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...

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Winston Churchill ‘22

UT ‘26

Email chain: canaalblanton@gmail.com

Cana is pronounced kay-nuh. You can call me Cana, higher chance it will get my attention.

If we don’t know each other personally, you don’t have to make small talk with me. This will save us both time.

Don’t say death good. Don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist etc. I don’t care about things that happened outside of the debate and have no interest in adjudicating those issues.

LD Stuff for St Marks:

I haven't judged LD this year but all of the policy stuff should apply just as much. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, feel free to ask me.

TLDR:

Do what you do best- if you present a clear narrative and impact it out well, I should have no problem voting for you.

Tech>>Truth. Dropped arguments are only as important as you make them to be. You still have to impact them out and explain how they implicate the debate if you want them to matter.

Content stuff-

T:

I usually default competing interpretations.

Evidence quality matters- cards should have an intent to define and be contextual to the topic.

Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff. The size of the link to the limits da is important if you are going for this- if the link is small there is a higher chance I conclude the counter-interp is reasonable.

DAs:

Love them.

Comparative impact calculus is often underutilized here- good impact calc is far more persuasive than just asserting that nuclear war is bad.

Turns case analysis and case solves the DA analysis are important, especially if the 2NR goes for a DA without a CP.

CPs:

Neg teams try to get away with murder here and aff teams usually let them- smart arguments on both sides about enforcement, implementation, and evidence comparison matter.

I think aff solvency deficits need impacts to them, i.e., they need to be attached to some portion of the 1AC that is meaningful.

Ks:

Neg– I am not super familiar with many lit bases besides Cap and Set col, so just assume you will have to over explain in these debates. The aff probably gets to weigh the plan and you should read specific links to it. Aff teams should pick the best strategy for their 1AC, whether that is a big case OW push or a link turn/perm approach.

Aff–These should have some sort of connection to the topic. I am usually on the FW side of these debates and will have a hard time voting for you if you haven’t proved why your model is good for debate. That being said, do impact comparison and the debate can go either way. K v K debates can be really interesting, but if you make them messy and complicated I won't be happy to be in the back. Love Cap vs K affs.

Theory:

These debates are best when each team is actually engaging the other- don’t just read blocks back and forth. They don’t have to be boring unless you make them that way.

If you go for condo because you are afraid to go for substance you are my least favorite person, don't be a coward.

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!

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:)

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, and Abdulla.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and even condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue. tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest. full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

LASA '22

UT '26

Add me to the email chain: danielle.c.gu@gmail.com

Top level:

Do whatever you do well! I will do my best to judge your argument fairly, and I am glad to answer any questions you have about the RFD.

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact to matter, and the implications of the argument should still be explained.

General:

I give the highest speaks when debaters are clear, efficient, and resolve arguments in rebuttals. The most difficult debates to decide are ones where neither team identifies and prioritizes important arguments, or there is no comparative impact calculus.

Clarity > Speed. I am fine with spreading, but I would always prefer for you to slow down and speak clearly rather than go faster.

Framework:

I am more familiar with neg arguments for framework than aff answers, but I am still happy to judge a K aff.

For me to vote neg, the 2NR should go for a well-articulated impact and ideally have some way to access or turn the aff's primary offense. I am willing to hear any impact as long as it is explained, and I believe that fairness can be explained as either an impact or an internal link as the distinction is often not large in terms of impact calculus.

For me to vote aff, the strategy should center around either a reasonable counter-interpretation or an impact turn. The counter-interpretation should definitely solve the aff's own offense and likely access some amount of neg offense in order to be effective. I find it difficult to be persuaded by arguments about why debate in general is bad, and I think that the aff should be able to present a differing vision for why debate is valuable and how they access that.

K v K:

I am least familiar with these debates, so explicit judge instruction and lots of comparative explanation will be the most beneficial.

K v Plan:

I believe that framework is very important to how these debates are evaluated and will prioritize it in my decision accordingly. The way that the K interacts with the aff should be clearly explained, whether that is impact calculus, link turns case, or something else.

Winning perm do both/most other perms must be the logical result of winning offense and link defense.

