Contact Info

Email: joshadebateemail@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain) w/ Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs School Name (Neg)

Pronouns: He/Him

Currently: One of the assistant coaches at Dulles HS and I Coach a few other kids.

Background (Updated For 2023-2024 Season)

I am a current Sophmore at Rice University & I graduated from Challenge Early College High School w/an extremely small and underfunded debate program.I've been part of the activity for a while and want to give back to the community. I've tried every format at least once, and I am a progressive debater who started off traditional who has made it to a few BID Rounds, including Emory & Stanford, qualified to TFA State 2x and made it octos, qualed to UIL State for Congress and LD a bunch of times, etc.

I have taught at camps such as TDC, NSD, & VBI

*I Specialize in Non-T Afropess, Afro Opt, Afro-Futurism, Performance, Cap, Security, etc. (pretty much any K literature) but started off stock/lay/traditional and understand Policy args well.

Conflicts

Institutions: Frank Black Middle School; Heights HS; Challenge Early College HS; Dulles HS

Individual Debaters: Carnegie Vanguard KF; Garland LA; & St John TI

TLDR: What I don't like

1) If you are running identity args and you don't identify with that identity i.e afropess, queerpess, feminism and you say "I" and "We" when you don't know the struggle

2) Promoting racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, lack of necessary content warnings, etc.

3) Rudeness- I understand aggression, but I am not a big fan if you are mean to others in the round. Debate rounds can cause anxiety, and people are human... remember that. Rudeness will not lose you the round, but I will tank your speaks- and if someone runs an IVI or a DTD warrant because of something said I will evaluate it.

LD & CX Specific

DA's, Larp, Stock, Lay, Stock, General Debate =)

This is what I started with. I'm cool with it! Just make sure to do the important things like:

[A] Weigh impacts and clearly delineate what arguments you are gaining offense from- if you are Aff my vote is dependent on offense, while for the Neg if the DA's/Disadvantages are great or the offense o/w the Aff- then you get my vote-pretty straightforward

[B] Defense is not sticky- please extend down the flow. I'm a lot more lenient for novices, but if your opponent does it proficiently, I will address

[C] I love evidence comparison- if you indict the author or what the card is saying, I am less likely to evaluate that card in the round- which will severely harm their link chain.

[D] Run whatever args you want and have fun- I'll vote on anything. I will evaluate extinction first and against K Affs I think its a good strat to go for.

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells.

I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responses. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

I personally did not disclose on the wiki because I believe it to be AB, thus, my threshold for disclosure is a lot lower. That being said, I have read different forms of disclosure and lost rounds to it where I have agreed with the RFD. I won't rule out disclosure and have no issue voting on it; just know I won't vote off of like a "small school prep" arg as a gg issue right away unless conceded.

Theory v Theory: Metaweighing is extremely important here and I have a good understanding of these debates- but they were never my prime strat. Please do the work for me-but I will my best to evaluate.

Kritiks & TFW/Topicality

K vs. Framework (TFW) - I don't default any way. I will buy debate bad args and impact turns. P-Fox & Chao helped me out a lot with this- so review their paradigm to understand how I lean

K vs Anything Else- Again, love the K! But just know that I will not hack for them. I did a lot of work with the K's, but also a lot of workIN ROUNDfor my wins with the K. Also, I personally enjoyed spectating other rounds that were not the K, as they were more interesting for me- thus I love the K, but will not hesitate to give people who think I'm a K hack the L

Non T Aff's/K Affs- LOVE THEM! Be careful though, as running Non-T Aff's against really young, inexperienced debaters will get me frustrated. Also, as a person who ran a lot of Non-T Aff's and watches a lot of Non-T performance rounds, I would be careful being lazy around me in regards to this.

*Also if you are running a K or a K Aff please LBL TFW and extinction first warrants. Its okay to impact turn and give top-level/an overview on these arguments- but I've noticed that debaters drop key warranting on TFW and extinction first that controls the IL to Aff offense or just indicts the reading of the K in the first place

**Please do not spread/blitz through your long pre-written overviews. While they do extend offense I often find them very incoherent and if they are not extrapolated to anything on the flow then it makes it hard to include and integrate them into the RFD. If you are reading an overview explain why its key (which I assume you already do) and contextualize it to the important things in the round.

Phil

I do not have the most experience going for Phil, but I have read a decent amount of it and have found myself in the back of many rounds for it.

Be sure to explain the syllogisms as I have a limited understanding of different Phil Authors (especially ones that have similar but slightly different theories to other more universal Phil authors).

Explain the TJFs- I also think that Permissibility negates but be sure to warrant it in the 1N.

Tricks (LD Specific)

I am personally not the biggest fan- I think they're a bad model of debate and are AB, but I will consider them if they are warranted and explained EXTREMELY WELL THROUGHOUT THE ROUND.

[A] Again- I will evaluate tricks but my threshold for responding to them is extremely low

[B] When I say explain it well- I don't mean just spend like 10 secs on it. You probably need to spend a solid 20-30 secs on it and why its a voting issue

[C] Tricks are ever-evolving and you honestly can make them out of any concept. Thus, don't expect me to know what the trick is

[D] I have thought about this and I WILL NOT BUY "EVAL AFTER X Speech"- I find this really dumb and I just refuse to vote on it.

