flow them. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow if any or given. I have a decent knowledge of this year's topic. I am a technicality over truth judge and I definitely play impact calc into my AFF voting decision. Think of me like a blank slate, it is the debaters' job to educate me with all the information.

Like any other judge, I love well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments, quality over quantity any day.

Topicality: I was never too much of a fan of Topicality, if you are a team that goes for T please explain it thoroughly and why I should vote for it, walk me through the T's. Make T arguments interesting, and take it to another level.

CPs: I love a good CP, CPs are game-breakers to me and I will very much vote on a CP if the NEG can easily explain to me the Net Benefit and the Mutual Exclusivity. Perms are great responses from the AFF, Explain to me why the CP can be permed and if the NEG is not able to explain why the PERM fails, AFF wins CP.

DAs: Just like CPs I love a good DA, emphasize the Uniqueness, link, and impact, extend the DAs throughout the neg block, and keep on pushing them. If the AFF is able to provide a solid non-uniq argument or no link, AFF wins DA, but once again the neg needs to find ways to counter this. I prefer specific links to the DA over broad links.

Ks: Ks are very interesting to me because if the K is solid I will easily cast my ballot for the neg, prioritize the framework and the role of debate and focus a lot on the theory aspect. Frame the debate space around the K, but if the K is too sloppy and not properly organized and read I will most likely not vote for the K. I love a great K. Expand on the Alternative and the link, please please, please. I love Roll of Ballot arguments when they are connected to K's.

FW:Arguably the best part of the round, is framing the debate round in the same way as your arguments. emphasize ROB

Condo: not really a fan of

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including docs) email me at apulcine23@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.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed slow down on analytics if I dont have them. Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card. I'll give more leeway on this if what you're reading is in the doc but if not please slow down.

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. 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. 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: Same thing as K, 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. 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. 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.

ut austin '27 (government/economics/plan ii)

1A/2N in hs (memorial qp), not currently debating in college

email chain: gzqjudging@gmail.com

accomodations/disability notice:

i have a hearing disorder. i've decided that if you're blatantly being unaccomodating (ignoring things that i have specified in my paradigm i need as accomodations) then i do not need to try very hard in judging you. i think it's unfair for me to give the same treatment to debaters who are willing to accomodate me and debaters who aren't.

on calling clear: it's not easy for me to distinguish if i can't tell what you're saying because you're unclear or because i have a hearing disorder. i think i'm pretty clear about what i expect the people i'm judging to do in order to accommodate me, and i'm open to answering any questions before the debate starts.

westminster: don't know basically anything abt this topic. always prefer to judge a good k debate but down to judge larp too. don't worry too much about what i prefer in terms of arguments, i don't have super strong feelings about most stuff, just what i specify as accommodations.

tldr: i think there are really only 4 things about me that you probably have to know

in round expectations: if you are unnecessarily rude and condescending at any point in time it will make me upset to vote for you and you will almost certainly catch a 25 (or lower than what i would originally think you deserve). i'm not going to expect you to be best friends but there's a bottom line. be reasonable and be kind

ivis/accessibility: i am very sympathetic to legitimate ivis. i don't think your opponent needs to run an ivi for me to down you if you're running something exclusionary. the moment that i see something exclusionary in any sense, i will not continue flowing and i will submit my ballot.

ideological background: i was almost solely an identity k debater in high school, but i went to policy-oriented camps (zag '20, utnif '19, utnif '21). i also read philosophy in my free time. i think this means i can evaluate most debates pretty well but i am probably best at judging identity k debates. i also come from the gonzaga camp of credentials matter which is the main opinion i have on larping.

competitive background: i did policy debate at memorial high school, competed on the nat circuit semi-regularly and did kind of decently my senior year. my partner and i were largely lone wolves for most of our careers. i was almost exclusively a 2N except for like 2 tournaments my freshman year and like one or two rounds my senior year. it highlights mistakes but hasn't really impacted my inclination to vote one way or the other.

larp debate:

credentials: i don't really have strong opinions on larp debate (or policy debate lmao) other than i think credentials and where authors are from can strongly sway the direction of the debate =)

kritikal debate:

literature: i am relatively familiar with most identity literature, and know more than enough to know if you're wrong. i am most familiar with [techno]orientalism, set col, and cap. i know buzzwords, but i never really got why you would use buzzwords instead of just explaining unless it was really necessary. take that how you will i suppose.

