Hi, I am a graduate who competed for Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.

Email:

brett.banks@utexas.edu- Add me to the chain, please!

Worlds:

I am a blank slate and treat this event as truth > tech. I have plenty of experience with this event so I know the ins and outs. This event is all about clash so please avoid being repetitive.

PF:

Tech > Truth within reason here. Add me to the chain.

LD/CX:

Very much traditional here, however, I am open to voting on anything. Just try to simplify any complicated arguments for me. I will almost always vote on the shortest path to the ballot.

Speech:

I honestly have no idea how to judge a speech event properly so just try to be fluent.

I am a relatively new parent judge. I enjoy listening to and judging debates.

I have interest in politics, investing, philosophy, psychology and sociology. I had my MBA education many years ago and worked in Banking for 20+ years.

For LD debates, I evaluate the combination of the following aspects -

1) Solid case build - proof, the value framework.

2) Clash and rebuttal - I value effective rebuttal and responses using logic and proofs. Please be respectful of your opponent.

3) Delivery - clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. I am ok with spreading and will try to follow your flow.

I prefer a debate that is focused on facts and evidence. I appreciate a clear roadmap. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are speaking to fast or not clearly connecting ideas you will not do well. Speaker points are given when it is clear you have practiced your opening argument.

Hello!! My name is Chans (she/her). (John Paul Stevens HS ‘23 & UT ‘27)

You don't have to call me Judge or anything overly professional like that, Chans (pronounced chance) is fine!

I did speech and debate for two years in high school, with competition and (limited) coaching experience in Congress, competition experience in trad LD, PF, and Extemp, and judging experience in all of the above plus OO and World Schools Debate. I try to make my ballots as helpful and detailed as possible for the sake of your growth as a debater. If you have any questions about my decision or ballot, I'm more than happy to discuss and provide more insight so don't be afraid to shoot me an email! chansfrench.cf@gmail.com

If I'm your judge for an event that isn't detailed below, you're welcome to ask if I have any preferences!

Congress

This is by far my favorite event and the event I have the most experience in. I mainly use argumentation and how much you advance the debate as the way I will evaluate you as a speaker, and delivery is the last thing I consider. Next to each section, there's a rough percentage breakdown of how I will evaluate your performance.

argumentation (50%): Please don't rehash arguments, that might be obvious but to me, this looks like giving the exact same claim, warrant and/or impact as another speaker. There is a big difference between rehashing and building upon other's arguments by bringing in new warrants, impacts, or analyses. Please don't try to pawn off rehashing as building off others without adding anything fresh to the debate. If you plan on going late, make sure you’re weighing and debating, not reading a constructive without adding anything substantial to the debate. I will give you the 9 immediately if you give a constructive as the 10th speaker in a debate. Now that all the technical stuff is out of the way, I want to hear ARGUMENTS. I've been in my fair share of local congress rounds where every speaker is reading a different, independent, 100% prewritten speech that contributes nothing new/substantial to the flow of the round. Even I have been guilty of this. Be adaptable, it is the easiest way to stand out in a room full of 3-minute infos.

advancing the debate (40%): Whoever is doing the best job at proving that their side is winning the debate the best will generally get my top 6. This means analysis, comparatives, and weighing!!!! I also want to hear the implications that the points in your speech make to the overall flow of the round. Why is what you're saying so important to your side, how is it changing what we know about the round thus far, and why should I care as a judge (or non-congressperson if you're a true LARPer). This should seem pretty intuitive, but you would be surprised by how many people don't actually do this.

delivery (10%): I'm insanely lenient with how you choose to deliver your speech (legal pad, clipboard, laptop, iPad, sheet of paper, nothing at all), as long as YOU feel comfortable, that's all I care about. I understand being in the position of having not padded my speech and feeling like my performance will suffer because of it. Not many judges are like this, so please feel free to do whatever with your delivery. Fluency breaks are normal and are not that big of a deal, so show confidence in what you’re saying and the rest will follow.

misc/personal preferences:

1. Be respectful, yelling at each other or being aggressive during cross is one of the easiest ways to get ranked pretty low, and be mindful of each other’s pronouns, especially if they are visible on placards.
   