[E] Identity Tricks- My threshold for evaluating them are similar to my threshold to regular tricks- make sure you warrant out the trick and give it offense independent of the AC/NC. If it is not, then I will by any takeouts of substance and cross apply it to the trick. (i.e., IF "X" Identity Trick is similar to "Y" Argument like Case ontology/thesis- then if you end up losing Case ontology/thesis, then you lose the trick).

Round Logistics

[1] Rehighlites- If you are re-highlighting, please read the highlighted text of the card

[2] Speaks IVI's- I have thought about this for a bit and came to a conclusion- If you ask for 30 speaks and you did not do anything to deserve the 30 speaks in round... you will not get it. I am sympathetic to certain situations, and if you give me a good reason for 30 speaks and have a clean round- then you got yourself a deal.

[3] Hitting a Novice- If you are hitting a Novice, here's my advice- run what you want to run (you shouldn't be limited on running certain arguments, just BCS of skill level), but don't be excessive and abusive. I think 1-2 offs (maybe 3 depending on event and skill level) is more than sufficient and you should take to time to explain arguments that they might not understand. Being abusive in round will not give you an L- but will make me super happy to TANK YOUR SPEAKS.

General Strategy:

I will slightly pay attention to Cross, but will not flow it (probably just take some notes for clarification). If it is important just make sure to flag me and BRING IT UP IN THE SPEECH.

Speaker Points: will start at 29 and will move up or down depending on your strategy- if you ask, I probably will disclose speaks and if you have any questions on how it could've improved just ask.

If you are below a 29- (28.7-28.9) Then I think the round was pretty good- but you might go 3-3 at a tournament

If they are 29.1-29.3 Then I think you did a good job and have a decent shot at breaking

If you are a 29.4-29.7 Then I enjoyed the round, thought it was good, but some strategic things had to be fixed

If you are 29.8-30 Then I thought it was a really good debate- and your strat was either extremely good or peerfect

Personal Belief:

I agree with people such as Zion Dixon, Leah Yeshitila, Patrick Fox, Issac Chao, Becca Traber, & Chris Castillo.

Taken from Leah: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=155571

Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts on those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also, it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

World Schools Specific

A] Make sure to defend your burdens and clearly explain to me why you have won the round based on those burdens

B] I will be keeping track of POI(s) so make sure to reasonably answer about 2 each speech if you are hit with POIs

C] My speaks are somewhat generous. First Speakers- just offer persuasion with the speech; Second Speakers- Make sure to clearly restate your burdens and how you are gaining offense from them as well as offer strong responses; Third Speaker- clearly crystalize the round and what lens I should be looking at it from; Reply Speaker- Please don't offer new points as that will most likely not persuade my vote in any way- just bring it home and if the speakers before did their job it should be all good.

Public Forum Specific

Weigh and clearly delineate what offense you are garnering coming out of each speech. I am a big fan of evidence comparison, weighing, and uplayering. If you do a huge Ethos push in your last speeches and you are not contextualizing the claims to any args in the round then I probably will still down you.

If you wondering if you can run any other args like K's, Theory, etc (More Policy and LD-specific things), reference the above things on my paradigm.

If you decide to run any progressive args (K, Theory, Etc. and your opponent has no idea what it is (In PF)- my threshold for them answering it is a lot lower and if you are extremely abusive with it- i.e running 2 or 3 off when you don't have to- then I will probably tank your speaks.

Speaking Events (Specific)

Just speak good- I had a lot of teammates participate in speaking events and while I have never done them I sat with them at practice and had a coach who heavily focused on speech. I know what good speeches look like and will know what rushed/no-practice speeches look like.

Congress Specific

Just do your thing. As of now I have only judged one congress round at UT but it was a fun experience. I am fine with creative intros as long as they are clever and relate to the topic. Otherwise do your thing and please attempt to create clash (especially if you are later speeches into the cycle)

Updated for 24/25 school year

Hi! I'm Asad! Pls just call me by my name - for some rzn i hate when ppl call me "judge"

For questions and email chain -- asad.ahmed0987@gmail.com

Abt me: Did LD, qualled, currently the assistant coach at kempner, coached and helped a few ppl here and there

First and foremost, debate on the circuit is a game - don't take anything personal

Some things I like

1. being funny

2. Bring me a diet coke = +.5 speaks

3. Saying "its game over" in rd

4. Setting up the docs b4 rd/ pre-flow

5. asking questions b4 so u dont lose

So you came here to win my ballot? Then pls read carefully

These are things I find important and how to win the round

1. Warrant out your args - explain it and do it well

2. WEIGH - for the love of god

3. Signpost - if i am lost on the flow i will stop typing and then good luck!

4. slow down on analytics and taglines - my speed is decent so emphasize on the important stuff

5. do the work/explain for me - literally write out my ballot bc it makes it easier

I promise if you do all of this you 100% have won the rd

The stuff that matters but rlly doesnt

Speaks

- Tbh 99% of the time its a 29 for the L and 29.5 for the W

- Sit or stand, idc - literally had someone eat in their rd tbh could care less but pls share :)

Speed

- I'm decent but slow down on analytics/taglines/anything important

- see me not typing? ur going too fast

- u can always ask what is comfy b4 rd - i will demonstrate what im comfy with

The nitty gritty

(1-2)K's

- familiar with most common lit

- psycho k's annoy me - run at ur own risk

- my specialization is in islamo so identity k's are good

(1-2)Shells

- line by line is best

- pls make sure there is weight to it especially for TVK or TVT debates

- i dont default to anything

(1)LARP

- my grandma can judge larp and she dont event speak english

- cp's must be competitive

(5/strike)Phil/Trix

- run at ur own risk - my head hurts trying to comprehend these deb8s (im getting old)

- probably the worst judge for this

"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.