debating style: don't run like… an overview in front of me. i'd say this probably applies to poems and the sort too but i get how that's usually a part of the case. either way, i didn't know how to flow them in high school and i still don't know how to flow them. i never really saw a point unless it was explaining the thesis of the k, but you should not like. expect me to flow it lol. i'm not going to and i def will not flow it on another page

links: i gotta say i'm not suuuper into state links unless your k is sketchy and there's a reasonable chance you couldn't find a link, i strongly prefer specific k links, but i get it. i was a 2n at some point too, i'm not going to be mad if your link is generic (with restrictions)

but also as a 1A, people extrapolating obviously generic state links in the block (specifically to cap ks) were frustrating af because i had to make entirely new offense like 99% of the time. i am sympathetic to 1As who have to answer that, especially if your 1NC card clearly has no part that talks abt your extrapolation, UNLESS it's a sketchy aff where there are probably not easily available links. even links to one part of the topic are better lmao (probably the best tbh, that's what i usually did with my sketchy k).

kritikal affs: i actually really enjoy k affs and one of the parts of debate i really enjoyed was coming up with a story for the aff. feel free to run any sort of k aff in front of me, especially if it's a fun identity K affs. i like reading kritikal literature because i like rethinking some of the ways i view the world – i would like to see affs that do that.

framework: however, even as someone who ran k affs, i think many k affs fail to explain how their model of debate is good. you won't have a hard time convincing me that education is the terminal impact to framework but you should probably explain why theirs isn't good for education. i actually think i probably vote against framework more often than not, it's usually just not compelling enough to me because i think framework is often a way to not have to debate the substance of identity k affs (ie: a lot of people are uncomfortable with the fact that the world is in fact not good for a lot of people who live in it). disclaimer: go ham w it vs pomo affs lmao

topicality and theory:

topicality: i like topicality. i think it's overlooked as a viable 2NR strategy. i have no particular preferences on it.

theory: theory is fun when you're not being annoying about it. if you just dropped 11 points on the states cp on your opp who doesn't spread i'm not going to flow 50 states fiat. if you put it at the top and don't extend it and read 12 other points i am going to be kind of upset ngl why would you make me type it then. time sucks bad !

framework/t-usfg:

there are strategic ways to about this and there are unstrategic ways to go about this. i am probably most inclined towards education as a terminal impact to framework. like i mentioned at the top, the fact that i was from a small school (kind of) means that i am highly inclined towards structural fairness > procedural fairness and you will have a hard time convincing me that procedural fairness (see: you follow speech times) is still more important because it "rectifies in-round unfairness" or whatever. you literally get disqualified if you don't follow the rules – to me, i don't think people are motivated to follow the rules so people can equally access the debate space. feel free to argue otherwise

what you should adjust when debating in front of me:

debating style: signposting is particularly important when you're debating in front of me because i have a hearing disorder. unclear signposting will make it nearly impossible for me to properly flow the debate, especially if you're spreading unclear/fast.

send framework vs neg k: you are at a huge disadvantage if you don't, if you're spreading at your top speed i will almost definitely not catch it.

miscellaneous:

• i think debate is competitive but in no way has that ever meant "be rude" to your opponents. my strategy was to treat my opponents how they treat me. if they kept on interrupting me, i would do the same. i will obviously not penalize you for responding to aggression but as with everything else there is a line. your behavior will contribute to your speaks

• i will miss things, both because i am human and because i have a hearing disorder. if i missed an analytic it is not on purpose, but the chances of it changing my decision are low to none, especially because i strongly believe if it's going to sway the direction of the debate you should have slowed down on it.

• i don't think sending docs counts as prep and you don't need to count it, but it's not like people can't tell when you steal prep lmao. i literally watched people prep for like 3 minutes after the timer was stopped. don't steal prep. i will call you out if i think you're taking too long.

• i've been told many a time i look unhappy naturally. i'm probably not that upset about what you're reading - although i am very expressive. will try to keep it to a min but if i look confused or annoyed i am probably confused or annoyed

• feel free to email me for help

I've been judging speech events regularly since I was in college back in the 90s -- I really enjoy these tournaments as debate taught me speaking and critical thinking skills that have carried me through high school, undergraduate, graduate, and professional life.

Structure of argument is important. Link, Brink, Impact, Harms, Inherency, Plan, Solvency, Advantages, Disadvantages, Topicality, K, and many others I'm sure I have missed while writing this are all voters for me.

