Shameless Plug:

HIGH SCHOOLERS AND COACHES — IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A COST-EFFECTIVE DEBATE CAMP THIS SUMMER COME TO THE UH HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP (HDW). We have some of the top faculty from around the country teaching an intense two-week course for Congress, LD, CX, PF, and WSD with a one-week Individual Events portion.

More information -https://uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/co-curricular-programs/debate/debate-workshop/

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Cooper :D

Pronouns are they/them

CX/Policy:

Policy v Policy: I like these debates, generally. I think what’s key for me in evaluating these is proper framing of impacts and sufficient ev comparison. re-highlighting is great. Have clear weighing, give me clear overviews in 2AR’s and 2NR’s as to where your winning the debate.

Policy Aff v K: I really like these debates. I think the key here is the FW debate and sufficient aff analysis of neg alternatives. The aff needs to have a clear defense of policy action being able to resolve the K. Typically these debates devolve into incrementalism vs the alt (assuming the aff wins their FW interp). In this case I need very explicitly why either incrementalism is preferable to the alt or why incrementalism is fundamentally unable to resolve the K. On the link debate, the more specific the k link is the better. Typically, it’s pretty easy for the aff to weave out of non-1AC specific links so yeah. On impact calc here, if the K has a good link, the threshold for me voting on extinction outweighs is high. Perm arguments are more compelling to me alongside linking to aff to working to resolve the K.

K Aff v K: I love these debates lol. However, I’m not that familiar with every lit base. Therefore, explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so for real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like one theory argument I heard recently that was a "power-tagging" violation. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

LD:

Basically ditto what was I said for Policy.

Only difference is that I have no actual experience competing in LD although I have judged it.

So expect that my interpretation of LD rounds are done from a mind that is very oriented by Policy tech standards. This means I may not easily pick up on technical issues in round. That doesn't mean I won't vote based on them. But it means i need clear articulations of (especially FW debates in LD that are about criterion and values) what your winning and what the other team is not or has dropped.

PF:

I mainly care about strategy in PF. There are too many rounds I’ve seen were both sides make an initially decent argument and then refuse to interact with the others for the whole debate. I need to see weighing of all kinds in order to know whose argument is more important (assuming you can’t prove it to be wrong). Weighing will for sure make it 10x easier for me to vote for you if you do it properly. By the end of the round their should be clear points you've won on or at least that you can tell me you won on to make my job a lot easier.
I also like good presentation and professionalism in PF. Don’t be rude or condescending, that’s not going to make you look cool and smart lol. On a simular note, i don't have problems with spreading as long as you are clear and you sound good. Regardless of speed you need to still be sure to emphasize important points, links, blocks, etc.
for arguments themselves I need good framing, warranting, and impacts. By the end of the first speeches I should have a very clear grasp of the arguments in the round and there shouldn’t be a need for those arguments to be continuously readdressed and reframed throughout the rest of the round (because of vagueness/confusion). Long story short, if by the end of the first speech a can't grasp what the narrative of your arguments are then that's a problem.

Recently, Ive learned K's are thing in PF now? maybe thats always been a thing... idk. I need a clear explanation of how the K works in context of the pros policy action and also need a good reason why I should vote for the K over the magnitude of the pros impacts or why the K outweighs. To my knowledge, the concept of fiat is not a thing in PF. Therefore, I feel that i can only judge the round based on what is the "best argument". This makes judge instruction key. Make it clear what voting on the K does or why it wins the round.

WSD:

In Worlds I'm a pretty balanced judge: I love it when worlds speakers know how to present their case in an engaging way, but I don't like worlds teams that don't have the argumentation to match strong presentation.

Refutation and weighing are key.

By the end of both second speakers speeches i should already have some picture of what the main clash in the debate is as well as the groundwork for a path to ballot (early weighing, identification of the main clashes, etc.).

Be very clear with your arguments through the use of strong link chains & examples.

Also be nice to each other :D

Extemp:

You need good analysis that goes at least a step beyond whatever the article said during prep time.

I'm also looking for good delivery and persuasion.

don't crack jokes on topics that maybe are a bit more serious, make sure your intros flow well and match the topic that your speaking on.

I love jokes if they are funny and appropriate for the topic though.

Don't be afraid to utilize rhetoric and a bit of passion depending on the topic.

Email:bakerzachary0@gmail.com

Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.

Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.

If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.

Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've yet to vote on a theory argument. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.

Also finally I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)

In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs.

In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD

Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't.

Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge.Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.

For Speech Events, I'm looking for clarity, confidence and unique thoughts. Present what you have as if it's your first time saying it-if you're enjoying it, the audience will enjoy it. I rank based off of confidence, cadence and your passion regarding the topic...humor definitely helps too. Good Luck and make every round your best round!

Hi! I'm Srini, a parent of a speech and debate competitor. In the rounds that I judge, I expect respectful, engaging debate and prefer a slower pace when you present your arguments. For speech, I'm looking for unique ideas presented in a confident, engaging way (humor definitely helps). Overall, just have fun, and the more interested you are in your topic, so will the audience! Good luck!

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

Experienced volunteer judge. No spreading, please. 

Iyad Chowdhury | UT Austin '26 | he/they |iyadchow.db8judge@gmail.com

policy debate at UT Austin

pref sheet shortcuts

1-- K

1-- Plans/cp/da

2-- T

2/3-- Trad

3-- Phil

3-- Theory

4-- Tricks

tech>truth

"the round is about to start / i'm doing prefs, what should i know about you?"

1. yes email chain. my email is at the top. try not to use speechdrop.

2. debate is for debaters. i really don't care about what you run, just do it well. i find that the best debaters make smart line by line responses, strategic choices, and generally seem like they want to be there. the ballot is up for grabs, your speaks are not.

3. at the bare minimum, you should send whatever you are going to read before the speech that you are going to read it. see theory section for more info on disclosure

4. i really like judge instruction. the first few words of the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot for me.

5. i do flow cross ex. i think it is binding and i reward debaters for bringing cross ex moments into rebuttals. this is the best place to get high speaker points. make the most of the 3 minutes.

6. i always aim to disclose my decision orally. if i cannot, i would be happy to send my rfd in the email chain with coaches ccd.

7. call me either iyad or judge. do not call me sir. my name is pronounced eye-odd

8. i really like organization. make a road map, stick to it, and number arguments.

---

plans/cp/da

top level-- this is a safe, go-to argument if you have me in the back of the room.