My name is Mark Bishop. Formerly Clear Lake MB / CleLak MB

MarkABishopjr@gmail.com

^ email for questions and the doc. I will reply to emails pre-round.

Clear Lake HS '23. I did LD for two years and I do not do debate in college.

TAMU '27. Gig 'em!

Side note: I am overly expressive and sometimes look like I'm having mood swings in round... sorry. Please try not to read into my body language.

DEBATE

Debate on the circuit is a game.

I'm not the best or the worst at flowing. Solid 8/10 when it's not late at night or super early in the morning...

Sending a doc (when you have one) for analytics/rebuttalsis strongly preferred. Hell, I'll bump your speaks a bit if you do!

Short:

1 - K (All, from non-t k aff to idpol to cap or psycho)

1 - Trad (Every judge can judge trad, it's just a little boring.)

1 - T/Th (Comfortable, did it a bit, fan of judging it)

2 - LARP (I LARP'd mostly for the first half of my debate career... then debated Ks...)

2 - Kant/Korsgaard/etc. and Butler (been judging it a lot, kind of a fan)

2 - POMO (I just... get it.)

2/3 - Tricks (I have a good amount of experience with 'em. They're objectively dumb, but I don't really care.)

4/5 - Other Phil (Deleuze, Derrida, Locke, whomever. I have little experience with these).

Background:

For all intents and purposes, as a competitor I ran almost explicitly the Kritik my Senior year, with a sprinkle of tricks, Th, and LARP. I'm well versed in all queer literature, and familiar with most authors for all pessimism K's (ask me).

I learned how to but barely used phil, and when I did, it was Kant. I always thought phil was... weird.

For my non-senior year, I just LARPed and ran some tricks and theory.

I also used to think the coolest thing ever was walking into a round with background music. Walking in all dressed up playing some song w/ a hard bassline or Star Wars would be cringe asf but also dope.

For the trad debaters in the house...

For LD, any arguments made after the 1AR, if new, will not be evaluated.

For PF, any completely new arguments made after both sides give their rebuttal will not be evaluated.

For CX, any new arguments made after the 1AR will not be evaluated.

Speaks:

I would say I start at 28.5 but I don't. I probably start at 29.0 and add or doc. I will not doc points for speaking impediments, lisps, etc. The only reason I will doc speaks is making bad decisions in round. I believe no judge has any authority to say what the "right path to the ballot" is, however, I do believe it's pretty obvious when you make the total wrong decision. 30s basically go out to anyone who humors me and/or debates skillfully. I am more generous with speaks at locals.

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

SPEECH

I'm pretty familiar with all events, but I mostly did DX when I competed in speech events.

The best way to win in front of me is to either move me or make me laugh.

To elaborate, I once judged a prose about a dog having to be put down and I cried a little (I love doggos). Anyways, that student got the 1 w/full speaks.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms from the WSD mandatory judge training.

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Background: Coach/Sponsor of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 2nd year as Coach/Sponsor, 9th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

IE Paradigm

Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know about theories/kritiks nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.

- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

I prefer on-topic debate.

Not a fan of philosophical arguments, but will keep my opinions from influencing decisions. If said arguments are well structured and not just used as a last minute argument due to lack of preparation.

Not a fan of spreading, however, I am for letting participants to use their judgement to present their best case.

I'm ok with participants using speech jargon.

My decisions are made based on overall performance and content.

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 value debate that is germane to the topic. Loosely connected theory shells or using "trick" debate strategies hold less value than those in which are directly relevant to the topic. I am looking for well researched and well delivered debate.

Spreading is frowned upon. In my opinion spreading ruins the spirit of debate. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points with fluidly.

Be respectful to me and your opponents at all times.

Don’t be annoying, don’t be mean, Don’t be stupid. Just be good!

LD/PF:

1. Extend the case.
2. Respond line by line plz.
3. All arguments must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact.
4. Tell me why I should prefer your side over your opponent's in your last speech.
5. Be nice and have fun :)
6. CX is my favorite part of the round when debaters have a strategy. Good CX = +speaks.
7. Please pre-flow your case before the round.

This is my first time judging, please time yourselves and ensure you are keeping to your allotted times.

Please let me know your name and what school you are.

I am Parent Judge with few months of experience in Judging. I am open to various styles and approaches.

Speech Specific:

· I value speeches that are easily understandable, Focused, Structured, Strong evidence with logical reasoning and Engaging.

· Supported with relevant examples, facts, etc.

Additional Notes:

§ I will maintain professionalism and impartiality throughout the round.

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

Personal Background/General Information:

My name is Murtaza Kazmi. I competed in Congressional Debate and International Extemp at Seven Lakes High School for four years.

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of prejudice or discrimination in round. If you or your partner display any of those characteristics, I will down you immediatley. I enjoy humor in round, but make jokes at your own risk. Debate is not a space for over-agressiveness. I understand sometimes speaking over each other, but do not be mean to your competitors - this will also lose points on my ballot.

Debate is a space to communicate, not to hate!

Congress:

Congress is both a speaking and debate event in my view - successful representatives will show skills in both facets.