While I'm a tabula rosa judge, not all arguments are created equal, and not all arguments in the round result in a win for one side or the other. Sometimes arguments in the round are not persuasive, logical, or supported and are a no-decision for either side.

Fine with all types of speaking speeds.

If I don't flow it, it doesn't count.

I don't flow CX time.

Time is the most critical resource in a round - use it wisely. The only thing more beautiful in this world than a properly executed Neg Block is a well-refuted first affirmative rebuttal.

If you are rude or disrespectful to the opposition in any form or fashion you will lose the round. I've voted down highly decorated varsity speakers who decimated novices on the sheer grounds they were outstandingly rude in the round during their speaking time and CX time.

Don't prompt your partner - it's a team event - trust them or get a new partner. Don't talk so loud it distracts from the opposition's speeches.

Hope this helps,

Ryan

I believe debate is a unique opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, open-mindedness, and sharpen articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, I believe judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thinking ability as well. Its far more important to me 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 (with the exception of a few clearly, morally outrageous positions i.e. racism good, genocide good, things like that) as long as you can tell me why you win it. It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events. 

I debated policy in high school, and policy and parliamentary in college. I have judged tournaments for the last two years in CX, LD, PF, and Extemp,  and contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools in those areas as well. 

Open to however you want me to vote, typically lean more towards policy, but i'm more Tab than anything. I value quality over quantity of arguments, I will flow arguments if you verbally signify the importance of them. I'm okay with speed in the constructive arguments but I really prefer if you talk me through your argument instead of reading as much as possible. I like analytical arguments a lot, and will vote based on the effectiveness of evidence provided, as well as your ability to speak with confidence.

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge but really I do not care where the debate goes so long as we keep it professional.

The aff should provide as much if not all of the stock issues as they can and the neg's job is to counter. Of course we can bring up arguments such as perms, cp's, K's, etc. Just make sure they're solid and useful, dont get caught up trying to sound smart if you cannot argue your point.

KEEP SPREADING TO A MINIMUM - meaning dont speak to fast if you cannot speak clearly. If I cannot flow it, I will not count it as an argument.

Feel free to ask any further questions regarding my paradigms if you need to!

email for chain: hvela@nyos.org

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun

He/Him

Judge or Shauri is fine, if you call me Mr. Yedavalli or sir part of my soul will wither away

Add me on chains - hendricksondydebate@gmail.com

Did policy debate + speech events at hendrickson hs

LD:

I'll understand most of what you talk about, but I honestly have no clue what a trick is so I'm probably not the judge you want to run it in front of, unless you like explain it to me pre-round or something and believe in your teaching abilities.

I'm decently familiar with k lit bases but try to explain your K like I have no clue what you're talking about

PF:

Tech > Truth

Do your thing I'm a policy kid but that probably means I'll have a higher standard for progressive pf stuff. If you run it well though then I'll vote on it.

Have fun, try to gain something from your rounds, and be chill.

CX:

Top Level stuff

Overall I'd put myself at about 60% K debater and 40% policy debater so you should probably just run whatever, that being said I'm really bad about knowing K lit bases so don't assume I'm gonna understand more niche k topics.

I got indoctrinated into policy debate by Aly Mithani so if you want a better paradigm just look at his and imagine a more K version of it

Being fun is fun, try to enjoy yourself during rounds, make jokes and stuff, try to care a little bit, it just makes tournament days go by a bit faster so it'd be cool if you weren't a cx robot but if not that's cool too I guess.

If you're stealing prep trust me I'll notice, stare at you and take off speaks.

Open cx, prompting, spreading are all chill but my flow is mid so if your gonna do a card doc try to be clear on analytics

I'll follow along with your doc and read your cards

I'll probably forget to start a timer at some point so time yourself and your opponents

If your a varsity debater hitting a novice you do not have to destroy someone new to the activity to make yourself look/feel good your not gonna lose the ballot or anything but I'll just be bummed out and you'd probably prefer that the person filling in your speaks is not bummed out.

Don't be a bad person - y'all can figure out what that means

Biases

I think condo is probably good, and if a team that everyone in the room knows is losing goes for theory I'll have a harder time being objective on it

If you read an RVI I will unconsciously and consciously take you less seriously for the rest of the debate

I think competing interps > reasonability, but T v policy aff is something I'm not great at judging and if it's muddled I'd probably be biased by if I just think the aff should be part of the resolution

As someone who has only been a 2N I have a neg bias when it comes to most things about the model of debate cause I think the neg side is already on the short end of the stick

Entertainment bias: I kinda just like seeing more creative strategies and usually it'll help speaks in particular eg (against planless affs running a pik that displays research instead of. framework + cap, or adv cp with 1AC ev as a solvency advocate)

If your opponents read something that you'd think any slightly competent judge would ignore (i.e. absurdly random and subjective procedurals) feel free to give a thumbs down and move on. On the other side if you read one of these your kinda just throwing away time.