1. straight turns and case turns are really impressive

2. better for textual+functional; textual on it's own is hard for me to buy. i am better for competition debates than theory debates.

3. i'm generally unconvinced by most counterplan theory shells, but that doesn't mean i won't vote for it.

4. heavily lean condo good

5. cardless cping is strategic and exciting

6. tell me if you want me to judge kick

k

top level-- go beyond the first page of jstor. your most recent wiki mine, nor that k file you bought off your friend, suffices. rigorously annotate articles, talk to the text, read against the grain, and even email authors with questions. the best k rounds are where debaters are immersed in the literature.

1. kritiks are not counterplans

2. default is "vote for the better debater" but i can be convinced otherwise

3. link specificity good; pull lines from the 1ac and make link outweighs/turns case arguments. both reps links and links to the consequences of the plan are fine.

4. illustrate what the alt looks like

5. lbl>overviews; the overview is probably going to repeat the same things on the lbl anyway so might as well not waste time reading an overview.

6. read rehilightings if you want to create offense, but insert if you want to create defense.

7. the aff may or may not get to weigh case; this is a debate to be had.

8. don't read a k just because you think i will be more likely to vote for it. i would much rather you read whatever you feel most confident in, rather than just butchering something you think i will like.

k affs

top level-- top level thoughts on k's from above check out here.

1. k v. policy:

-- aff: be ready for framework and presumption push. try to provide a role of the judge/role of the ballot and why your model of debate is pedagogically valuable

-- neg: don't stay tunnel vision on the framework page. try to generate offense on the case page.

2. k v. cap:

-- aff: chances are, your literature base also talks about capitalism. take that how you will.

-- neg: try to center framework on material action good, political change good, and organizing good

3. k v. k:

-- aff: i think the aff does get the perm but i can be convinced otherwise. the perm double bind is persuasive.

-- neg: i think it is redundant to read both the ballot k and presumption; read one or the other. i don't think "no perms in a method debate" is a strong argument but you can persuade me it is with enough warranting.

--both: explain your theory of power with extra detail on how it should frame solvency

framework/t

top level-- i generally agree that framework is a form of policing in debate, but i will check that bias at the door.

1. the aff should preferably have a relationship to the topic; whether that has to be a "topical action" is subject to debate

2. i think that the aff should be a net beneficial departure from the status quo. the negative can either say the status quo is better than the aff world, or, debate a counter advocacy that presents an opportunity cost to the aff.

3. i tend to think SSD gets underutilized.

4. fairness can be either an internal link or an impact, but i find it more persuasive as the internal link to limits. predictable limits as the internal link to clash is also persuasive.

5. make the shell specific to the aff. your generic file from last year is not good.

6. counterinterps to framework are persuasive. debate scholars have written about what alternative models of debate should look like, and leveraging that literature against traditional models is completely possible. impact turns to framework can be convincing if explained in addition to a cogent counterinterp strategy.

7. if you are going against framework impact turns: i am also convinced by arguments that highlight debate's potential to build movements/make us better researchers/make us better advocates. it is especially persuasive when paired with predictable limits = good for in-depth research.

8. i disagree with the community’s belief that discourse has no impact. it definitely does if you rummage the literature on how language controls power distribution.

trad

top level-- preffing me is probably a gamble. i am a 1 for k and plans. it may be strategic to pref me lower than a 2 if you do not want to debate against the k or larp positions. i say that i am a 2 for trad simply because i am more open to judging trad v trad rounds than other judges.

1. read trad/stock if you want to. clean line by line and simple debating is great.

2. try to make the round accessible if you are going up against debaters that are not as experienced and read trad arguments. you can read dense arguments and you will win but your speaks will not be good.

theory

top level-- theory debates are a farce. complain less, debate more. i'll evaluate it but speaks might not be as high as you would like.

1. default is counterinterps, dta, and no rvis. there is no chance that i will vote on an rvi.

2. don't use beef to get a ballot. i implore you to talk to the tournament directors and coaches about interpersonal conflicts.

3. don't ask for 30 speaks.

4. weigh standards. new standards under the sun are great. i don't have any strong feelings on what standards are more compelling.

5. spreading consent and disclosure are absolutely good norms. disclosure theory about new affs, plan texts, or the wiki is debatable.

phil

top level-- i would be happy to judge a phil debate, just be aware that i am not as well versed in the subject as much as other judges.

1. good with Kant, Butler, Hobbes, and Levinas. i have no clue about any other phil that is read in debate.

2. i understand phil in more of an academic than a debate sense.

tricks

top level-- debate's sewage

1. strike if you are reading theory tricks; i am better for substantive/K tricks. even then, i only have a surface-level understanding of substantive tricks.

2. slow down and explain. i don't have a developed shorthand for flowing tricks debates.

3. i will probably not vote on "eval after ___ speech".

4. i know what semantics and indexicals are in linguistics, but not as a debate argument. i might vote on it if it is explained thoroughly to me.

5. try not to read tricks against debaters who are obviously new to debate. the chances that i vote on it are already pretty slim, and even if you do win, it won't result in good speaks.

6. tricks might suck, but i have faith that this community is full of very smart and talented people that can innovate the argument into something else. i would be willing to vote for tricks explained as coherent arguments.

speaks

-- i tend to reward certain things with higher speaks. they are (but not limited to)

1. clarity -- i hate to sound old but i can't vote on what i don't hear. just slow down slightly on taglines and analytics. precise word economy, organization, numbering arguments, and sass will get you high speaks.

2. strategic use of cross ex-- you will get at least a 29 if you do not use a laptop, bring cx moments into your speeches, and generate avenues for offense.

3. strategic collapsing/choices-- debate is a game of tradeoffs, and making good tradeoffs typically means you win.

4. taking risks and being creative-- you probably only have four years in total of high school debate. don't be afraid to do something daring or out of the ordinary. add some seasoning and innovate your argumens. try something new, i encourage you to do it.

-- things that get low speaks

1. being rude to other debaters

2. delaying the round any more than it needs to be. going to the bathroom/tech issues are an exception.

3. stealing prep

evidence ethics

i will stop the round if i notice that a debater is clipping evidence.

you can stake the round on an evidence ethics challenge. the round will stop and i will contact tab. what i do afterward is condition to what tabroom tells me. if i can evaluate the challenge, i will, and the winner will get w30 and the loser gets an l25. if it is not in my jurisdiction to evaluate, i will follow whatever tabroom tells me to do.

---

good luck, and have fun!