Rhetoric should be used effectively (not just to fill in time in a speech).

Each argument provided must have quantified/qualified evidence (with sufficient sourcing including date) along with a tangible impact.

AGD's should be unique (not canned) and have an effective tie-in to the topic.

Speeches should have succinct "action claims" (etc. this bill will fosters economic growth).

Mention the different sections/resolved clauses of the legislation in your speech.

Speeches without conclusions (or ending with pass/fail) are incomplete speeches and will be marked down.

Refutation is expected and speeches without ref (with the obvious exception of the author/sponsor) will be marked down

Any rehash will be marked down

Go for alternative speech structures at your own risk (unified analysis, defensive points, etc.), but speech without offense is not a good speech imo.

Authors/Sponsors can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. Explaining the Problem (with quality evidence)

2. Discussing the solution that each part of the legislation provides (with quality evidence)

3. Elaborating on the human impact of both the problem and the solution.

Crystal Speeches can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. Group arguments from both the Aff and Neg into logical and general claims

2. Show new evidence and explains logically why one side is correct

3. Explores the argumentative and human impacts of one side being correct

Presiding Officers can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. attaining or nearly reaching the maximum number of both speeches and questions in a session

2. maintaining decorum and parliamentary procedure at all times (including accurately choosing questioners and speakers)

3. limiting fluency breaks or awkward phrasing

4. making humorous remarks from time to time (when appropriate)

Extemporaneous Speaking (IX/DX):

Similar to Congress, I weigh both speaking and content with a slight preference for better content over better speaking.

Each speech should have a MINIMUM of 7 sources (1 in the intro, 2 in each subsequent body point).

You can try alternative speech structures at your own risk (eg. two points), but it must make sense in the context of the topic.

Intro must include AGD, effective transition, background information and significance, state question and answer.

All body paragraphs must have succinct claims with dated and quality sources with significant analysis and IMPACT.

I will appreciate book sources and local newspapers sources (in IX) a lot!

If your point doesn't make logical sense without the quantified/qualified evidence, it is not a good point.

You have to restate the question and brief answer in your conclusion.

Speeches without conclusions are incomplete.

Speakers that use tonal and speed variation, effective hand gestures, eye contact will rank better than speakers who do not.

Public Forum/Lincoln Douglass:

I am flay, leaning towards content, but bad speaking will lose a lot of points on my ballot.

I'm not well versed in theory or other progressive arguments, but if violations (eg. racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.) are made that are grounds for a loss, then you can bring them up in round and if I agree then I will down the other debater.

I prefer substanatiative debate over progressive (theory, disads, K's, etc).

If you do run progressive arguments, there must be a clear and solid link to the resolution.

Teams that explain their link chains and show their impacts and impact calculus better than the other team will win my ballot.

Weighing impacts is necessary to win my ballot.

If you drop an argument, link, or card and try to bring it back up, I won't weigh it.

Weighing should begin no later than the Summary speeches.

I am tech over truth unless something is blatantly wrong (eg. we will be extinct from a squirrel takeover of Earth).

My average speaks will be a 28 (from 25-30) and can go up/down depending on your performance in round.

-Please go slow I can't keep up and I cant flow off docs so please go slow I need time to process and understand the complexities of the round

-I don't flow traditionally I take note of the big picture and who has presented more persuasively

I am a parent of a student at Anderson High School

I have judged speech events ocassionally for two years and PF during one tournament this season

Truth over tech

Please don't say "We have clearly proven" since that is subjective :-)

Head Coach for Kempner. LD / Extemp when I was in school, but LD was very different then.

I approach every round as if I know essentially nothing about it, beyond what an average person who has normal levels of world knowledge would know on it. While I probably have researched the topic or know it from working with my students, it is your job as the debater to explain and convince me of your argument.

Be kind and have fun. While debates can get intense, they should never delve into rudeness or unprofessionalism. If your opponent is being rude to you, I've already documented it and will report it accordingly.

Spreading is highly and actively discouraged. Debating should be about logic, argument, and genuine debate. Spreading removes the ability to have an effective engaging back and forth. Jamming 100 cards into a speech and does not provide anything to anyone, nor do rebuttals where the entire time is "opponent missed this card, and this card, and this card" when neither me nor your opponent know that you even said it. You're here to debate and argue for why I should agree with you. If I do not hear it, it will not count in your favor. If you see me not typing (with exception to cross), I'm not flowing/understanding it.

Explain the why. Claims made that don't explain how or why something would happen will be weighed significantly less. Example: If you state that raising taxes will lead to nuclear war, then immediately move on to your next point without having evidence or a direct chain of events that will lead to this impact does not hold any weight at all to me and is just a baseless claim.

I disclose in out rounds, but not in prelims.

Add me to the email chain: m9305311@gmail.com

I have past judging experience. treat me like a parent judge(i.e. go slow, don't use jargon, no prog args)

Debate: (LD, PF, WSD)

I am an engineer so logical arguments appeal to me.

if it doesn't make sense to me I will not evaluate it.

please be polite in crossfire(i.e. no cursing or homophobic or racist or ableist comments). I enjoy seeing argumentative clash in cross but keep it controlled.

Overall: just have fun. i will vote for the team that persuades me to.

Progressive args and Ks:

I am a parent judge. Please do not read any theory shells, kritiks, or progressive arguments. I will not evaluate them as I don't understand them. I prefer substance debates.