Topicality

Evidence quality and author qualifications matter for the interpretation and counter-interpretation. Good interpretation cards should probably have an intent to define, and absent this, a strong aff push on reasonability and substance crowd-out is persuasive.

Counterplans:

Counterplans should probably be functionally and textually competitive, but I am pretty willing to go with a different model of competition, if debated well. For theory, topic-specific arguments as to why certain CPs should be theoretically legitimate are the most persuasive.

I default to judge kick.

Sufficiency framing is often very beneficial to the neg because I find that affs set poorly defined internal link thresholds and struggle to outline an impact to solvency deficits. For the aff, this means that I should be able to explain the difference in solvency between the plan and CP and why that matters (i.e. impact). For the neg, you should explain sufficiency framing as specifically as possible – instead of making vague solvency claims, set a specific solvency threshold that the CP needs to meet to resolve a given advantage.

Disads:

Turns case arguments are important to make and respond to. If turns case is dropped, it can shift disad calculus in favor of the negative even if there is well-explained defense on other parts of the flow. Higher level turns case arguments are usually more persuasive, and similarly, higher level defense to a DA (above impact defense) should be prioritized.

Case:

Good case debating is always a plus! Rehighlighting of 1AC evidence to support neg positions or case defense is especially great.

Theory:

I lean neg on most questions, but am open to a debate.

Condo (within reason) is generally good, and it is probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team instead of the argument. Case-specific PICs are almost always good and will be rewarded.

My name is pronounced Leeee - uhh Where - ta

I did policy in high school at Winston Churchill, 2019-2023

Currently at UT ’27

Add me to the email chain: huertadebate@gmail.com

Top Level things:

Do what you do best.

Disclose to your opponents (good teams aren't scared of clash)

Do not be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, etc. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this behavior. Be cordial with your opponents. “If I think you're being rude or condescending to me or your opponents, I will enthusiastically knock you back down to Earth.” - Yao Yao Chen

Do not say death is good in any context.

Please flow. It's a dying art. If you flow "on your computer"...stop. "A fairy dies every time you ask “Did you read x card”." - Natalie Stone

Tech> truth every time.

LD thoughts:

I'm fine with basically anything. The only things I do not like are tricks; RVIs and other fake arguments are annoying and bad for debate. Engage with your opponent and you'll be fine.

If you read more than 4 off (this is highly variable depending on the arguments you read) I will give you bad speaks. I believe to my core that you do not have enough time to develop these arguments and if you purely read them to throw off your opponent that is not a good strategy. Please engage with your opponent.

Please talk about the aff and not just the framing page. I need to know what I'm voting on rather than what lens to view nothing through.

If you have any specific questions it's probably answered in the policy section below.

Policy thoughts:

Case: I LOVE the case debate. Make it big if you can. Case turns, author indites, recuts/rehighlightings, responsive articles, any specific research makes the debate really fun and educational. I feel like everyone always forgets about the case page when it is supposed to be the “focus” of the debate.

Make it clean. Make it epic!!!!

Topicality: Really tough to sell sometimes but I applaud y’all who do it well. If it’s the 2nr you better have the goods. Please have real and contextual definitions from people in the field. I will default to that rather than a dictionary.

I default to competing interpretations rather than reasonability as there is no “reasonable” threshold or metric in deciding what is/isn’t “reasonable enough”.

Definitions that exclude specific actions rather than provide a caselist are more persuasive but obviously, both are great.

Disads: Severely under-utilized. Love em <3. I appreciate the in-depth research required for a good disad. Please have recent uniqueness.

Please have a specific link.

If you have an ultra-specific disad, I applaud you. Tiny debate is well-researched debate is good debate.

Counterplans: Love a really good creative counterplan. All are good with me, adv cp, actor cp, process cp, pics, etc. If you read a really generic one, I need you to have a really niche net benefit.

If you read a cp with a silly “internal” net benefit it better be real. Ie. “Do it this way because it will make x-thing better” is not persuasive. Please say something similar to “the aff causes x-bad-thing, and the cp avoids it.”