Main Points/Voters:

- My background is primarily in extemperaneous speaking, so presentation and analysis are extremely important to me. While I value strong statistics and logos in all events, they're worthless if not properly contextualized and argued, especially in WSD.

- I'm not super strict with the flow; Just because someone doesn't directly address a specific point in a speech doesn't mean they entirely concede it in my mind, especially if the primary purpose of the speech is to construct. Of course this has limits within reason, but I think it's a waste of time for a debate to become each side trying to persuade me that their opponent 'dropped this and that' rather than just continuing the argumentation. If you think this is important, say it and move on to arguments of substance to the debate, rather than the meta of it.

- Similar to the last point, I prefer a contention-based debate to a definitional and value-based debate. If each side has basically the same definition/value, we don't need to waste time on it. But, if it's considered important to contrast with your opponent, it can of course be of value.

Minor Points/Semantics:

- I don't need reminders every speech saying, 'This is why you have no choice but to vote for the affirmation, judge.' I'll vote for you if I want to, and constant reminders how I will absolutely obviously vote for you just make me roll my eyes.

Congress Paradigms:

Your speech should be thoughtful and touch on one to three key issues related to the legislation. Your time should be well balanced between all points. If you are spending significantly less time on one point than on your others, cut it. You aren't spending enough time developing it if your other points are significantly longer.

Your delivery should be slow and deliberate. It should be a conversational, extemporaneous style. If you bring a laptop up to speak from, you will be docked points. You should be communicating and speaking to the chamber and judges, not speaking at them. You cannot accomplish this if you are reading from a laptop.

You should have one to three reliable pieces of evidence per point. I don't believe you need to cite everything in your speech, but you should be able to name the source if asked/challenged.

If you are not the sponsor/author for a piece of legislation, you need to incorporate some element of clash or engagement with earlier speakers. Do not come up and give a completely pre-written speech that doesn't engage with the debate that has already been established. This isn't mini-extemp. You need to be engaged with the debate. If there have been more than 3 cycles of debate on a piece of legislation or the debate is heavily one-sided, someone in the chamber needs to motion for previous question or motion to table to allow competitors to write speeches to allow for a more even debate I shouldn't hear the same speech over and over with nothing new being presented.

What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks? A PO can earn high ranks by running an efficient and error-free chamber. One of the biggest issues I find with POs is their lack of active engagement with the chamber. It is the PO's job to keep the chamber running as quickly and efficiently as possible. If debate is getting repetitive, suggest motions. If there seems to be a confusion about procedure, don't wait for the chamber to figure it out. Suggest motions and keep the chamber moving. Have a strong knowledge/practice with your gaveling or time-signal procedures and precedence tracking. Explain them clearly and then stick to them.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Would like to see how you justify your points and counter your opponent's arguments. The emphasis is on debating skills and logical reasoning. Try to have a clear narrative and provide references / evidences in your speech, wherever required. Please do Not spread.

Have fun! :-)

When making my decisions, I weigh fluidity, volume, enunciation, and analysis heavily. I believe there needs to be some standards in the round. While I enjoy comedy, please don't overuse it. There is a necessity to maintain a balance between information and comedy.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

Add (for PF email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach there. Most of my competitive results are viewable here.

I view debate as a uniquely valuable intellectual game that centers communication, research, and critical thinking. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and parsing clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are probably counter-plan adjacent.

I like to reward creativity and hard work.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates. I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Err on the side of over explanation. Impact stuff out, like fully impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

I am a former coach (2 years) for JHS and current English teacher on campus. I have spent more time judging speech, but much more time coaching in Congress and WSD. For Congress, I am looking for:

-Civil treatment of peers, stay engaged in round--I shouldn't see you on your phones! Respond with rhetoric and emotional inflection of course, but take care not to come across as combative. I am interested in the clash of ideas, not personalities. Substance over style.

-I know good sources and unique points of view when I see them and will credit your time well spent in preparation. Show me that work in your speech with clear, solid warrants and evidence to back them up.

-I comment actively as I listen and revise my order frequently throughout the round. Do not feel that you have wasted a round because of a single mistake. Every speech is a new speech, but you are expected to work to stand out above your peers for higher ranking.

-Clarity is key but the best argument carries the cycle: every round has a lot of speeches, how can you make your speech distinctive by differentiating your perspective from others in speeches and questioning rounds? Can you defend yourself against expected points of contention? Did you save any evidence for questioning or did you just memorize your cards? Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis. Solvency/Concluding remarks should be brief but impactful for success.

-(rare) Trigger warnings for speeches containing graphic descriptions of violence or sexual assault; this is rarely relevant to policy but a general rule of thumb

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

Across all debate events, and all circuits, I am flow oriented. Meaning, competitors cannot spread past a certain speed or I will loose cards and arguments and that WILL inhibit my ability to judge the round efficiently and effectively for all parties involved, and very well could cost a team/competitor a round. I am also on the ADD/Autism spectrum so auditory processing at high speeds is extremely difficult for me, so spreading makes the round no longer accessible for me. Please keep this in mind if you're competing in front of me.

Policy: I am a stock issues and clash judge. I love DA's and topicalities. I will not vote on K's. If there is directly conflicting evidence or a specific card becomes a point of contention, I will ask to see the evidence.

LD: This is a value debate, that is what I will vote on. Give me the best defended and presented value while keeping in touch with clash.

WSD: I judge as close to how WSD was originally designed, in terms of I judge style and content. No spreading, remain cordial and respectful with your opponents and we'll all have a good time.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

speak clear and weigh properly

i’m fahim

ill answer any questions about paradigm in round, as in depth as you need

i’ll vote on anything

if u win i’ll vote for u

he/him

TLDR: Have fun. Try hard. Take risks. Ask for accommodations. Safety > Ethics > Everything Else.

Hi, I'm Ethan. I debated for four years at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, TX, mainly in Extemp and Congress.

General Notes:

1) Pronouns, honorifics, and names matter. Default to singular they/them when no pronouns are provided.

2) Recycling prep is bad.

3) I like to give visual cues. Read them

4) The segregation of the debate space along racial, gender, and class lines is real and important. Make every effort to stop it.

5) Cheating is bad.

Extemp:

1) I evaluate Extemp on these three metrics, in order:

a) How accurately and completely did you answer the question?

b) How much did I learn from your speech?

c) How entertained was I by your speech?

2) Structure: I eat up substructure like Choji eats bbq. I also dig a good two-point speech. Framing and definitions in the intro are nice. Signpost.