Framework/T-USFG

I evaluate this through a lens of offense-defense of each teams model of debate

Aff teams have to give a clear role for negative teams within their model of debate and should be able to adequately differentiate that from if the sides were just swapped in a given round because ssd just solves that

I think debate probably is just a game (I read K's against warmakers all of last year but will definitely pick up the phone if Lockheed Martin gives me a job offer). Though at the same time being stuck within this space probably does change your subjectivity at least a little bit (I'd feel kinda bad about working for a hedge fund)

Fairness isn't a terminal impact and definitely is non-unique but it's the aff teams job to prove that; clash > fairness

Remember this is about a model for the entire debate space not just how this round should've gone - negative teams have to make it clear that their model of debate makes the space as a whole better.

T

I will evaluate all T arguments mostly from a competing interps standpoint unless you give a compelling reason to evaluate it on reasonability (prefer reasonability isn't compelling)

If you do read a T even as a time suck - it is your burden to provide a case list if you're not able to give one then the aff will win on that flow 95% of the time.

I lean more towards limits than aff ground because I see policy debate as inherently aff biased.

Evidence quality matters otherwise it's a race to the bottom

Neg teams using clash have to explain what ground they are losing because of the affirmative or just why it makes the research burden too high to clash with well.

In order to win a T debate you must explain why your model would be better for debate examples are good for this but including one or two examples with a good explanation for its value is significantly better than spamming examples without reason

Ks

I'm into Ks, I think they're fun and (usually) good at educating debaters. That being said I'm definitely not as well read on as much K lit as I should be so if you go [X author obviously means Y] it will not be obvious to me. Also buzzword spamming is kinda weird but I should be able to get what your saying.

If you are running an identity K and you're demonstrably not within that identity I understand that as a debater you're a vessel for your scholarship but optically you do kinda lose the inherent moral high ground you get by reading a K

I don't really get why perf con doesn't justify severance on a reps K, but if you can give me a good reason then I'm down cause it (probably) is good for education.

Perceptually I don't really like seeing one-off K teams completely ignore the case debate in the neg block imo it just supercharges aff framework offense, in the 2NR though more power to you.

Fiat is fake and policy affs are often just as utopian as K-alts, but you should still have a coherent solvency mechanism for how your alt works.

The only K I think I'm legitimately biased against are psychoanalysis Ks: imo psychoanalysis is probably pseudoscience and kinda patronizing, if you could equally run psychoanalysis or some other K against a team in front of me I'd choose the other K but if you'd be substantially better off running psychoanalysis just send it and if I vote you down feel free to be upset at me.

CPs

I definitely prefer counterplans that actually engage with the specific processes of the plan to generic agent counterplans.

Agent CP's will often get the job done for me just fine, but I think more specific ones especially using 1AC cards as solvency paired with a DA is much more compelling for me as a judge and much more frustrating for an opponent to go against

Adv CPs are cool, and Adv CPs made with a random unhighlighted portion of a 1AC solvency card are super dope

I'm about 50/50 on whether your cheaty counterplans are chill or not so I wouldn't base any cp decisions for a round based on me being the judge

DAs

Yeah I don't really have much of an opinion on these they're kinda the most fundamental neg arg, just make the story of it make some sense as the round goes on.

For politics DAs I don't really like the idea of just handing a team the uniqueness debate because they cut an article slightly later than the other teams, so as a neg team I just want you to do a little bit of work to contextualize why that actually means your ev should be preferred and for the aff team try to get at warrant comparisons because like 75% of the politics uniqueness cards that I've ever read didn't have a legit warrant.

Misc.

Death good args are not good

Wipeout will be listened to but given a side eye

Good formatting of a doc that you send is good and makes your arguments easier to follow

There's a fine line between banter and disrespectfulness, try your best to not cross it

I'm not 100% sure about how my face looks during a debate but if I look upset I'm probably just thinking and if I look happy then just keep doing what you're doing

Try to give me time to switch flows, so just slow down a bit at the top of your new flow.

I'll probably default to judge kick but it's liable to switch based on arguments

Light blue >>> green > yellow > anything else