Speaks:

I typically give 28-29 if I think you speak well.

anything 25-26 means you said something offensive

rhetoric is good: will add speaks.

Speech/Interp:

rhetoric is good.

Speak clearly and with some emotion. monotone isn't very appealing.

that's pretty much it.

i will give you a ranking based on how well you perform and how well you express the nuance of a prose or poetry piece or inform me in your extemp speech.

Have fun guys.

I am the speech coach for Kempner High School, which means that your delivery matters.

Don't stare me down. Eye contact is good, but staring me down becomes uncomfortable. You have an opponent, so give them the courtesy of making eye contact.

Don't spread. The human brain can only process so much information. To me, this is about your argument and logic. I appreciate a compelling argument. I do not appreciate competitors who speak so quickly and fill those few minutes shoving in so much information that it become difficult to follow your argument.

put the public back in public forum

ask me in round

Parent judge. Don't run any crazy arguments in debate unless you know how to back them up. For speech, I go mainly off of speaking ability, but I will be listening to your content too.

parent judge for st agnes MV (pf) and st agnes EM (ld)

speech + congress just do normal stuff lol

debate - ld + pf

• adapt your case how you would w/ a lay judge
• cross is flowed :)
• u can totally run unique args as long as u warrant everything! it's not the political stuff thats hard it's the debate-y words
• when u tell me u ow tell me why u ow - nobody gets what u mean when u say "i ow on magnitude" w.o saying WHY
• don't be evil + run theory or a K or spread or anything like that - ur setting urself up for failure

have fun!!!! ????

(written by debate daughter!!! if i've hit u tell my dad thats lowk so funny)

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

Speech Events: I look for a clear preview of your main points of analysis, integration of multiple sources, effective use of gestures and a speech clear of fluency breaks. Nonverbal cues are important and help make your analysis more effective.

interp Events: Great performances will feature clean transitions between characters that have distinct voices for unique characters. I look for students/teams that are well prepared and jive well together. Your personal analysis in the teaser should be easily tied to your piece and a greater theme throughout.

Debate: In all forms of debate I look for a clear impact calculus that sets your impacts apart from your opponents. You are safe to speak at a brisk pace but if you spread I won't be able to keep up well. I'm not a great judge for theory debates, though I understand the basics of topicality. Try your best to persuade me and I will consider any argument.

PF

I have been in varsity PF for two years.

Please do not spread. Remember that you're appealing to me and not your opponents, so make sure I understand what you are saying and make eye contact with me. I won't vote on disclosure. Be respectful of your opponents. Weighing is important, but needs to be specific. Don't just use a bunch of weighing terms with no contextualization. I will be flowing and keeping track of what is dropped, but this will also need to be emphasized by your team for me to actually consider it dropped.

Congress, WSD, LD

I have experience in debate, but have not done any of these events. It is important that I understand what you are talking about. Put emphasis on the points you want me to focus on and make sure all of your points are backed by relevant evidence. Be respectful, don't interrupt, and be confident in what you are saying.

I mainly judge Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I've coached a small team for about 5 years. I have strong beliefs: 1) Debate should be resolutional. Making up ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with the resolution will count against you. 2) Your case should have good organization. It should be easy for me as a judge that flows to follow your logic and argumentation. 3) Any good argumentation will have not only logic, but 2 or 3 solid pieces of evidence to back up your position. 4) You should be able to have solvency under both your framework and your opponents. Finally, and most importantly, 5) You should show your opponent respect. At no time should you use language intended to intimidate, insult or disrespect your opponent. I have no issue with speed. However, there is a difference between spreading and speaking quickly.

I am the head Speech and Debate coach at Awty International, and have been in the debate scene for over 8 years now, mostly doing CX or parli.

For Congress, IEs, and PF:

I did extemp all four years of high school, and congress occasionally. I judge primarily based on speaking style, but I give bonus points for well-articulated analysis that challenges my baseline knowledge of the topic. I don't like the over-enthusiastic style they're teaching at camps, and look down upon walking across the room to get to your other point. Take two or three steps, don't make me turn my head. Other than that, go wild.

If you scream at any point, and the building isn't on fire or there isn't a legitimate medical emergency happening, I'm giving you last in the room. I don't care how critical it is for your piece, if you scream, I'm putting in earbuds and not listening to the rest of the performance. I don't need you triggering my sensitivities.

Special Note for debates: I have ADHD. If you're spreading analytics that isn't off a flow or your noggin, I need a word for word doc. If I can't see what you're reading at 250+ wpm, I'm not going to catch it, and you're going to whine when you get the L because I dropped a double bind or something. If it's off the flow or extemped, you need to go 70% of your regular speed.

For debate at local non-bid prelims:

I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers. Want to be uber-competitive? Cool. That's fine. Go to bid tournaments or show me that you are capable of adapting to those who either dont have the experience or opportunities you do.

For TOC bid tournaments and local non-bid outrounds:

I'm truth over tech. Run whatever you want, but be forewarned. I consider myself a policy maker first. I have a degree in PoliSci with a minor in International Studies. If you're doing analysis that draws upon faulty IR theory, I'm probably not going to vote for it. However! If you can show me you know some semblance of IR theory or can articulate to me why your scenario is real-world and/or more real-world than the opp, I tend to be far more receptive.