3) Sourcing: There is no such thing as too many sources. Good sources are specific, reliable, and academic, but not necessarily recent.

a) Books > Government sources > Scientific research > Think tanks > News organizations.

b) Be creative with how you use sources; for instance, use an older source to show the change from past to present, your Economics textbook to explain monetary policy, or Fox News to show the conservative viewpoint on an issue.

c) If evidence doesn't have a date, say "no date."

d) I will flow and check your sources. Don't lie.

4) Timing: Be between 6:50 and 7:10. The grace period shouldn't exist. Also, I suck at remembering to give time signals, sorry in advance. Yes, you can time yourself.

5) Delivery: Smile. Be facially expressive. Vocally, live on the extremes of pace, volume, and tone. Anything in the middle is boring. On-tops are cool, and thematically linked on-tops are even cooler.

5) Purge "considering" and "as explained by" from your vocabulary.

6) CX: Be aggressive. Don't feel pressure to split your time equally between points.

Congress:

1) I evaluate Congress on these three metrics, in order:

a) How clearly did you prove a net benefit or net harm of the legislation?

b) How engaged were you in the chamber and debate?

c) If you were running for Congress, would I vote for you?

2) Early round speeches are the easiest to give and the easiest to evaluate. I love a good sponsor.

3) Please have a real AGD. Stealing rhetoric/AGDs is an auto 9.

4) Make me care. Authentic and powerful rhetoric is a product of a strong warrant and a humanized impact.

5) Take risks! Mix up your speech structure, make references, and be funny.

6) Getting screwed by precedence sucks. Show me you can adapt.

7) If you give me rehash, I will visibly shake my head for the duration of the point.

8) Weigh, especially in crystals.

9) Be between 2:50 and 3:00. The grace period shouldn't exist.

10) Have fun in questioning. Pose scenarios, point out contradictions, and propose counterexamples.

11) Amendments, evidence challenges, turns, and thematic speeches are underutilized.

12) Purge "at their highest ground," "allow me to expand," "affirm," and "negate" from your vocabulary.

13) If possible, please take 10 minute recesses. I am a human who has biological needs.

14) POs: 12 speeches per hour-->top 3. No mistakes. Fairness matters. Be funny but not forced. "I guess we'll never know" is an abomination.

PF:

1) I'm a flay judge who did one year of NPF and watches an unhealthy amount of PF Videos on Youtube.

2) I vote on offense. Present the path of least resistance.

3) Weigh early. If you can tell me what "clarity of impact" or "strength of link" means, I will buy you a car.

4) Extend each part of an argument into FF. Defense is not sticky.

5) Signpost. Roadmaps are helpful.

6) Compare evidence.

7) Number responses.

8) Collapse.

9) Narrative building is important. Tell a story.

10) Don't steal prep.

11) I have a loose understanding of theory and Ks. I am willing to vote off of both. Please do not abuse progressive argumentation to bulldoze unprepared or novice teams.

a) Priors: Open-source disclosure is good, trigger warnings are good, hypocritical theory is bad, paraphrasing is bad, competing interps, no RVIs, drop the debater.

12) I'll disclose if allowed to. Please postround me, but do so respectfully.

LD: Traditional judge. Don't steal prep.

Platform: Structure matters. Be yourself. Open to anything.

Interp: Tell your story honestly. Develop characters. Open to anything.

I started judging this year, and I am still learning the details of each event. I participated in official NSDA tournaments in high school, so I have a good understanding of most speech events.

For both speech and debate events, any type of spreading is not recommended, I can't guarantee I will be able to take in all of the content. I am open to judging any subject matter, as long as it is presented in an appropriate and professional way.

For speech events, I tend to focus on diction, levels, blocking, believability, and creativity of the presentation. A technically sound and believable performance will receive high marks. Excessive screaming, lack of enunciation, and movement without reason will result in a lower score.

I am a traditional judge and go by the flow. I would like to see the consistency through the entire flow during debate rounds.

Please speak clearly, and do not rush! You'd rather get your point through me, not just throw out your points at me and your opponent(s).

Be polite during cross. Personally I read news everyday and I do research the debate topic for each month before I judge. I respect your opinions on each topic, your job is to explain your arguments logically and convince me!

Make sure your evidences are correct and up to date . I care both technics and truths.

Please track your time accurately. I will not track time for you during debate rounds, but I do pay attention to the time you would spend. If you spend more time as what you have said you would take, it is a cheating to me.

You are not required to send me the case doc. But if you prefer to do so,you can send it to my email: liugr@hotmail.com. I will use it during your case construction phase.

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

Hi, I'm Vikram!

Speech: I did DX and OO all 4 years of high school. I appreciate good humor in speeches but it should be adequately connected and linked to the topic. Presentation is very important, so few fluency breaks - if any, and effective use of pauses are well appreciated.

For extemp specifically, I value YOUR analysis highly, so try not to build a whole argument off of a source. Also remember to weigh the impact of your point and connect it to the topic at hand; I should not have to wonder "why is this important" - it should be concisely explained. Answer the question asked; you will likely end up with a poor rank if your speech (no matter how good and polished it may be) does not pertain directly to the question of the topic slip. When giving analysis, try going deep into the issue and expanding upon the multiple layers; in outrounds and finals, the pertinent details in analysis makes all the difference in rankings.

For OO and INFO, I value the relatability and originality of a topic, and I enjoy listening to how the topic has impacted you personally. Good presentation (lack of fluency breaks, good intonation, etc.) here is a must and humor is appreciated. I also enjoy seeing and listening to your creativity, so anything out of the ordinary (but still within the rules) is highly valued.

Interp: I never competed in interp in high school, though I have since judged several rounds in a variety of events. I follow the NSDA guide in judging, and I greatly value topic originality, and creativity in your presentation.

Debate: I did PF and LD on and off all through high school, so I would classify myself as a flow-ish judge. I enjoy listening to rhetoric in speeches, but make sure that's not the only thing in your speech. On the topic, treat me as if I do not know anything about it since I don't read about the topic in advance.

Note: Most tournaments run on a tight schedule, so in the interest of keeping good time, please be ready to start at the stated time on the schedule. If you are flight 2, have EVERYTHING ready before you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to take a bathroom break, pre-flow, share cases, etc., I will dock your speaks.

You are responsible for keeping time for both speeches and prep, and in the interest of honesty, you are responsible for validating your opponent's prep and speech time too. I will not be keeping track of anyone's prep used nor remaining.

