Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Former Head Coach McNeil HS

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC, UTNIF, U of H for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while, but am currently not coaching just judging.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

All topics are OKAY

I will request and email chain - and for you to announce your order. - Roadmaps (in the event order changes)

am.corral86@gmail.com

Please do not spread!

LD-Focus on Value criterion

∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨

UIL: I know UIL is supposed to be more "traditional," but you're welcome to be as techy as you want as long as you're sharing cases!

Shortcuts

1 - Policy/K

2 - Trad

3 - Phil

4 - Theory/T

Strike - Tricks

Tech > Truth

Fairness = Education

Spreading = Bad, Speed = Good

I prefer Speech Drop or NSDA File Share, but my email is larsoncrank@gmail.com

----------

Background

Klein Collins '22

Texas '26 (History & Government)

I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event, LD was always my favorite and the event that I participated in most frequently. I'm self-taught and because of this I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I was a 3x qual for TFA State and NSDA Academic All-American for anyone who cares about my "qualifications."

Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as other power house schools. If you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings involved in debate, please reach out! I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.

----------

Logistics

In regards to the shortcuts listed above, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of debate. I think as a judge I'm obligated to not allow my own biases related to debating techniques impact the RFD. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want and I will adapt as I see accordingly.

I flow by ear, but I still want access to your case. Not only does this prevent confusion if there's discrepancy during the round, but I think it's ultimately a good practice to share your case with everyone in the room.

Please give a roadmap before your speech AND signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss any figures you put out. The clearer you are with the tags, the better!

When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is entirely destructive for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I'm a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points. I've started flowing again on paper more frequently as opposed to using my computer, so this may be another reason to slow down at least for tags and line-by-line.

I expect to see clash over framing! You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be evaluating under. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason! If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare evidence with which in turn makes producing a good RFD difficult. Not to mention, I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame offensive position.

I'm going to default tech before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD and evaluate only what is said during round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it wins in a tech debate!

I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think in this situation. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).

I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into it. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.

I don't keep time. Time yourselves!

I don't flow CX. However, when it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.

----------

Trad

As mentioned above, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career. Although it is a simple strategy, I think it can be just as effective as any of the more "progressive" styles. Case debate is something I’m fully capable of evaluating. This is a random thought, but as I've become more experienced with the other forms of debate, I've developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."

Tell me when something is non-unique! I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position!

I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, an amazing strategy to shoot for is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.

Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how scary they may seem!

----------

Policy

If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."

I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever conclusive impact you are trying to get me to see! Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. ADVs are cool too, but I figured that was implied from my stance on DAs.

CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept (and strongly encourage) Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.

----------

K

I'm familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.

Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative

K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.

While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought. Although, if you’re going to run a K but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all some time and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.

Familiar: Cap, Set Colonial, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess

---------

T

I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little (if anything) to do with the resolution at hand.

Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.

----------

Phil

Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms you probably don’t understand it that well.

I'm familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner! Somewhat related, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.

Empirics > Analytics (in most cases)

Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism

----------

Theory

I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.

I can firmly say that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.

STOP SAYING DTD!

I will NOT vote off Disclosure Theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto-down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. As someone who debated for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the loop and/or involved with collective wikis.

----------

Tricks

I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.

----------

PF

All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter as much like FW).

My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact(s) of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than your opponent's.

Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros and the least amount of cons is most likely going to get the W.

Will share before debate if asked

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

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

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

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

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

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

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

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

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

General Philosophy:

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages:

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

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

Counterplans:

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kritikal Affs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the aff -

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

I default to competing interpretations.

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

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

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

Weird and Random Technical Things:

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

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

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

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

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.

Please add me to the email chain: nguyene2023@gmail.com

I would prefer you to be descriptive in the subject line of the email, just so we can keep track of the documents flying around. Something like “Tournament Name, Rd #, __ vs __” would be great! :)

about me: Hi! My name is Emma. I go by she/they pronouns and I’m a current freshman at UT Austin. I did LD for all 4 years at Greenhill, qualed to TFA my senior year, and went to some bid tournaments too.

First and foremost, I believe debate is an educational activity, and the kind of value that brings is immense. As such, I really hope you value your time here, but also please enjoy it!

Mostly I would say that I’m a pretty chill judge. Debate is stressful and extremely exhausting — no other activity has you spitting out 400 wpm — so I aim to keep the space as safe as possible. I will not tolerate any behavior that makes the debate an unsafe space, such as hate speech, racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, consistent misgendering, etc.

With that being said, please understand that I’m just a college student. As such, I do not think the ballot is a sufficient mechanism to resolve such issues, and instead I will be reaching out to tournament officials to resolve whatever abuse has happened. (Realistically, you’re going to lose anyway.)

*****JANFEEB****** I know nothing about the resolution. Please have the email chain/speech drop/etc. set up as soon as possible,I would prefer for the tournament to run on time. I had a really long streak of neg ballots at UT, which, I think is a) boring and b) easily avoidable if the 2ar consolidates and weighs!! You got this.