Kritiks: Preface: I am a K bro's worst nightmare. I have a VERY high standard for Ks. I was not a K debater and did not read much Kritikal literature. If you read a unique K I will need you to explain it to me very thoroughly or else I will have no idea what I am voting for. If you read something more mainstream ( Cap, Set Col, Fem adjacent args) I will have some prior knowledge but if you do not explain it well I will not spot you my understanding.

I need you to be ORGANIZED. Large stretches of text are boring and difficult to follow. Tell me where we are on the flow. Name links so everyone is on the same page. I am not a fan of big overviews with hidden arguments – I will not flow them. Put those arguments on the flow where appropriate.

For K affs - I need you to have a tie to the resolution and a thorough reason why the resolution requires the team to endorse/uphold/advocate for/etc what you are kritiking. I find really generic K affs quite boring but if you have something nuanced and in the direction of the topic, you’ve got my attention.

Framework – More often than not I will default to the negative in k aff debates. I need real explanations of your standards and actual responses. If your blocks don’t match up, I don’t care. Answer what is in the debate, do not rely on your preconceived answers. You actually have to think about what matters in the debate and most importantly WHY it matters to a “fair” model. Do not go for every standard in your final rebuttals. It only matters as much as you tell me it does.

ROJ/ROB: These arguments mean almost nothing at the end of the debate. I tend to default to the Role of the Judge is to decide who wins/loses and the Role of the Ballot is to indicate who won or lost. If you have a real reason why those should be different, you really need to sell it well.

For Ks on the negative – I need you to have specific links to the aff ie. Why does the aff action make your -ism worse or create a bad thing(s) for the world post-aff? It is far too easy for the aff to just say no link or win an easy perm if your link is just to the squo or a link of omission.

Floating PIKS – Do not lie to your opponents. If it’s a floating PIK tell them.

Theory: Generally, I need you to prove why the thing they did was actually bad or creates a really bad model of debate in the future. I’ll evaluate any theory arguments with some level of skepticism because you have to do an immense amount of work 90% of the time to prove violence.

Conditionality: I tend to lean on the side of "condo is good" with the caveat that all arguments need to be real and viable arguments. If you are an older team debating younger kids do not dump on them “for fun”. There is no real bright line for “how many condo is too many condo” because I think it is highly subjective to the debate itself, where it is, who’s debating, etc.

Random details:

I do not follow docs while you speak. I will open them after your speech to read ev. Please do not wait for me to receive a doc to start your speech.

Please do not send card docs at the end of the debate. I will ask if I want one.

I will say “clear” but if I can’t understand you, I will not flow you.

You will be able to tell what I think of your arguments as I am a very expressive person. Please do not take it personally.

“I won't flow things being said by anyone besides the person giving the speech.” – Ian Dill

Number or say “and” in between arguments ESPECIALLY analytics – walls of text are boring and hard to flow. If you want me to flow your arguments, be organized.

If you “insert” a case list or rehighlighting I will not evaluate it. Read it.

Texas DK

arnavdebates+judging@gmail.com

“Debate how you can, the best you can. Swag is good. Complexity. Concretization. Examples. Comparison” – Amber Kelsie.

“Above all, tech substantially outweighs truth. The below are preferences, not rules, and will easily be overturned by good debating. But, since nobody's a blank slate, treat the below as heuristics I use in thinking about debate. Incorporating some can explain my decision and help render one in your favor” – Debnil Sur.

**Update**

I decide debates quickly and find few debates "close." I will not read cards unless their interpretation is contested. I'm confident in both my flow and my decisions, focusing on intervening as little as possible. I consider no substantive argument off limits. I prefer debaters to take the easiest route to victory.

By contrast, many judges give indefensible decisions which reflect nothing short of a lack of respect for the debaters they judge. My role in judging is not about me, it is about the debaters. Within my own competitive career, I've seen careers ended and had tournaments end on decisions that have repeatedly made me question my participation in this activity. 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. 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 the judges they get.

Top Level

1. I’m a second-year judge. I judged 60 rounds (not including camp/practice debates) in my first year. I was a lab leader at UTNIF and am familiar with the topic.

2. I’ve included sections from the paradigms of judges and debaters that have shaped my view of debate to provide a clearer picture. The strongest include Shreyas Rajagopal, Het Desai, Vikas Burugu, and David Kilpatrick. All changes have been marked with brackets.

3. Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I loved this activity and hope you can as well. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will also be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or judge your personality because of your reaction to my decision. I was/am always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest form of respect.”– Vikas Burugu.

General Argument Preferences

1. I’m likely better for policy v policy debates than you’d think. My voting records indicate an even record in the “clash.”

2. Debate's a game of tradeoffs. Aside from technical evaluation and applying an offense-defense paradigm, my beliefs are malleable. However, “actual arguments > ad homs” - Shreyas Rajagopal. I will not evaluate any arguments about anything that occurred outside of the round outside of disclosure or render a decision about the ethicality of any individual I judge. I don’t know you all and this is incredibly uncomfortable.

3 My speaker points seem to be lower than most. I have been disappointed in the quality of debates I've judged this year. When I do give higher speaks, it's to debaters that do the following:

A) Look like they want to be there! If debaters are having fun, judging is far more tolerable.

B) Narrate the debate's progression and prioritize argument resolution in their rebuttals. Final rebuttals should explain not how you could win, but why you have already won. Typically, this requires recounting an argument’s development in the debate’s prior speeches, explaining how you advanced the argument, and how your opponents failed to respond effectively.

For example, the phrase “No new 2AR arguments. I don't get a 3NR and 2NR strategy was based on 1AR errors” is commonly repeated in 2NRs. This is only relevant for instructing me to not evaluate “new 2AR arguments,” something I will already do. Instead, the 2NR should explicitly identify which arguments were new and/or are likely to be new and pre-emptively refute the 2AR justification for why they should be evaluated.

C) Efficiently and effectively translate their ideas into their speeches. This involves not only logical argumentation, but also presenting it in an organized and persuasive manner. Hard-numbering and clarity are extremely helpful. I am impressed by debaters that are both knowledgeable AND thoughtful in how they communicate their knowledge. Defining key terms, using meaningful labels and precise language, and emphasizing important phrases/varying speed of delivery are some effective tools for synthesizing complex information into a persuasive argument.

D) Accurately recognize and develop the core disagreements. Good debaters refute arguments from their opponents' previous speech. Great debaters prioritize refuting the arguments that will feature in their opponents' final rebuttal. Controlling narratives around the central questions of the debate is critical. I often find debaters are far too scattered. Most rebuttals should narrow the debate to definitively win their most compelling arguments.

Deciding Rounds

1. “Tech over truth. But... Debate is subjective and arbitrary. I consider “dropped arguments are true” to be not particularly helpful” – Anirudh Prabhu. Every debate requires some level of intervention to decide, so you’re best served explaining both your argument and their implications. Single technical concessions are likely not the round enders they are made out to be. Specific and explicit judge instruction that demonstrates strong strategic vision will be strictly adhered to. Holding my hand will be rewarded with higher speaker points, a quicker decision time, and a more favorable RFD that minimizes intervention.

2. When evaluating debates, I often imagine myself debating/coaching the teams I am judging, asking myself how I would respond to the arguments being advanced and/or better articulate the same argument. If debaters make the arguments I brainstormed or present one more persuasive than the ones I considered, I am impressed. Arguments based in truth (often supported by strong evidence) are more capable of withstanding rigorous scrutiny. This is NOT to suggest that I will intervene. Debate rounds are limited and I will solely decide debates based on the debaters’ speeches. I am simply more impressed by debaters that reveal clever strategic thinking and/or deep knowledge about a topic.

3. I will reward good evidence. However, your evidence is only as good as you explain it. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.”– Rafael Pierry.

4. What constitutes a “warrant” is subjective. My baseline is lower than most. “My general guideline for a warrant is: could I explain this argument to the other team in a reasonable post-round and feel confident that it was said by their opponents? This explanation doesn’t mean I need to have a deep intellectual grasp of the position, simply that I could re-state it and the losing side would understand why they lost” – Rafael Pierry.

5. “'Any risk' is just objectively wrong. A small enough signal is overwhelmed by noise, which means not only that we can’t establish its magnitude with precision, but if sufficiently small, we can’t establish its sign either” – Calum Matheson.