Please have the full version of ALL your cards ready to go, when someone asks for cards, please be quick in giving them the appropriate pieces, otherwise I will instruct your opponents to run prep. I may ask for cards at the end of the round, so have the full version of the card with the appropriate sections highlighted, and the version you cut open side-by-side so I can compare them and make my judgement. If you take a while (>5 mins) to pull up these cards when I ask for them, I will treat those pieces of evidence as if they don't exist, and strike them from my flow.

I value a traditional debate. If you run theories, shells, or K's, you will likely be downed. I absolutely HATE spreading (moderate speed is alright though); so if I can't keep up or understand you, I can't flow what you say. I flow every speech INCLUDING all cross examinations. Rebuttals can be line by line or grouped by argument - remember to sign-post effectively otherwise I won't be able to follow what you say.

PF: Both summary and final focus must extend cards used in rebuttal, if the card was not mentioned in rebuttal, it will not be flowed. When extending cards, it is highly appreciated that you give me the name and the year of the card just so that I know for sure exactly what card you want me to extend.

LD:I enjoy framework debates especially as it relates to topicality, but try not to turn the round into a definition debate as it just keeps the round in a boring cycle and involves no clash whatsoever.

TL;DR: keep the debate traditional. You have freedom in speech structure, just let me know what you're doing and where you are at important points.

Please make sure your voters are clear. Show me how you outweigh your opponent's impacts and why they are more important; I tend to value magnitude the most, and numerical (quantifiable) impacts are easiest for me to buy, so as long as they are not over-reliant on probability.

For all events: Please be respectful and courteous to your opponents. If you are mean, condescending, excessively dismissive, or rude, YOU WILL BE DOWNED. With that said, good luck and have fun!!

I am constantly hot girl suffering so don't make my job harder than it needs to be <3

TLDR for each event—

Congress: Content 50%, delivery 50%. I want to be impressed and entertained. Mostly entertained.

Platform: If you're monotonous, enjoy ranking 6th.

Debate: I don't want to think more than I have to. I will flow and I'm tech over truth, but I am mostly a flay judge. I don't flow cross-fire. I don't time, y'all keep each other in check. I prefer giving verbal RFD's because they're less work and I go more in depth than I would if I have to type, but if you want a written RFD to look back on just let me know before the round begins.

Interp: I like interp kids the most because you guys are, on average, less pretentious and more entertaining. I have no experience in interp so I apologize in advance for the bad decisions I am inevitably going to make. At best, I can tell you that I look for believability, technical skill, engagement/entertainment, and meaning of the piece. Otherwise, treat me like a parent judge who is here because my daughter decided she wants debate on her resume.

Make my life easy, thanks :)

My background if you're interested for judge adaptation purposes or you're a loser who likes tabroom stalking—

PF in middle school, Congress and Extemp in high school.

Email: colton.reese@icloud.com

My name is Colton Reese, my preferred pronounds are He/Him. Below is my paradigm for Lincoln Douglas debate adjudication.

Format: I am most experienced with and have a preference for judging Lincoln-Douglas debate. My paradigms and expectations are primarily shaped by this format. Therefore, it's essential for debaters to understand that my evaluation criteria are based on the specific dynamics and conventions of Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Argumentation Style: While I commit to impartially analyzing every argument presented, I do have a preference for debaters to utilize a value-criterion structure in their case. This structure allows for a clear and organized presentation of arguments, making it easier for me to follow the debate. I appreciate more intricate styles of debating, such as theory arguments, but I acknowledge that presenting them effectively can be challenging. Consequently, I tend to be more critical when assessing such arguments. However, I firmly believe that well-executed theory arguments can significantly enhance a debate round and welcome them when they are presented effectively.

Speed and Delivery: Clarity and comprehension of your arguments are paramount in my evaluation. While I understand that time constraints can be challenging, I strongly discourage speaking so rapidly that I must constantly refer back to my notes to decipher your points. If your argumentation is delivered at an excessively fast pace, it may detract from the overall quality of your presentation.

Framework and Content: While I appreciate a clear framework, I ultimately base my decision on who presents the more compelling argument in the round, rather than who devised the better argument in advance. Although I prefer the value-criterion format, I am open to other formats, especially when debaters are less experienced. What matters most to me is the strength and persuasiveness of the arguments made during the actual debate.

Clash and Refutation/Argumentation: I prefer a structured approach to refutation, where arguments and points are addressed in the order they were presented. This line-by-line or theory refutation should be direct and concise. I also value theory arguments that pinpoint crucial aspects of the opponent's case. If a case hinges on a single critical point, successfully refuting that point can significantly impact my decision. I am familiar with debates involving comparative worlds, advocacy, and truth-testing, but it is imperative that these concepts are clearly defined during the debate for me to properly evaluate them.

Speaker Behavior: While I don't insist on excessive politeness or flowery language, I expect debaters to engage in respectful and reasonable interactions. Avoid personal attacks (ad hominems) and refrain from targeting your opponents personally. A healthy, competitive spirit is encouraged, but personal attacks or rudeness will not be well-received in my assessments.

Bias Disclosure: I commit to evaluating debates impartially. However, I will disclose any personal biases or predispositions I may have related to the debate topic to maintain transparency and ensure that both debaters are aware of any potential influences on my judgment.

For IE's I look for the expression (example when they are passionate about making a specific point in their speech their tone, and their word choice should align) and presentation (like making well chosen hand gestures, good body language, etc) and whether the main points in a speech are distinct and clear as possible- this allows me as a judge to at least know there is foundation to as speech.

As for debate events I look for strong compelling arguments. Typically in favor of more traditional ones, however am open to who can effectively argue using logic and explain their point more superiorly.

Julie Sedelmyer

cj@houstongroutsmith.com

No spreading, I will most likely vote you down for spreading.

Please keep each other in check on time, I would like you to use your own timers. For online debate please do not make your timers full volume.

I am a new judge, some things I would like to see:

Warrant your arguments - make sure to elaborate and make it as clear as possible why your evidence in each contention sustains your value, and/or your warrant on your opponent's evidence.

Speed - I am new to judging LD and I won't be able to keep up if you spread - spell things out for me, make me feel what you are debating for. Do not spread, I will not be able to understand you.

Signpost - It will help me to take better notes and decisions if you signpost before your speeches.

Judge instruction - explain to me why I should vote aff or neg.

Don't run super complex phil cases or kritiks, I won't be able to follow.