   

2. If you're going to give a humorous/stylized intro, please make sure the topic is appropriate, but otherwise, I love to hear some of your personality shine through!! Be warned though, I've watched an ungodly amount of congress rounds, and was in at least one every weekend for two years, so if you give a canned intro, I will most likely know and call you out on it.
   
   

3. POs will typically rank in my 3-8 depending on your performance and the performance of others in the round. You either have to be doing a really bad job as PO or it be a really good room of speakers for you to get dropped. I will generally try to make sure that PO's will always have a chance of breaking out of prelim.

Content warnings are super important and you should ALWAYS provide them if necessary, but also remember if you have content in your speech that requires a CW, your judges and PO cannot leave the room during your speech.

LD

an email chain is fine, speech drop is better though.

tech > truth, but in a trad way!

be respectful and clear and you'll get high speaks, be rude, passive-aggressive, or mean, i'm dropping your speaks. if you're experienced and hitting a novice, and way overdoing beating them, i'm dropping your speaks.

I mainly competed in trad/UIL LD, but I will evaluate any argument, as long as I can follow the argument link chain. Theory is okay, as long as it's clear what I'm supposed to be voting on. I am going to be honest, still not sure how to evaluate a K so I'd recommend not running one if I am your judge for the sake of fairness in my decision. Speed is okay as long as you have a doc that I can follow. Keep in mind though that following along to a doc while you're speaking and I'm trying to flow can become difficult for me, especially if I'm trying to catch every link.

If you can't explain your argument without relying on your evidence during cross or as a “warrant", you’ll have a hard time convincing me why you should get my ballot. Cards ≠ warrants.

PF

PLEASE don't read a K or theory (unless it is ACTUALLY conducive to a better debate space). There's not enough time and I will not know what to do with it on my flow. I prefer a good traditional PF round, with all your typical things. Weighing is one of the most important things to me in PF, as long as you're doing it, thats all I care about.

Extemp

I only competed in Extemp as a supplement to Congress, so my preferences are a lot more surface-level. Evidence is important, but I care way more that you can explain the points you are making in detail with good use of analysis. It's a snooze fest if all you're doing is telling me claims and cards. Substructure is cool, try to have fun with it. Fluency breaks happen, it's normal. Just shake it off and keep going. You won't auto 6 if you break fluency or pause for a second.

Remember to have fun and take care of yourself & good luck to all competitors!!

Elaine Granoff is a Westwood High School parent who works in developer relations during the weekdays.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to being convinced!

Email chain: owenmm@utexas.edu

tech only, no truth.

default TT

I did PF for Flower Mound, and I broke at TOC (2x qual), TFA (2x qual), NSDA (2x qual), and a bunch of natcirc tourneys (if that matters to you, idk).

PF

Skip grand cross and I'll like you (but if you actually have questions to ask please don't skip because of me).

I only give less than 29.9 if you give me a reason to.

Obviously, I will tank if you are disrespectful -- including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- just be a good person please.

and I only give 30 if you dedicate the debate to Sid Thandassery before constructive.

for all: quality > quantity — I need good warranting, explanations, implications, etc. It’s much easier to vote on one really good argument than a few bad ones.

Theory (1)

default: DTD, CIs, norm-setting, fairness > edu, no RVIs

but it doesn't matter, make any arguments, I don't hack (unless you disclose full-text, then good luck)

LARP (2)

extend, probably nothing is sticky.

collapse, signpost, be organized

weigh and meta-weigh

Tricks (1-2)

please run tricks in PF.

Phil (2-3)

I read phil and I like it, but don't be too crazy.

K (4)

I have no problem with them, I'm just not familiar with many Ks. Run whatever you want, but if you want me to vote right, I can prolly follow Cap, Set Col, most Pess Ks, and maybe Psycho.