Debated for Winston Churchill High School (TX). Debated at Texas. Camps worked at: VBI, Baylor, UTNIF.

Email: jacoblugo101@gmail.com

Please have the email chain ready as soon as both opponents meet before the round.

A few thoughts:

• I consider my role in the debate is to decide who did the better debating.
• I prefer for there to not be any room in the debate to input my own opinions. Prefer debates to be as clean and explicit as possible to make the most objective decision.
• I'll listen to most any type of argument. Not a fan of vacuous theory arguments or paragraphs of spikes/preempts (most pertinent to LD).
• I tend to/prefer to flow on paper. Take that into consideration. If you see me flowing on my computer, be mindful when you are transitioning between arguments.
• I flow what you say. Not looking at the doc during speeches unless I have absolutely no idea what you are saying (at which point I will stop flowing and stare at you until you notice). I read the docs between speeches/during CX/after the round.
• Please slow down during analytics. For some reason people tend to read through these faster and faster every year.
• I'm very expressive. My face is a good indicator of where the debate is going.
• If I'm absolutely unsure of what is going on/no arguments have been made, I'm most likely going to err neg.
• I'm always listening.
• Speaker points: I like to be entertained. I care about pathos. I enjoy creative and strategic argumentation. I generously doc speaks if I feel that you are being unnecessarily rude.

churchill '20

i competed in policy debate for 4 years and debated on the national circuit.

put me on the email chain - alexmdebatejudging@gmail.com

***i flow on paper. when reading topicality, theory, or framework arguments, please slow down. if i don't flow an argument, it's because you did not articulate it clearly.***

-- topicality --

i generally default to competing interpretations, but most certainly can be persuaded otherwise. have thorough explanations of the internal link and impact - repeating the phrase "they explode limits" 5 times tells me nothing.

-- counterplans --

good counterplan debates are great to watch. explain why the counterplan is distinct from the affirmative and why it solves. aff specific counterplans are always better than generic ones.

-- disadvantages --

have impact analysis and comparison of internal links. turn case arguments are important and underutilized. always answer the framing debate. there should be comparison between models of decision making. surface level, tag-line phrases about extinction being irreversible aren't enough to persuade me to value extinction first, especially when aff teams have well warranted framing args - the 2nr needs a clear, warranted link story, particularly true with politics disads because the evidence is notoriously shallow

-- kritiks --

for neg teams reading the k: no large overviews, i'd rather have that explanation done on the line by line. regarding framework, i generally default to weighing the aff. framework on the kritik is a link-framing argument. i need warrants why your interpretation/model of debate/role of the ballot is preferable and/or resolves the affirmative's offense. why should i utilize your framing as the lens through which i make my decision?

have specific links to the aff. even if you read a generic piece of link evidence, you can still utilize the warrants in that evidence and contextualize it to rhetoric or action of the 1ac. if you're making an ontology claim, i won't just vote on ontology - you still need a link to the aff. you should make arguments as to why the links turn the case.

i'm not familiar with a majority of kritik literature, so don't assume that i know what you're talking about. please explain your theory/thesis. buzzwords are vague and don't actually articulate the implication of your argument. i need to know what the alternative is, what it does, and why is the ballot necessary. arguments about why the alternative resolves the impact of the affirmative are always useful. generally i think you need an alternative in the 2nr, but can be convinced that you don't - just explain why

***no death good/death inevitable args -- i don't find those arguments persuasive at all***

aff teams debating the k: far too often i think affirmative teams are too defensive and aren't prepared to defend why the aff is good. have reasons why discussions about the 1ac and its content are good for debate. framework interpretations along the lines of "neg should read a competitive policy option" are not that strategic or compelling. make sure you're responding to the negative's specific framework standards.

the 2ac should line by line each link argument; waiting till the 1ar will put you behind in the debate. don't group the all of links. saying "their ev is not specific to the affirmative" is also no a sufficient response. you should address the argument made by their evidence and explain why the aff doesn't say/do that. please explain what the permutation is and how it functions. have warranted analysis as to why the permutation resolves the negative's offense.