Hey, I'm a freshman at Rice, and I've done Speech and Debate all four years of high school, primarily competing in Congress, Worlds, PF, and Extemp. I'm always looking forward to judging spirited and respectful debates and speeches.

Congress:

I strongly believe in the "debate" part of the Congressional Debate, so speeches should have either direct or indirect clashes, with the exception of the sponsorship speech. About that speech, I strongly value a proper sponsorship speech (i.e., explaining the legislation and the foundations for the debate). I will "give more points" to someone who gives the speech when the chamber struggles to produce a sponsorship speaker. For POs, I would like to see effective and efficient round control.

Worlds:

Worlds is pretty unique compared to other forms of debate and rather grounded in reality, so debaters shouldn't be spreading or link-chaining to crazy arguments. Interpreting the motion is a very important component in a World's round. I expect competitors to understand how the motion's verb wording (ex., would, believes, regrets, etc.) affects the focus of the debate and to effectively argue for their interpretation of the motion throughout the round. I also think consistency is important between speakers. At the very least, the team's best ideas need to be argued by each speaker.

If you say you're making a principle argument, it better be a principle argument.

Debate:

I have competed in most debate events, so I understand how the round will proceed from start to finish. However, you may need to explain jargon before you use it. I am new to Theory and Ks; use them at your own risk. I can flow decently well, but I cannot flow spreading. If you see me stop writing to lift my pencil up, you are speaking too fast for me.

Speech:

When done right, speech rounds are some of the most interesting to listen to. I'll value speeches highly when they show the speaker's personality or attempt to be entertaining. I'll also be looking at the content intensely. The speech should be well-informed by credible sources and make strong logical arguments from evidence. Lastly, I appreciate speakers who try to have clarity, with a clear organization for the full speech and a line of reasoning for specific points.

Interp

I'll rank speakers based on overall enjoyment and originality.

mhs '26

1 year circuit, 3 years trad (ks on top)

read whatever and have fun! i make facial expressions, so you can be on the lookout for those. if you're both close then feel free to joke or do wtv unless it takes way too long.

food = auto 30

if you walk in playing music = +/- 0.5-1 depending on how good/bad it is

i'll give you a hint (enhypen, txt)

chloe.shao@gmail.com

for actual args - most comfy w ks, theory, tricks to some extent but i will be flowing off the doc. not good w high level policy rounds, not super good w most phil besides kant (i think skep is v cool though but i never rly went for it)

i do not listen to cross - you should point smth out to be either in cross if you want me to pay attention or just bring it up in the next speech

***for legal reasons everything below is a joke***

i am a DOGMATIC CAPITALIST. if you join red, you will be purged. @kinkaid sophie zhou

eval after x speech is a real arg. i will probably catch it - somehow i only ever hear tricks loud and clear.

jordanldcases@gmail.com

did debate for 3 years - heres my highschool wiki. Ive done both lay and circuit debate. on the circuit I got 7 career bids and champed 2 tournaments. on lay i made elims at nsda nationals, and I won uil state.

important—i do not care what you do in the round, just enjoy yourself and i’ll evaluate everything as best as i can. we all made the choice to spend our weekends here, so make debate fun to some degree but ofc keep it competitive. I do think its impossible to be perfectly tab, but i will try my best. I will avoid intervening as much as possible, but sometimes its inevitable -- try to minimize it. I will listen to your controversial arguments---my thoughts are that if it is a truly a bad arg then your opponent should be able to beat it easily.

- creds: agastya and lukas paradigms.

- u deserve a quality rfd -- if u ask i will send my flow, i encourage post rounding if it helps you understand the round, ask as many questions as you need if it helps.

Prefs Shortcut:

baudrillard > truth

IMPORTANT—these short cuts are how often i read these arguments in highschool, NOT how much i want to see these arguments.

1. Kritiks, Phil, TFW, Theory, Topical K affs

2. Policy, Intrinsic Disads, Non-Topical affs, Tricks, Counterplans

3. Soft Left affs, Topicality

4. T-Subsets,Non-Intrinsic Disads

Arguments:

Disclosure: my wiki was top tier so anything flys --- go for cites, round report, os, new affs, preflip.

If it makes you marginally irritated then make it a shell. I will intervene if you get caught lying. I think disclosure is not an out of round violation. Asking 'why didnt you disclose the aff?' in cx is a pretty easy way to prevent the 'unverifiability' warrant.

Kritiks:

I'll eval it that you can explain it --- read quite a bit of lit but dont expect me to fill in the blanks if you dont warrant it. overviews are good, but keep it short and explain it on the lbl. I love K tricks, 1nc framing interps are strategic, love floating pik's just have some semblance of it in the 1nc. im good for either plan or generic links, go for ur fiat k or extinction reps k lol.

authors read or have good general knowledge on --- beller, benatar, ligotti, robinson, moten and harney, wilderson, weheliye, puar, edelman, stanley, baedan, st. pierre, mitchell & snyder, kristeva, mollow, fritsch, hughes, kim, zavatinos, selck, tuck and yang, rifkin, fanon, robinson, ganser, vizenor, baudrillard, artrip & debrix, hoofd, nietzsche, hardt & negri, rodriguez, agamben, escalante, pawlett, berardi, wang, reece, badiou, dean, deleuze, and saldhana.

agnostic on k-framework--hard left impact turning fairness works, beating it back on a middle ground framing is what i usually did, love "hard-right" plan focus -- just win it properly since there are easy 2ar's on this. consequences tied to scholarship is a good arg. 1AR intrinsic perms that kill k's are beautiful.

K affs:

K v T - neutral on this -- imo impact turns are easier to win, and an ethosy fairness push is easier on neg. Solid tva's are deadly. T-Tactics is under used. weird T shells that arent frwk is fire too.

K v K - I love it. compare theories of power--I think framing gets under utilized in these debates. I dont like no perm blocks, they're not very persuasive.

K v Phil - i think negating using a phil nc versus a k aff is really good if you do it well, will give you phenomenal speaks if you execute it well. K versus phil affs should in truth always lose, but ive gone for this interaction a ton and won both ways.

K v Turns - (stolen from nick fleming) love heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. Imo, if you take a radically left position but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you're a coward.

Phil:

lit ive read --- agonism, kant, butler, contracts, deleuze, existentialism, god, hegel, jaeggi, levinas, locke, nietzsche, pettit, rawls, testimonies, polls, util, virtue ethics, death good, determinism, hobbes, intuitionism, particularism, pragmatism, sentimentalism.

i love substantive phil -- tons of great ways to execute it. I dont like phil w/ apriori's bc those debates always devolve to tricks not phil, which at that point just make it a full tricks debate. That absolutely does not mean phil 'tricks' are off the table - i loved reading induction fails, calc indicts, afc, nfc, somewhat explicit skep triggers, performativity, ect. Hot take - theres no winning ci to converse theory.