Reasonability is a sufficient answer on T for me given the arg makes sense. If it's late into a topic and someone reads T on a camp aff or something obvious, I'm much more receptive to reasonability. I'm also a strong believer in RVIs. Topicality/Theory is you telling me the other team broke the norms of debate. You better make sure that violation is real and isn't just a throw away strat.

Don't run disclosure on small schools. I come from a debate team that had, at most throughout all 4 years, 15 members. 4 of us did debate. It's not fun going against armies of card cutters who try and force you to divulge your only advantage. I'm still iffy on disclosure in general, and find theory debates often boil down to my own personal biases. Do with that what you will.

Here are args that I get lost on, find difficult to flow, or feel unsure about how to vote on:

theory

one-off framework (I need a doc with all your impacts and analyt. If I dont have it, I can guarantee you I won't be writing them down.)

Any kind of phil

K-Affs whose only real spill-up is a singular card that says your unique identity k-aff is key to policy making.

High-level afro-____ kritiks

Kritiks I read in HS:

Queer illegibility

Security

Cap

Fem Materialism

Disability

I have yet to vote on a K-aff this year in LD or CX. I'm simply unconvinced that running non-topical k-affs is generally good for debate.

I prefer probability over timeframe and magnitude. I prefer structural violence over extinction, but will vote for extinction if warranted and weighed properly.

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) 2024-Present - Interim Head Coach
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow, so you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. Crossfire activity/decorum/momentum is my most common ballot tiebreaker. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically go: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third. These do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this is format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the bench. Generally speaking, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is great because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolutionmore than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals born last century have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. The subjectivity of this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. My recognition and criticism of this factor ought to secure I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally values novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives on this debate manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't actually able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 04/28/2024

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 32 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well-signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP, and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond rejection.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding-based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree except at UIL tournaments where the rules forbid it. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. I will not vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

LD Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are sometimes out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a huge fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down. When there are policy-based resolutions, they often get my vote.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

PF Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have. In PF in particular, I think slower debate is better since the intent of the event is for everyone to be able to understand it.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the pro wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the con wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, you put yourself at risk of me simply judging on policy impacts.

EVIDENCE- I think paraphrasing is fine, but be sure those that paraphrasing can be defended with actual correctly cited evidence.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- In my opinion, there is very little time to flesh out arguments like this in a PF round, so unless they are extremely easy to understand and carefully linked to the resolution, I would prefer debaters not use them.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- While the arguments do not have to be labeled as advantages or disadvantages, in most PF rounds I actually weigh impacts to make my decision so regardless of what you call the arguments, you should impact out this way.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- In my opinion, plans and CP's are rarely a good use of the limited time in PF. Occasionally, CP's work if they provide a counter-narrative to the resolution.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss-based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the con to sit on the right and the pro to side on the left.

1/8/24-edited to update years experience

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

I am a more traditional LD judge. I listen for solid framework, outweighed value/criterion packages, strongly linked contentions, and sound line-by-line rebuttals. Speed that does not interfere with my understanding of your case and why it better upholds your side won't bother me, but if it does, and I'm lost, you've lost.

I also prize good sportsmanship in a round. Don't simply dominate your opponent; add value to the round with sound reasoning and crystallization in the final speech in a way that we all know who won the round at the end of it.

This is a debate event, where you speak. Your speech and rhetoric must be at the forefront of your competition.

"There are no new waves, only the sea" - Claude Chabrol

Your arguments must be concise and CLEAR. These are not practice rounds. Every round is a test that you face against yourself before you even begin responding to your opponents claims. Do you understand your arguments?

I will flow the round, but I will not flow for you, as in I will not make extensions unless stated, and I will not place arguments on the flow, you must tell me where to apply them.

SPEED: I can generally follow along as long as things are clear, but on a 1/10 scale, I'm at like a 5.

I am a policy maker at heart, I like to evaluate the arguments you make and then from there, I will look at your metrics. So please define your metrics for winning the round and tell me why your arguments are more substantial.Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

On the speech side: I want to see speeches that give a thesis and tell me what's happening in the larger topic area. Idc about sources as much as I care about logical arguments.

On the IE side: technique, efficiency of physical movements and blocking are important. Tone, volume, and timber are important things that your voice has to use to make me feel your performance.

For debate rounds, I vote for whoever has the better argument in the round.

Hey everyone! I am a parent judge who has been judging for over a year now, I judge both speech and debate. You should treat me like an average lay judge.

Debate preferences-

• PLEASE NO SPREADING
• I like clash and calling out
• Please be respectful to each other
• Humor is good if purposefully used
• READ THIS EARLY ON- DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PARADIGM IN ROUND

Speech preferences-

• I care about both presentation and content
• I will be checking sources- do not lie
• Please make sure your voice can be heard

Debate is supposed to be a friendly and respectful place. No disrespect will be tolerated.

I. General Philosophy:

• I value clear, concise, and respectful communication.
• I judge based on the quality of arguments, not the quantity.
• I am open to various styles and approaches, but I expect strong evidence and logical reasoning.

II. Debate Specific:

• Burdens of proof: I expect the affirmative to establish their case and the negative to challenge it.
• Theory: I am open to traditional theory arguments, but I will not vote on frivolous or abusive ones.
• Weighing: I appreciate clear explanations of why your arguments are more important than your opponent's.
• Evidence: I value credible and well-sourced evidence, such as academic journals, expert opinions, and reliable statistics.
• Impact: Explain how your arguments make a real-world difference and why they should matter to the audience.

III. Speech Specific:

• Delivery: I evaluate vocal variety, clarity, eye contact, and overall stage presence.
• Content: I assess the depth of research, clarity of organization, and effectiveness of argumentation.
• Originality: I appreciate unique perspectives and engaging approaches to the topic.
• Engagement: I value the speaker's ability to connect with the audience and evoke emotional response (if applicable to the speech type).

IV. Additional Notes:

• Feel free to ask me questions during the round to clarify any expectations.
• I will maintain professionalism and impartiality throughout the round.

V. Preferences (Optional):

• Speed: I prefer a clear and understandable speaking pace, but I am flexible within limits.
• Visual aids: Feel free to use visual aids, but ensure they are clear, relevant, and not distracting.

Hi, I am a parent judge having an experience of judged in World Scholars Cup Global Rounds at Manila and Dubai. Do not spread, do not run theories, live action role plays and kritic as I may not be able to comprehend it. Speak in a conversational pace.

I am a speech and debate coach. I consider speech events to be an excellent way for student's to have real-world practice in conveying their thoughts and beliefs. I enjoy listening to speech events that show a speaker's range as it pertains to vocal tonality, personality and knowledge. I look for clear preparation and organization through details brought fourth in the introduction, body and conclusion. Sources should be clearly stated and expanded on. I want to hear content on social, political and educational topics that revolve around current events. Adding in personal touches when appropriate are also appreciated. I consider debate a communications event. Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. I prefer a traditional style of debate and am big on speaker clarity. I’m okay with a speaking pace a bit faster than ‘normal’ conversation but avoid monotone speaking and inhibited breathing! Do not spread. Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter! Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments. Be sure to extend your arguments, especially after they’ve been attacked. Take advantage of Cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. Topics reflect concerns in our society, so take it seriously and do not waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers’ intent. My vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present. Please don’t be jerky or rude – it will cost you speaker points!

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

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

I am a parent judge that has slight experience with judging debate.

Please avoid Hurtful comments or rude behavior (ex: sexism, racism, etc.) ,will not be tolerated.

Please do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand what you are saying so it will not be on my flow. Keep in mind that I am a lay judge!

Time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.

Most importantly, be respectful, have fun, and good luck!

Most of my feedback will be on the written RFD.

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense.

I debated (mainly policy, after a very brief foray into LD) throughout high school, back in the debate dark ages. After a decades-long time away from the activity, I have more recently begun attending tournaments again, assisting my wife with coaching responsibilities and judging for her Houston-area school team. I've had many years to appreciate the skills that speech and debate helped me begin developing in high school, and the importance of seeing those skills develop drives my judging paradigm more than anything.

In short, I'm a traditional judge that considers debate to be a communication event above all else, with logical argumentation and researched evidence being a close second and third. I value clash, and I will always go back to my flow of the round to determine a winner in a close round. I don't mind hearing obscure contentions if they are well prepared and presented, but I don't appreciate outright tricks, excessive speed, or anything else that comes across as abusive or generic.

In LD debate, I expect a value debate and not a discussion of plans and counterplans or other concepts borrowed from other formats. In PF, I want to see that you've done the research and that you understand the tradeoffs between pro and con, so weighing is important to me. I grew up with stock issues as voters in policy, so those arguments are most comfortable to me. In any of these formats, if you’re taking a different approach than what I’m describing, know that you’re taking a risk, and be sure to take me with you.

Speaker points are based on professionalism, persuasion, and polish. Rudeness and disrespect don't belong here or anywhere. If you came to my paradigm primarily to see if I can handle spreading, I suggest you don't test that in round. Even if I can keep up with you, I don't want to, and it's tough to persuade me to vote for you if I can't follow your logic or if I'm annoyed that you've ignored my paradigm. I appreciate the need to hurry things along, particularly in the compressed rebuttal time, but quality of argumentation will beat out quantity every single time.

she/her

current pfer (bellaire LW)

add me to your email chain: audreyw8ng@gmail.com <-- also use this for questions before round if u have any

- title the email Round # and your school code (ex: R3 Bellaire LW or Semis Bellaire LW)

if ur not a pfer im lay

i have experience judging extemp but idk how great of an extemp judge i am tbh

for pf (u can also probably cross apply most of these things to ld too):

my paradigm is pretty similar to most bellaire pfers

tech > truth unless it's super dumb (the sky is most definitely not purple.)

i don't flow cross so if you want it to end up on my flow, bring it up in the next speech

historically, me not timing has been pretty problematic so i'll probably time you unless i'm super super tired and get lazy lolllll

there's no such thing as sticky defense. if it's dropped at any point i dont care anymore

extend and extend well

if it's not mentioned before or during first summary i will not evaluate it. anything new after second summary will NOT be evaluated (pf)

do not try to run 10 contentions and extend the ONE that ur opponent drops ... i will be very very sad

no tricks. by far the stupidest way to try and win.

probably don't read theory, especially disclo, or k's i'll probably not evaluate it the way you'd like me to

im pretty good with speed but please send speech doc if ur gonna spread

signpost (+ roadmap b4 speech)

warrant everything

be nice

weigh (+ warrant) + metaweighing is cool too

28 speaks is usually the default. 29 is common, but 30 is pretty rare. make me laugh or make a blackpink reference for a bump

no isms (racism, sexism, etc). no homophobia. no offensive things period. i will drop ur speaks and potentially down u for anything offensive.

don't run counterplans in pf........ i cannot evaluate it

flex prep is alright, but if ur opponent stalls up all your prep time by answering ur question slowly.. that's on you

love love love collapsing - i think it's super strategic and makes judging so so so much easier

try to preflow before round if flip is settled already (but i get it if u don't)

ask any questions before round if u have any

make the round fun for me to judge. i want to be interested

write my ballot for me, don't make me think too hard, i'm not too good at that

i understand tech problems, but i'm not gonna wait for 5 minutes for you to pull up a card, 2-3 minutes max (this is already generous honestly), everything after is a drop in speaks (.5 speaks every 10 extra seconds)

on the topic of cards... please have good evidence ethics. if ur opponent has bad evidence ethics call em out so i can check the card. i'll drop a card if u can tell me why the article/author is unreliable properly

don't post-round. my decision is final i dont need you to give me 10 reasons why you think you should've won when i already finished my ballot. i probably won't disclose end of round just to avoid this, but if you have any questions after round feel free to email me, i can't guarantee an immediate response, but i'll respond eventually, also lmk that i judged you so i dont think ur some rando who got my email from nowhere. again, do not try to use this as a way to change my pov; it won't. this is only for asking any questions regarding my comments.

no offense in round = i presume neg

if you made it to the bottom of my paradigm, tell me in the last few seconds of ur 2nd to last or last speech. i'll bump speaks :)

gl hf

My name is Cathryn Watkins, and I'm currently the Assistant Debate Coach for Clear Brook High School.

For extemp, I don't have any stylistic preferences. I enjoy individuality, and would like to see each student's unique speech style rather than ascribing to a specific speech pattern. Regardless of delivery choice, students should enunciate clearly and project their voice to ensure they are heard and understood. Speeches should be balanced between evidence and commentary. Evidence provides the backbone of an argument, but commentary makes the evidence concrete and meaningful. You need both in your speech to be effective.

Oratory and Info are heavily reliant on aggregating data, and I expect the evidence presented to be thorough. I want the topic presented to be unique. If a subject has been presented multiple times already, students must find a way to make their information impactful and stand apart from other performances. Overall, I look for passion in speech delivery. If the student does not seem to care about their topic, how am I supposed to care about it? Again, I enjoy experiencing each student's unique style of delivery, so I have no delivery preferences.

Interpretation events are centered around how well the student marries author's intent with their own experiences to create something new from a piece. Teasers and introductions should be created to maximize audience interest and familiarize the audience with the subject matter. Without an effective beginning the audience doesn't know where the interpretation is going, which could cause confusion. Blocking and movement should always be intentional and used to create meaning. Random movement without a connection to the interpretation will only distract and confuse. To the same extent, curse words can be powerful but if used too often become a distraction as well.

Debate rounds are, at their core, about respectful discourse. The ultimate goal for me is to persuade me to agree with you over your opponent. I do not have any preferences about the structure of debate, but I do not appreciate spreading, especially when students speak so quickly I cannot understand what is being said. If I can't understand you, you lose my vote.

Disrespect, in any form, is not received well from my perspective, particularly when one side is behaving with integrity and respect and the other side is not.

Speech - Strong analysis and organization is key. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION! I evaluate heavily on the use of evidence to back up clear, logical analysis. Communication is key - it is your job to communicate with me, not my job to work to understand you - keep this in mind and consider what structure to provide in your speech to make sure your concept and analysis can be easily followed.

Interp - I judge interp based on storytelling, characterization, and performance technique. In dramatic selections - I am looking for depth of character, honesty, realism, and believable character relationships. Make sure you have moments and aren't just presenting dialogue. Character arcs are also important and should be part of your storytelling. In humorous selections - I am looking for strong, committed acting choices with strong polish and technique. Storytelling is still hugely important - the story should be easy to understand and clearly focused. Characters are the most important. I am looking for strong characters that feel realistic and react in the moment. The comedy should drive largely from character reactions. Popping technique is also very important - should be polished and clean with distinct physical and vocal choices.

My paradigm

Debate is the test of the truthfulness of a claim, thus truth is important. I don't understand the tech over truth argument, nor do I want to.

Debaters should:

Speak slowly.

State the resolution, as that is what is being debated

Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.

Speak very slowly.

Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.

Be nice to each other.

Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.

Speak slowly.

To summarize, in debate judging, I adopt most of the nuance but very little of the substance in this abstract on the qualitative vs. quantitative debate that Kenneth R. Howe espouses in the American Journal of Education Vol. 100, No. 2 (Feb., 1992), pp. 236-256 (21 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press. FYI, '92 was a good year for debate about debate in educational philosophy.

Speakers should:

Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.

Present evidence/sources (not so much in IMP maybe, but definitely in OO, INF, EX,

Don't go too fast, but instead go at the exact right speed.

Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.

Interpers should:

Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.

Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?

I do my best to judge the performer not the script.

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

For LD:

Signposting: Please use clear signposts to guide the judge through the debate. For example, clearly indicate when you are introducing a new argument or transitioning to your opponent's points.

Delivery: Maintain a clear and confident speaking style. Make eye contact with the judge and your opponent, and speak at a moderate pace to ensure effective communication.

Wording: Avoid using debate jargon, as I may not be familiar with it..

Clear Voters: When presenting your final arguments, explain the key issues in the debate, why you believe you are winning, and why the opposing side is not.

Remember to maintain respect and sportsmanship throughout the debate.