-- k affs/performance/framework --

i'm more inclined to vote for framework but can definitely be persuaded to vote against it. i need to know what your model of debate looks like and how that compares to their model of debate.

neg teams: just like with topicality, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. fairness is probably more of an internal link to education than its own impact, but you should make the argument that fairness is an intrinsic good. you'll likely need a tva otherwise aff arguments about why you exclude their education become more convincing.

aff teams: i'd prefer that the 1ac would have a close connection to the topic. i need to know what the 1ac means and what it does. if the speech act of the 1ac is significant, why? why does the ballot have a causal influence on that?

-- theory --

what specifically did your opponent do? why did that make it structurally more difficult for you to debate? new affs bad and aspec are 2 arguments in debate i never want to vote for. please slow down when you're reading theory.

-- for LD debaters --

everything i said above about how i evaluate policy debates applies to LD too.

i don't like a lot of the theory stuff that y'all do. if you must go for theory, like any other procedural argument, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. i won't vote on an RVIs. they don't make sense, and you shouldn't be punished for reading a theory argument.

-- for PF debaters --

at the beginning of the round, the team speaking first should start an email chain. both teams should email out your entire case before your first constructive speech. in speeches after the first constructive, send out all the evidence you read *again before the speech* -- the amount of time wasted after/in between speeches asking for and sending evidence is ridiculous -- if you don't flash evidence, that will be reflected in your speaker points

-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --

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.

Winston Churchill ‘23, UT Austin ‘27, She/They, you can just call me Natalie!

Email chain: natstone111@gmail.com

TLDR:
–I really like debate, and I like people who like debate. I have ideological tilts, but there’s no need to over-adapt to me.

–Tech over truth

–I have some involuntary facial twitches, don’t read into my expressions.

-I would prefer not to adjudicate things that happened outside of the round. That being said, Title IX investigations and Twitter beef are largely different offenses.

Things I like:

–Cross-ex. It’s useful! Thought-out cross-ex strategies are always obvious and very productive. If you’re running prep instead of cross-ex, what are you doing?

–Adaptivity. Nothing wrong with sticking to your A-strat, but capitalizing on mistakes will make my decision easier and your speaker points higher.

–Clarity. I’ll certainly open your docs to read ev, but I won’t fill in missing arguments on my flow. I'll call clear if I'm having trouble flowing

–Debaters who treat me and their opponents like human beings.

Things I dislike:

–Insertions. Debate is a communicative game; I won’t flow things you don’t communicate to me. Inserting perm texts, counterplan texts, and re-highlightings is bad practice. My only caveat to this rule is if ev has been misrepresented and large surrounding areas/paragraphs are necessary for context.

–Not flowing. A fairy dies every time you ask “did you read x card”.

–Clash intolerance. Refusing to disclose, not answering cx questions, or generally being shifty, is a no from me.

-Being super aggro. Why?

K Affs and FW:

–These are my favorite debates. I’ve been on both sides of it, but I probably lean neg ideologically. Nuance and contextualization behind your model of debate goes a long way.

–The most persuasive 2NR’s can encompass some portion of the aff’s offense, do good comparative impact calculus, and condense down quite a bit. I think 2NRs on framework can easily get unorganized and go for too much. Also, don’t drop the aff’s disads.

–I’ll probably like your k aff if it has a reason why people should negate it. I think that question ends up being the crux of these debates. If unanswered, I’m probably voting neg.

–I don’t like k affs that straight up negate the topic and dump k links into a 1AC. They feel lazy and clash-avoidant. That being said, if you have a genuine reason to negate the res, I’m down. I prefer k affs with unique takes on their relationship to the topic.

–Identity and performance affs are fine.

–If you’re reading a k aff, I don’t care if you want to impact turn framework, or go for a c/interp. That being said, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that debate is irredeemably bad, that this singular ballot has a significant impact, or that rules of a game are equivalent to real world violence.

–I prefer clash impacts to fairness ones, but you do you. I think fairness is a worse explained impact, not a worse impact. Fairness is the ability for judges to resolve a debate in an equitable manner, which I think is really important! However, debaters having to read critical literature isn’t unfair.

–Debate is certainly a game, but it can be many other things as well! The best K affs account for competition and use it to their advantage.