Skepticism - I love it, i went for it a lot. Ive read all the general skep stuff, anti realism, determinism, log con, indexicals, relativism, non-cognitivism, monoism, solipsism, egoism, ect. Love the Permissibility and Epistemic Modesty/Certainty -- just do impact calc for how I should evaluate the debate. TJF's are strategic but dont let it be the only tool in your tool box. Theology is super interesting---if you can execute it, i would love to see it.

Theory:

Love these debates when its executed well - do it strategically and you'll win. these debates get underwarranted, if everything is developed youll get high speaks. Love restarts. Will evaluate anything -- read everything from AFC, to T, to Spec. 1AR theory needs to be fleshed out. Weigh between standards, judge instruction makes theory debates easy to resolve.

Evidence ethics -- please debate the shell in round -- if you chose to stake the round, I'll only vote for you if the wording of a card is egregiously miscut to intentionally change the meaning of the card or if words are made up.

Independent voters need to be at least slightly fleshed out - otherwise a 2 second response is sufficient. i think calling tab or DTA definitely solves these, make that argument fs.

I will not vote on out of round violations, or out of round issues. BUT I do think that disclosure is in round.

Tricks:

Great, but I prefer substantive ones like trivialism and indexicals. Go for a few and develop them in later speeches. Be innovative -- reading a new trick that I've never seen before gets you 30 speaks. I err against strats that require multiple concessions all over the place for a coherent strategy.

Won't vote on arguments that don't warrant their conclusion (e.g. "the sky is blue so vote aff"). Err agaibst extemping spikes, I will likely not catch them. if you do, please look me in the eye or make sure im flowing you.

TT: TT v K is cool, go for it, i think k debaters are terrible at answering it. TT v comparative worlds -- will flip each side on this, TT is prolly more true. TT v Theory -- agonistic on this, whoever is ahead will win this.

Policy:

Gotten better at adjudicating this after extensive topic research/going for Case turns almost every 2N at a few tournaments. I love 7 mins of impact turns. Will judge kick but if you tell me too.

Net benefits dont have to be germain, but its better if it is. Both functional and textual comp is not needed, but 1ar args for why they are, is valid. Neutral on textual and functional comp. Intrinsicness tests are interesting, if u win it i will vote on it. Neutral on 1ar intrinsicness in general, just justify it -- also applied to the k.

Trad:

Circuit vs. Trad. No mercy.

Speaks:

I will disclose. yes speak spikes - the funnier they are the more likely i'll give u the spks - be confident if you're good, if u read a spike then do terrible expect ur speaks to reflect that.

Speaks are arbitrary so let’s play the prisoners dilemma. Both debaters should email me separately before the round with the subject “Prisoners Dillemma” and ask for speaks:
A] If only one debater asks for the 30 then I’ll give you a 30 and your opponent a 28.
B] If both debaters ask for a 30 then both of you get 28’s.
C] BUT if both debaters ask for a 29 then I’ll give both of you 29’s.

Accessibility:

let me and your opponent know if you have or want anything -- please avoid having to debate about accessibility issues because i think it trivializes accommodations, dont weaponize this for strategic benefit either.

Hard no to voting on out of round issues - barring wiki stuff and disclosure ofc.

Congress:

Congress isn't entirely one genre of speech and debate it's a culmination of just about every style. I don't lean toward favoring a lay debater or a flow debater. In this event, you're just trying to convince the judge to rank you whatever means you go about doing that is 100% up to you. However, if you're able to balance both the flow and lay appeal you're going to rank higher in my ballots than someone who's just good at one or the other.

For PO's: Run the round as smoothly and quickly as possible. I'll grade you on how well you can keep the round on track and avoid disruptions. The more the parli has to intervene(within reason, I won't fault you for asking for the specific rules of the tournament) the lower I'll rank you.

Local/TX Circuit: Please Clash

LD: I don’t have a preference on which style of LD you choose to do. Whether it’s modern or classic is fully up to you I will grade each style equally.

PF: I find PF strategy really interesting I’m more of a flow judge but I can ealso be influenced by the lay although not as strongly.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Hi! I graduated back in 2018. I used to compete mainly in Foreign Extemp and Congress, making it to TFA and UIL state finals multiple times and NSDA out rounds throughout my career. Debate is about learning to present your arguments and think critically about issues. Showing me that you have those critical thinking skills will help you score well with me.

Extemp - Analysis > Presentation; Going in depth and analyzing situations from a unique perspective will score high points with me - present ideas from a new point of view; humor is always appreciated; Contextualize your argument as well and why the topic is important/interesting to discuss

Each of your points should have your internal structure. Walk me through the intricacies of your arguments and how it helps you get to answering the question. Merely throwing statistics and numbers at me without explaining what they mean and providing additional evidence to explain those numbers will be useless to me. It will not help advance your argument at all and your points will be docked for this.

Other speaking events (Oratory/impromptu/etc.) - Presentation matters (especially oratory - it's a memorized speech so you should have it practiced down to perfection); humor is always again appreciated

Congress- Clash and engage with other participants; by the time we are on the second cycle of a topic, I expect you to already be engaging with the previous speech - failure to do so will result in a lower rank; Be respectful of your other congress members as well - degrading or aggressive questioning will reflect badly on your results. Make sure to rely on good and quotable sources that can quantify the impacts of your argument. Above all - presentation should be flawless as you literally bring up your speech to speak - there is no reason why you should forget a detail when you have the skeleton of your speech right in front of you.

For questioning - this is Congress. You are to act like a statesman. I will down you for aggressive questioning. Treat each other with respect, don't assume that you know more than the speaker and prevent the answerer from getting an opportunity to answer your question will look really bad on you.

Debate events - Impact impact impact, make sure to articulate your arguments and be very clear about what point you are making, unique arguments will be appreciated over standard arguments, go in depth - think about issues critically and engage with the topic rather than mentioning a tag line and then moving on. The more you weigh your impacts, the better I will be able to calculate those impacts in your favor.

However, impacts without a link are useless to me. So, when addressing your opponent's arguments - please make sure that you directly address the argument and links that they are making. Example: if they make an argument about inflation, don't give a generic Econ argument UNLESS you somehow tie the impact directly back to inflation.

I won't extend things across the flow for you. You need to do that. Walk me through each argument and sign post along the way so I have an idea of what you're getting at.

I don't buy any of the identity arguments (racism, ableism, etc.). Focus on the topicality of the debate - I don't want to hear the same re-hashed gender identity arguments I've heard before. Don't try to run them in front of me - I won't consider them.

Spreading - only for CX and LD. Will NOT be tolerated in any other events.

Updated 8/29/2023

I graduated in the past spring after debating LD for 3 years.

This is an overview- if u have other questions just ask before round

Speaking:

• if ur gonna spread share ur doc in an email chain (kafiummatul7@gmail.com) or create a speechdrop
• I usually give between 28.5-30
• if u power-tag evidence or miscut it will cause you to lose speaks and may be an auto loss depending on how reliant your argument is on it

Auto Losses

• if u use any sort of derogatory language its a L20
• if u dont include trigger warnings and read something that would require one its a L20
• ***Just be a decent human being, its not that complicated***

Other Stuff

• Theory is my favorite to judge- I will vote on disclosure if its done well
• Ks- I dont mind judging them but if ur running a complex identity k that requires knowing the lit. beforehand then I'm probably not ur best bet- anything else I have no issue with and will vote on
• Fem Ks are my favorite to read/judge
• If ur going to read tricks- strike me
• I think friv theory is hilarious and I'll vote on it (just dont be a jerk and read it against a novice)

Strake ‘23 | The London School of Economics ‘26

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine. If you spread, send me a speech doc.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

New implications in 2nd summary / FF are pretty sketch and I am probably not willing to vote off of them.

Please weigh and signpost well. Probability, strength of link, clarity of link are not real weighing mechs. Probability weighing is literally just how conceded your arg is. UQ weighing > Link weighing > Impact weighing. No new weighing after 1st summary. Second rebuttal should collapse/weigh (also just a good general thing to do).

Try to resolve clash by doing warrant comparison. Weighing pieces of evidence against each other can be really strategic and make messy case debates look very clear.

Impact turns are underutilized in PF but are highly effective.

Evidence is overrated. Good analytics beat bad evidence. I will not intervene on bad evidence unless one team calls it out and explains why it is a voting issue.

You can call a TKO if you believe your opponents don't have any path to the ballot. The round stops and if you're right you get a W30 and if you're wrong you get a L20.

Progressive:

I think progressive args are good for pf.

Framing: Framework should be read in constructive. Second constructive MUST answer framework otherwise its conceded. When responding to framework, an alternative framing must be provided or I'll just default to whichever team introduced framing when evaluating impacts. I kinda understand some phil but its probably not a good idea to read it in front of me if you don’t explain and implicate it well.

Theory: I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Reasons to grant RVIs or default to reasonability can be persuasive if done correctly. I generally think disclosure of any identity based arguments is dumb and frankly pretty problematic. Please weigh theory over K or vice versa. If not, I generally (emphasis on generally) think k comes before theory.

Kritiks: I like k debate. Lit bases I’m more familiar with are Orientalism, Security, Imperialism, Set Col, Fem, Queer Theory, Cap, Afropes, and Critical Asian Lit, and a bit of Baudrillard and bioptx. I can probably judge other stuff but just slow down a bit. For context, I read a lot of Asian stuff and queer theory. Ks need a real alt and contextualized links.

Personally, I don't really think topicality is a good response to a kritk if given by itself. Reading topicality against a k Neg is pretty dumb in pf because the Neg does not need to be topical only refuse the aff. Also, when responding to a k, please for the love of all things holy, respond to the ROTB or provide your own.

"I am a freshman" or "I have never debated theory" etc. is not a response to progressive arguments.

Tricks: Trix are for kids

K's and Theory MUST be extended in rebuttal.

Hi! I'm Kush, I'm an LD/Policy debater. None of this is steadfast, if both teams agree, I can judge in whatever way you want. kushvijapure13@gmail.com

Be funny, the activity is supposed to be fun, making me laugh = higher speaks

Debate:

Pref shortcut

1- LARP/Generic Ks (Academy, Baudrillard, Cap, Setcol, Security, Pess)
2- K-affs/Complex Ks
3- Phil (Kant,Hobbes, Butler) + Viable Shells (ie: OS, Contact Info, Disclo, Paraphrasing if its PF, etc..)
4- Friv Theory/ Trix
5/Strike- Dense Phil

General

I strongly believe debate is for the debaters, the shortcut above is how much I understand each argument, not my willingness to vote on it. I will try to evaluate anything put in front of me and will do my best to ensure a fair and equal round, that being said I do like certain things more than others so here are a couple of things that you might want to be wary of (X lies where I fall between the two).

Expressive (your face not mine) -X--------------------------------------- Stoic (your face not mine)

Policy--------------------X-------------------------Kritik

Trix------------------------------------------------X-Args with warrants

Tech-X---------------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards------------X-----------------------Reads every card

Conditionality good-------------------------X----Conditionality bad

States CP good------------X-----------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing---X---------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always util----------------------------------X-----Sometimes not util

UQ matters most---------------------------X-----Link matters most

Fairness is an impact------------X-------------------Fairness is not an impact

Presumption votes aff-----------------------X------- Presumption clearly neg

Try or die--------------X---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard---------------------------X----- Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity---X------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-------X-------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face----------------------X-------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev----------------------------X-------------More ev

"Insert this re highlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

expressive [my face not yours]-X------------------------stoic (my face not yours)

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

New affs bad------------------X------------------------Old affs bad

Aff on process competition-------X--------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X---Real arguments

Line by line--X-----------------------------------implied warrants/answer

Speaker Points:

I try to give good points. My general scale is as follows:

For LD:

30 --- Top speaker

29.6-29.9 --- Late elims

29.3-29.5--- Mid elims

29-29.3 --- Debating to clear

28.5-28.9--- Even

28.0-28.5 --- Below even

Below 28 --- Other

Below 27 --- Disrespectful/Horrible evidence ethics

For CX:

29.5+ — Top Speaker

29.3-29.4 — Top 5-10

29.1-29.2 — Top 20

28.9-29 — Top 25% maybe clearing on speaks

28.7-28.8 — Top 50% wouldn't clear on speaks

28.3-28.6 — Top 75%

28-28.2 — Top 90%

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

1. Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
2. Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
3. Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
4. Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

1. Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
2. Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
3. Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
4. Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

1. Follow precedence with few mistakes
2. Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
3. Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.