Lincoln Douglas

Usually I went for policy, T, and the K. Please read what you are most comfortable with. I think in an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why the affirmative is a bad idea.

I am not good for phil heavy/high theory debates. I am not familiar nor adept at engaging with this material (my roommate is the philosophy major, not me). As such, please err on the side of overexplanation here if you decide to read this.

Quick things to know:

• Speed: Slow down on tags, interps and analytics. I flow on paper. If you’re a numbers person, I would say I’m good at flowing about a speed of 6* on a scale of 1-10 (6 for finals weekend)
• Timing: I will begin your time on your first word. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. You will keep track of your own prep time. You should also keep track of yours and your opponent’s time.
• Signposting: I will be much happier, and also much more able to fully understand and follow your arguments, if you signpost and number your arguments!!
• No, I don’t believe you can re-insert highlights that you did not read verbally.
• Disclosure is good. Reading disclosure against a small school with no wiki page will have me raising an eyebrow.
• CX is binding.
• Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate!!! Judge instruction is good. I want my RFD to sound like the 2NR/2AR that you gave — I will be very happy, and so will you be with your speaks. :-)
• On tricks/skep: Girl, be serious.

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a first year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions below. I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't)

For docs, please use speechdrop if at all possible. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

-----------------

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

----------------

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches. Tricks suck. If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

-------------------

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

------------------

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

-----------------

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

---------------

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

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

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including docs) email me at apulcine23@gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Aff: Same thing as K, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

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

LD: for larp / k everything above applies. Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect. Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit.I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T.

Hebron '22 - 2A for 4 Years

Texas '26

Add me to the chain: aayansayani@gmail.com

A majority of my debate knowledge has come from Aashir Sanjrani, Krish Patel, Gavin Loyd, Xain Bhagwandin, and Rahul Kolla. Take a look at their paradigms if you have any questions.

TL;DR

• Dropped arguments are true
• Fine with speed, be clear
• I will evaluate ANY argument & will vote on ANY argument
• Racism & Sexism = Auto L + 25 Speaker Points
• Please do not read more than 1 T shell
• Line by Line
• Tech > Truth 99.9% of the time

*For LD: Everything below applies

-- arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact (not a one-liner slipped in)

K's

- I primarily read Warren on Aff and Psychoanalysis on Neg, but I am probably familiar with and will understand a majority of Kritiks, so run whatever!

- Generic links are okay, just CONTEXTUALIZE them to the 1AC PLEASE - It will be hard for me to vote on a link that does not explain how the affirmative triggers it

- Framework does mean something in these debates (unless its impact turned lol)

- The alternative should probably be extended in the 2NR

- Short overviews are good but if it is long, just tell me to grab another sheet of paper

- Line by line is probably where most K's are won or lost. Good line-by-line can always win you the round.

K Affs (love these !)

- Have some sort of relation to the topic even if that means it's just one card

- for fw, I like a strategy where the 2AR goes for a disad to their model and uses it to impact turn their standards and impacts

- Interpretation/Models of debate is fine

- Leverage Your Theory Of Power - It will help a lot I promise

Framework v K Affs

- The best framework debates from what I have seen is where the 2NR goes for Clash and a TVA

- Fairness is NOT very persuasive in most situations

- Not a fan of switch side v affirmatives that make a scholarship claim

- Answer Their Theory Of Power - If you do not and the 2AR leverages it correctly, it will be VERY hard for me to vote on Framework

- Evidence does not make a big difference in my decision, but if you feel that you have a VERY good piece of evidence tell me to read it after the round in the 2NR

Counterplans

- Does not mean anything if you do not have a net benefit extended in the 2NR

- Consult CP's are cheese

- Besides that everything else is fine!

Disadvantages

- Evidence quality probably matters

- Try to have a specific link, contextualize well if you do not

- Do Impact Calc

- Make your internal link story clear

Topicality v Policy Affs

- Not familiar with it, probably don't read it in front of me

- If the aff clearly meets the resolution it will be hard for you to prove to me that they don't

- I find these debates boring

Theory

- Go for it

- 5 min 2AR/2NR of theory would = higher speaks.

Extra Stuff

- Presumption v K Affs could go any way

- Condo can be good or bad

- Start @ 28.5 and go up or down

- Teams underutilize PICS or PIKS, I think this is a very good strategy vs K Affs

Novice:

This year is about learning and understanding the fundamentals of debate. I suggest NOT reading a planless aff this year. If you do run one I will not punish you but speaks will be capped at 28.5. Feel free to ask me questions after the round and look at the other sections to understand how I feel about other types of off-case positions. Have fun this year, it's just a time to get better!

eMail: severnj@me.com

Background:

• I presently hold the role of Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection, Texas Office of the Attorney General. I have practiced as a litigation attorney since 2008.

• My experience encompasses a background in high school debate, adjudicating law school mock trials, and mentoring novice attorneys in the art of oral argumentation.

Philosophy and Approach:

• I perceive LD debate as an opportunity for ethical and philosophical exploration.

• I advocate for debaters to delve deeply into logical discussions pertaining to the resolution.

Framework:

• I prioritize a well-structured value-criterion framework.

• Debaters are encouraged to meticulously organize their arguments and engage in substantive clashes.

Evidence and Argumentation:

• Quality outweighs quantity; prioritize well-researched and logically sound arguments.

• Ensure that your arguments maintain logical consistency.

Delivery and Conduct:

• Effective communication is crucial; articulate your points clearly and maintain a reasonable speaking pace.

• Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.

Decision Criteria:

• My evaluation will be based on the strength of your frameworks and how effectively you uphold your value-criterion.

• The quality of your arguments, the credibility of your evidence, and the logical coherence of your case will significantly influence my decision.

• The depth of clash and the effectiveness of rebuttals are also pivotal. If a debater exclusively reads off a script for Affirmative and Negative Constructs, questions and responses during cross will more heavily influence my vote. Evading a question in cross will be considered nonresponsive. If you object to a question for reasons such as relevance, inappropriateness, complexity, double-barreled question, etc., provide a valid reason for refusal to respond. If you feel that your opponent was nonresponsive during cross, I encourage you to address it in rebuttal.

Judging Preferences:

• Flex: Flexibility is valued; demonstrate adaptability to your opponent’s arguments.

• Voting Criteria: Please provide me with your clear and concise judging criteria or framework at the outset of your speeches. Your criteria should outline the key standards or principles by which you believe I should evaluate the arguments in this round. This will serve as a roadmap for how you want me to make my decision. Feel free to propose your unique judging criteria for added depth.

• Terminology: Avoid employing shorthand or jargon unless you’ve provided clear definitions. Simply naming a philosophical theory absent application to your resolution does not create sufficient framework to evaluate your argument.

• Speaks: My allocation of speaker points will be determined by clarity of communication, argumentation skills, organization, and overall persuasiveness. You do not need to stand when addressing me, but I expect adherence to professional decorum. Interrupting an excessively long or non-responsive answer is permissible. No other interruptions shall be tolerated.

• Spread: Maintain a reasonable speaking pace; excessive speed can increase the chances that I miss subtle but critical point of your argument.

• Tech vs. Truth: I encourage all debaters to maintain a balanced approach that considers both technical proficiency and the truthfulness of arguments. While it’s important to excel in debate techniques and strategies for a competitive edge, I also emphasize the ethical duty to present arguments that are honest and well-supported. LD debate provides a platform for both skill development and meaningful discourse, and I believe that it is through this equilibrium that we can collectively attain the most valuable and educational outcomes in our rounds.

Kritiks: As a judge, I value debaters who scrutinize the fundamental flaws in their opponents’ arguments by exploring the underlying assumptions, values, and ideologies. I encourage critical thinking and the examination of the broader context in which arguments are presented.

Closing Thoughts:

My primary objective is to provide an impartial assessment while fostering engaging and thought-provoking debates. I look forward to a rewarding round of discourse. Let’s make this an exceptional experience!

I'm Jaden. I'm a student @ UT - I have been debating since 6th grade in both LD and policy. Went to TFA and bid tournaments. If you'd like to use an email chain / share speech docs, please use jadenb0622@gmail.com

In an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why the affirmative is a bad idea.

I have debated and judged most args in LD, so do you what you would like. Read Below.

UT UPDATE: It's my finals szn so if I seem frazzled, cut me some slack.

As a debater, I often went for anything standard for a Varsity LD debater; I have debated args in LD, so do you what you would like. Read Below.

I think the word "unsafe" means something, and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly -it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. This applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. Suppose you believe that the debate has become unsafe. In that case, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism to resolve safety issues. Similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. That said, the standard is high for what would make a genuinely unsafe/abusive debate round.

I WILLevaluate Disclosure Theory if the violation is apparent. However, that comes with the burden of proof.

IMPORTANT STUFF

• Speed: Slow down on tags, interps, and analytics. I flow on paper. If you’re a numbers person, I would say I’m good at flowing about a speed of 6* on a scale of 1-10 (6 for finals weekend), maybe a 7, but try what you would like; I'll say slow if you need to slow down. This is particularly true for K/T debates
• Timing: I will begin your time on your first word. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. You will keep track of your own prep time.You should also keep track of your time.
• Signposting/Roadmaps: I will be much happier and more able to fully understand and follow your arguments if you signpost and number them!!
• No, I don’t believe you can re-insert verbal highlights you did not read.
• Disclosure is good. Reading disclosure against a small school with no Wiki page might make me smile because I'll hope you're joking.
• I love evaluating a good 2NR/2AR, give judge instructions, and make my job easy — I will be happy, and so will you be with your speaks. :-)
• On tricks/skep: I'll play a trick on you.

I would love to see a good topical, impact debate this weekend, but everyone's got a dream

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Bad theory arguments/theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely I will vote for theory debates where I can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is complicated for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• Affs/NCs that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - I think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain cannot process/flow it at high speeds.

Please do not be mean or say something offensive. I can tank speaks for the former and drop you for the latter. Racism = bad

Have fun fr! I will try to adapt to the debate you want to have.

Thanks,

Jaden