LD

Speaks are based on strategy.

Bonus if you mention Sid Thandassery, any ex-Flower Mound debater, or bring me caffeine.

Basically same arg prefs as PF

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years (2015-2019). I did mostly LD, but have some experience in PF, Policy, and even Congress. I debated TFA, UIL, NSDA, and TOC circuits. I ran a lot of queer theory, ableism, and LatCrit.

Put me on the email chain blake.a.ochoa@gmail.com

For PF

You can run whatever you want but don't think that because I'm an LD judge I will hack for theory or other progressive arguments. If anything it is a strong uphill battle because you will have so little time to flesh out a shell. If you think genuine abuse occurred you are better off just saying that on case than trying to read a full shell.
I need the summary and final focus to write my ballot for me. Tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs. If you don't do these things then I will have to try to figure it out myself and you are less likely to like my conclusion than if you just tell me how stuff breaks down.
You can go moderately fast but if you are just trying to go fast to scare/keep your opponent from engaging you won't get good speaks.
Refer to the speaker point scale and procedural things below, most of it still applies to PF.

Be nice and have fun!

Short Version

I will vote on anything as long as I get a clear explanation of it, but frivolous theory/tricks will be a steep uphill battle for you. I did mostly K debate, but I am well experienced in LARP, Theory, and traditional stuff as well. I won’t hack for you just because you read a K. Impact everything to a framing mechanism. I like to have a very clear explanation of what argument operates on what layer of the debate. If you go over 350 wpm you run the risk of me missing arguments. I’ll say slow/clear/fast/loud twice before it affects your speaks. I give speaks based on strategy, but being polite is a side constraint. Be nice and have fun!

Speed

I did circuit debate, so I have a decent understanding of speed, that being said slow down on important texts, analytics, and dense T/Theory analysis. If you flash me evidence I don’t care how fast you read the evidence as long as you aren’t clipping. I probably cap out around 350-400 wpm, so I might miss things over that. If you make a winning argument at that speed and I miss it, that’s your fault, not mine.

K

Note: I’m ok with 1AR K’s, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

This was my favorite kind of argument to read in high school, but for that reason it is wise to ensure you are familiar with any K lit before you read it in front of me. I will judge based on how you articulate the argument, but I might look frustrated when you say incorrect things. I have a MUCH better understanding of identity K’s than high theory stuff, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N. I feel iffy about PIKs in general, if you want to read a PIK in front of me make it clear why perm doesn’t solve in the NC. To vote on K’s I need a clear link, impact to a framing mechanism, and a thorough explanation of the alt. If you wind up kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA, I will hold the link explanation to a higher standard.

T/Theory

Note: I’m ok with 1AR theory, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

I have a strong understanding of how T/Theory functions, but I didn’t read it much, so if you are going for nuanced/ specific offense make your analysis twice as clear as you normally would. I will definitely vote if I see clear abuse, but frivolous theory will likely get an eye roll and higher expectations of what your analysis has to accomplish. I think in-round abuse outweighs potential abuse. If you go for norm-setting arguments it will be harder or you to win the theory flow (You need to win why you winning this particular round will set a norm). I will always look to paradigm issues before I analyze what happened on the T/Theory flow proper, so don’t waste your time going for a shell if you are gonna concede drop the argument. I DO NOT like a 1AR collapse to RVIs. If this is your best option in a round, go for it but I will be bored and sad.

Tricks

I have a complicated relationship with tricks. I guess I would vote for them if they are conceded, but you won’t get very high speaks because I don’t think that there is much educational value to debates that come down to “They conceded the B subpoint of the second justification of the 5th presumption spike.” That’s gross.

Basically if you want me to vote for tricks that are piffy and serve no purpose other than to confuse your opponent, I’m not down. If you supplement tricks with something more in depth go for it.