K V Policy Affs:

–I never extensively read or went for k’s other than cap and fem. I feel familiar enough with anti-blackness, security, set col, and liberalism/realism k’s. As far as anything more niche than what I listed above, I’m down, but please take a few moments for thesis explanation.

–I’d prefer you defend an alternative, but I suppose the scale of what constitutes solvency is up to you, make it as large or small as you like.

–Specificity and uniqueness of the link will guide my decision a lot. An aff specific, well-developed link with some alt solvency claim will make me skeptical of aff framework pushes about mooting the 1AC. That being said, a framework 2NR is fine by me.

–Biological death is bad and human suffering is bad.

–I dislike the fiat k.

Topicality:

–Love it. Read your questionably topical aff. Go for T. I'm probably better for the neg.

–Evidence > community consensus. Competing interps > reasonability. Impact calc >>>.

–I don’t really have a strong opinion regarding what internal links and impacts are best. Decide based on your 2NR vision and explain it well. Ground, limits, precision, education, fairness, etc are all perfectly viable.

–I care most teams having a defensible vision of a season long of debates. Whether it’s three affs good, or functionally no limits good, I want you to paint a picture of what affs will look like, what neg teams will go for, how that will change between tournaments, and why it’s good.

–Evidence quality matters a lot in these debates. Intent to define and exclude matter. Author quals matter.

–Reasonability has become 2A whining. Reasonability is guided by the lit base and thus must be grounded in it. Aff teams should cut quality T evidence, otherwise I probably will have a hard time assigning any precision, debatability, or education claims much weight.

Counterplans:

–Yes please.

–As far as counterplan theory like consult, certainty/immediacy, textual/functional competition I genuinely think I fall exactly in the middle. I double 2-ed my senior year going for process counterplans on the neg and theory on the aff. Comparative impact calculus and line-by-line go far. I care most about 2NR/2AR offense that centers around clash and quality debates.

–Sufficiency framing means basically nothing and I will judge kick if told.

–Well researched and well applied advantage counterplans are OP.

-You probably don't need to read that overview.

Disads:

–I love good link spin, comparative impact calc, and disad 2NRs.

–Link controls uq/uq controls link arguments are very persuasive to me and make decisions much easier. If not instructed by debaters, I’ll have to assign it myself anyways.

–Aff teams should turn straight turn disads more often.

Misc:

–I’ll keep prep and dock your speaks if you’re stealing it. Sending the email isn’t prep, but sending an email does not require typing.

Hi y'all!

add me to the email chain --- lasakdubs@gmail.com AND lasadebatedocs@googlegroups.com

LASA Debate '22 || Macalester Debate '26 (follow us @macalesterdebate on insta!!)

Please do not read any arguments about suicide/death good.

I will not vote for toxic masculinity. If you are toxically masculine, strike me.

I'm 6'2", if that matters to you...

----- Policy -----

I spent my first two and a half years at LASA reading plans on the aff and policy strats on the neg. I spent the next two and a half reading Ks on the aff and neg. In college, I've read both policy and K things. No preference for what you read in front of me, I'm about equal in my understanding of all types of args.

Important things:

1. Rehighightings should be read out loud, insertings are insufficient and will be ignored.
2. I'm getting super close to writing "no open cross" in here. Y'all need to let y'all's partners speak!!
3. It is not the other team's burden to tell you what they did and did not read in their doc after their speech. Y'all should be flowing. If you need to ask if things were read or ask for a marked copy from your opponents, I will consider that your prep time.

Be entertaining, but be nice.

----- PF -----

I've started coaching PF at Edina (2023).

Since I'm coming from policy, I'm a tech judge who will keep a detailed flow of all arguments in the round. I am very willing to discuss arguments presented in the debate at length and give detailed speech-by-speech feedback to all debaters after the round.

In policy, I read both policy and kritik arguments, I am willing to adjudicate both in PF as well.

Speed is fine, but respect your opponent's level of understanding as well. A fast debate won't be a good debate if one team wins due to the others' lack of understanding and speaks will reflect that.

Debate is supposed to be fun! Be entertaining and enjoy the round, but be nice.