The only scenario in which I will drop you for tricks is if your opponent has a disability that is explained and you STILL go for tricks after that explanation is made.

DA

If I am going to vote on a DA with no advocacy associated I need a strong explanation of a solid link and an impact to a framing mechanism with reasons why it outweighs. I don’t think there is much else to say here.

CP

I like interesting counterplan debates, meaning that the more nuanced/fleshed out your CP the better. I think it is important that the CP text itself makes sense and isn’t a paragraph long. PICs are ok but please make them distinct enough from the affirmative to keep the debate interesting (like actor changes are fine but delay/consult Cps make me sad). I need a net benefit, solvency advocate, and an extended CP text to vote on it. A conceded perm is damning so don’t concede perms please.

Phil

My understanding of philosophical frameworks is pretty average. I have a good grasp on Kant, Hobbes, Butler, and other common stuff, but if you are going beyond the normal stuff, that’s fine but PLEASE explain it clearly. Regurgitating buzzwords will make me go “>:( .” As long as I can use your framework as an impact filter, you’re good. I do, however have an ethical problem with tricky framework for the sake of being tricky for the same reason I think Tricks debates aren’t educational. To clarify, if you can’t explain the framework to a fifth grader in the time of cx, it’s too tricky. Also, if your framework justifies morally reprehensible things and you defend those things, I won’t vote for you and your speaks will suffer.

Value/Criterion

Although I did a lot of circuit debate, I still really appreciate a good value/criterion traditional debate. Framework analysis is much more important in traditional debates, but I don’t think reading a counter framework is necessary. However, I want every impact to be contextualized in terms of some criterion/standard. If you don’t articulate why your impact outweighs your opponent, I will have to intervene and then no one will be happy.

Speaks

30-29 Seriously impressed

29-28 Pretty good, you should break

27-28 Some glaring strategy issues

27-25 Your strat was DOA or you said something overtly problematic or mean

25-0 You were so rude/ problematic that it made the debate feel unsafe

• If you make me think about the debate space/society in a different/enlightening way I will slightly inflate your speaks

Procedural Things

Here are my defaults, the lower on the list they are the less time it needs to change my mind

• Role of the ballot is the highest layer of framework
• Case can be cross applied to T/Theory
• No RVIs
• Reasonability
• Drop the argument

I do NOT have a default for layering offs (K before T, etc) so you NEED to do this analysis in front of me

I am generally tech/truth unless you are just lying (like saying that global warming isn’t real)

I will be disappointed/drop speaks if you do this

• Not clearly answering cx questions (especially status of advocacies and what layer comes first)
• Are occasionally rude (sass is ok, but teasing is not)
• Not giving content warnings before possibly triggering arguments are made

I will drop you if you do this

• Say or do anything explicitly exclusionary
• Act egregiously rude or blatantly mean towards your opponent (if you don’t know if what you do is ‘egregious’ or not it probably is)

Last updated - 9/22/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

I'm a parent judge, and it would really help if you went slower and explained more (ie: explaining what weighing, magnitude, framework, theory, etc is). Please use less debate jargon, and talking in-round as if you're talking to someone who has never seen a debate before would also be preferred. This would help me understand the arguments made in the speeches more, as well as have a clearer understanding of both sides.

I won't judge based on my own knowledge on a subject but rather how debaters make sense, being logical, able to find the loopholes of the statement/argument by the other side. Besides, teamwork shown by body language, eye contacts, energy level are also what I pay attention to. 

Well the above is more related to policy forum which I have judging experiences on, I am also interested in judging LD. And I view myself being good at logic, listening (remembering what is said), and critical thinking, which will be the areas I am judging debaters at, besides how they develop their cases and elaborate their viewpoints.  

Johnathen.standifer@leanderisd.org

But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward, don't be petty for your prep.

Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school, and run a PF team now as a coach.

I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it.

I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.

Don't just throw a trick in the first speech ignore it 'til the end and tell me to vote for you, that's boring.

Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.

MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite.