"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.

Congress- Speeches should be delivered at a rate of speed that a casual listener would be able to understand and follow the argumentation. Evidence is necessary and should support every argument in a speech. In order to stand out and rank higher, written speeches should be adapted to include clash from previous speeches and offer something new to the debate. Debaters should offer speeches that forward the debate and do not simply rehash previously stated arguments. A PO should run a transparent and efficient round with a clearly offered way to track precedence and recency.

Extemp- State the topic word for word verbatim, I am looking for strong argumentation to support your answer as well as current and credible evidence. Competitors who have an in depth analysis of the topic will rank higher, fluff and generic answers will rank lower. This is a speaking event and you need to have conversational speed as well as humor to do well. Funny and pop culture AGDs are my favorite.

LD- I am an old school trad judge. I can keep up with moderate speed but if you start spreading and I put my pen down you are not in a good spot. If I can't flow I can't judge you. K and theory aren't my favorite but simple and common K like ROB I am familiar with, extinction arguments are my least favorite, they seem lazy unless you have a really compelling and interesting argument to go with it. Judge adaptation is crucial in LD success. I am not the most tech oriented judge so if you are pulling tricks make them clear and easy to follow for me, I am open to weird stuff but it had better be accessible to me.

For (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality. I prefer POI to read like an OO with someone else's words, give me a really concrete problem solution.

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.

HELLO :D

My name is Sherrice and I am a graduate of Jersey Village High School.

I did competitive theater for 3 years and Speech and Debate for 4 years. I mostly stuck to speech events such as Oratory, DX, and Improv. until my senior year when I did World School for "fun".

Do not be discouraged if I don't show any emotion throughout your speech/performance. I'm not bored or unimpressed, that's just my face :). I do like to add smiley faces to my feedback cause that's just my style. I try my best to add valuable advice and suggestions to the feedback so that you guys can keep progressing as great debaters.

Have fun !!!!

Judging Philosophy:I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily ongoodextensions 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 put my pen down 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 don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

I am a retired coach and teacher, I coached for 31 years, I coached all events successfully, my philosophy for speech events rewards students who are knowledgeable, informed, and prepared, I focus on speaking style, organization, and creativity, For Interp events, I look for creativity and style, I do not like extreme profanity or sexual material, in all debate, no speed, any arguments are acceptable, I lean towards organized, factual arguments, I do not like debates that “kick” arguments

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate at various schools. I have also judged Policy (CX) for a while.

I am a traditional tabula rasa (Tab Rasa) judge. YOU tell me where I should vote and why. Debate how and what you want to debate. I strongly value clash. Especially line x line flow arguments with overview or theory.

If you debate K / theory ... know what your doing please. I don't like to see theory ran horribly but I will also vote where I'm told in round (tab rasa).

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

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

Speech Events: I first look for good structure within the speech. I look for attention given to the organization of claims and data. Proper citation of valid source material is essential to promote ethos of the speakers personal perspective. Additionally, smooth presentation of of all sources is a small technical detail I weigh. The tone of a speech should not be one note. There should be variation in style to drive the emotion and level of importance of the material presented.

Interp: I consider a structure where teaser, intro, piece is the standard flow of performance. The introduction must bridge the gap between the teaser and the primary presentation by unveiling the importance and merit of the literature. For me, this is key, even in HI i look for relevance and merit. To me, this is what sets interp apart from acting. This is also an important factor when considering the competitiveness of the selection. I expect the performer to have a deep understanding of the authors purpose and message. Blocking when needed must be creative. I put a heavy emphasis on the small technical details. For example, POI: binder blocking and smooth transitions between pieces in the program. The transitions should melt together, not shift abruptly. HI: popping and character differentiation are important. DI: Character depth and use of space. Duo: Coordination. characterization, and synchronization.

Debate Events: I evaluate each event differently. I tend to gravitate to what I interpret as the

purpose of the debate's intended style when evaluating the round. That is to say, I evaluate the events differently, as they each function differently and have different purposes/objectives.

I am a stickler for standing during speeches and in cross examination. This is the formal and professional part of this activity. Please do not take it for granted. The only time sitting is appropriate is during the grand cross in PF.

Policy: I evaluate all argument types when presented, so long as they are presented effectively.

LD- I lean more traditional, in that framework is an important part of LD. I am open to progressive arguments if they are presented well and properly. The structure of these arguments are important and you must signpost well.

PF: I evaluate more traditionally and put heavy emphasis on professionalism and personal character (i.e. Don’t be mean), especially in crossfire.

WSD: I stick to the governed norms you would see in most judge training sessions. Congressional Debate: I evaluate clash as well as speech structure heavily. I put weight into participation and leadership.

In general for debate, I am not a fan of spreading. It has always been a "thing" in debate. it was a "thing" when I was a student, it is still a "thing" now. Just because some"thing" is popular does not mean it is a good "thing".

If I cannot understand it or catch it, then I cannot flow it. If I cannot flow it, I cannot evaluate it.

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD at NSDA Nationals.
In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery. In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon. Contentions/substantives must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to link back to the main argument / claim. I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present. Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic. I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible. I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important. Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked in the room.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Criteria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

In Congressional Debate:

As a traditional judge, I am a huge proponent of effective persuasive speaking; no speed. I look for the fundamentals of speech structure. A speech must include, but not be limited too: An attention getter, signposting of main points, a logical and organized sequence, a summary and effective closing. Within the content of a speech, clash on previous speeches is necessary, while extending arguments. Participation in the chamber is essential. I frown on unprofessional behavior in the chamber during cross. Once a question is asked to a speaker, let the speaker answer. I do not like anyone speaking over each other.

Daniela Paul (She/Her/Hers)|University of Houston '27|danielasarapaul@gmail.com

include me in the email chain :), If i dont address something that youre specifically looking for in my paradigm ask me in round! i tried to include everything i could think of! also email me post round if i didn't cover something in rfd!

Okay, so at the top, regardless of the event you participate in, I expect respect. Idon't think I should have to stress this because it should be a matter of common respect, but please avoid being ableist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or sexist. I take a strong stance against any form of disrespect towards others' identities, both in and out of the round. Respect also means respect for yourself (be kind to yourself—debate and speech are designed to empower you as an individual and to showcase your talents and uniqueness), respect for the tournament and the people who are hosting/working on, and, most importantly, respect for your fellow competitors (don't be mean to the person you're competing against; it doesn't sit well with anyone).

Who is She?

Not that this matters much to the debate, but Hello! I’m Daniela! My pronouns are she/her/hers. I am a former debater for Clear Brook High School in Friendswood, Texas. I debated throughout all four years of high school and participated in various events. Some of my achievements include:

• 2023 Nationals outrounds (Worlds)
• 2023 UIL District 24 6-A CX champion and state qualifier
• 2022 UIL region qualifier (persuasive extemporaneous speaking)
• TFA state qualifier (Worlds)

I am currently studying at UH , majoring in political science, and I love for debate and speech. It's truly amazing to witness so many talented individuals dedicated to this! I respect your time and effort, and I will judge you fairly!

DEBATE

LD:

Signposting, Spreading, and All That Jazz: Signpost. Let me know where you are, what you're doing, and what you're extending. I aim to judge this debate as fairly and cleanly as possible, and signposting greatly facilitates that.As for spreading, I don't have a strong preference on level of speed. include me in speech drop or the email chain, whichever works best for you. email on the top of paradigm.

now the rest of the stuff:

1. Clear Value and Value Criterion: I expect both sides to establish a clear Value and Value Criterion and bring them down the bench.

2. Warrants: Dont do something stupid, if opponent stakes ev ethics, i will stop round, look through it, if the claim is proven true w30 for challenger

3. I love judge instruction
4. cx will be flowed, what u say in cx is true for the rest of round, Cx is just another speech to me
5. i try to stay out of round as much as possible, I will keep to my flow as much as possible, basically saying im gonna avoid judge intervention(as much as one possible can in a round) and dogmatism.

pref sheet: 1 being most comfortable and 5 being least comfortable

1- K ( not a cp, so explain and illustrate the alt. line by line >overview)

1- Plans/counterplans/disads (lmk if u need me to judge kick) (but also like lowk I also kinda ev this in a worlds way so i dont mind no cards for this stuff)

1- trad (Fairly simple, dont think i need to explain, but just cz ur trad does not mean you should not engage with opponent because of different db8 style)

2- Phil (but like in a political sci major that reads it for class sense not so much a debate sense? so extend this stuff throughly )

3- Theory (lowk this i can understand, I just dont like this, strike me if this ur main strategy)

5- trick (pls dont run this, idk how to even comprehend this stuff, strike me if ur planning on reading tricks)

tech>truth

PF:

Tech>Truth

defense is not sticky

ev analysis>

see pref sheet above!

Worlds:My bread and butter at a tournament :)

I largely agree with what is said in Eb's , Jon-carlo's, and Andy Stubbs's paradigms, so take a look at that as well if you want to!

General Guidelines and some other stuff: I am a very expressive person. PLEASE do not regard my expressions as an indicator of how I am eveluating your arguments. Its not indicative of my thought process, its literally just my expressions. That being said, Worlds is a relatively new form of debate compared to others, so organization and structure in your speeches are essential for me as a judge to follow and flow the debate clearly. I appreciate knowing where you are in your speech, which arguments you're extending, and which arguments you're refuting or disproving. Remember, Worlds is meant to be a conversational debate, so please avoid spreading. When it comes to Points of Information (POIs), they should be concise,not longer than 15 seconds, and presented respectfully without badgering or requesting follow-ups.

Structure and Fair Play: I believe in maintaining a fair playing ground for both sides. Abusive definitions or interpretations won't incentivize me to vote for a side, assuming we operate under reasonable terms. It's important to identify the stakeholders, the groups affected by the motion, and explain how your stance benefits or affects them. This clarity makes it easier for me to assess and vote on burdens. burdens should be presented, and if the opposing team presents a burden, you should be able to defend your burden as the better criteria for my vote or win on both burdens. I tend to to give more on my ballot to those who address the motions intended debate and do not become conditional with stance (i.e. Embracing the motion in full opp or in full prop). Furthermore I think this debate focus on the verb in the motion itself (i.e. prefers, regrets, believes, would, etc, etc) and so your debate and arguements intentions are heavily dependent on this factor. otherwise put(or like an example if you will), if its a would motion I expect to see policy and etc etc.

Model/Countermodels or Factuals/Counterfactuals: I appreciate well-done model/countermodel or factual/counterfactual arguments when they are presented correctly. If you introduce one, be prepared to extend, explain, and defend it. I need to understand how it benefits the real world, how it mechanizes into the real world, and how it relates to the motion. Characterization is essential - explain why an actor is the way they are, what they will do, and why it's crucial. Simply establishing it is not enough for me.

Arguments: I value principled arguments that are well-explained and topical to the motion. These are great arguments to extend and can win you the debate. BUT they need good analysis, simply establishing its a principle is not assured path to ballot if it ends up becoming principle v practical, They need to exist morally INDEPENDENT of the motions practical, or in other words this moral argument is existing even if the worst practical happens on the opponent case! if its not like that, then its likely you dont have a principle argument. Practical arguments need to be supported by evidence or emperics, or they should be logically sound and explained thoroughly that leaves no room for doubt regarding the implications of the practical argument. No matter what argument you present, it should be extended and explained well, leaving no room for otherwise interpretation. On the rebuttal, it's a solid strategy to acknowledge empirical truths and focus on showing why the benefits or harms on your side outweigh or is preferable to the world where the empirical truth still exists (basically just bite the bullet, but this does NOT mean all bullets should be bitten). Dont waste time to avoid the empirics basically. then I love to see mech weighing or warrant weighing, i feel like under both sides of the motion impacts can be grouped together, so I love it when teams are able to prove why their mech is comparatively better than the opponents. that being said, give me the comparative under literally every argument you make, worlds is a comparitive debate at heart.

Weighing: When it comes to weighing, consider the following

1. Clash: Did you properly address the opponent's arguments with line-by-line rebuttal and meta-analysis ? Explain, weigh, and clarify the role of the arguments. Make sure youre not avoiding the big picture arguements either, some clash is better than NONE at all.
2. World-by-world comparison: Ensure both worlds are clearly established. Describe what the opponent's world looks like and how it compares to your world. Explain why your world is superior. I should feel confident in voting for your world because I understand it and am comfortable with it. remember this is a comparative debate at its very core, simply taking a defesnsive stance and proving your opponents world is bad, without showing me the comparative and proving to me that your world is better than opponents is not going to win my ballot. This means engaging on this idea with EVERY arguement or point of clash you have.

Speech:

Info and OO: I appreciate creativity and prefer specific topics. Speeches should be well-memorized. I enjoy engaging speeches that cover intresting topics, and good visuals and movement during the speech.

POI, Prose, Poetry, DI, and DUO: I believe that each piece should have its unique personality, and I judge based on how well that personality is depicted. It's important to address the heart of each piece and the emotions it conveys.

Extemp: I expect organization, sources, and, most importantly, that the topic is thoroughly addressed.

Background:

I debated in HS for 3 years. In that time I attended the TOC, TFA State, UIL Regionals, and circuit debated primarily in LD. I did dabble in student congress, CX, and PF as well. While I primarily focused on debate, I did also participate in several speaking events. After leaving HS in 2014, I went to college and began mentoring for HUDL, assisted in coaching, and became a private debate tutor. I have been judging and providing support since. I graduated from the University of Houston in 2019 with a BA in Philosophy/Minor in Political Science. As of Jan. 2024, I have accumulated 13 years of experience.

All debate: Quality over quantity is requested. I will be making a decision wholly based on what is presented to me within the round. Do not expect me to jump to do the heavy lifting for you. I will be considering quality of arguments, speaking style, decorum, unique perspective, and case strength with emphasis on arguments extending across the flow through the round. Speed of speaking is no issue for me to track so long as contestants are articulate. HOWEVER, spreading, to be clear, is not encouraged by any means unless it is a policy round. All contestants are expected to keep their own time and strickly adhere to it. Overages in time will not be tolerated.

CX: Preference given to line by line in closing speeches. Strongly opposed to cases focusing only on kritiks. I am not as familiar with CX as with other styles and require more hand holding through the round if you want me to track along.

LD: Strong value/criterion are a must in all cases. Contestants will be judged on their ability to support their value/criterion with relevant arguments within their case, as well as direct arguments towards their opponent. Kritiks and counterplans will be strongly opposed as valid framework for your case. I will often vote you down if you insist upon these strategies. I won't go as far as saying all hope is lost, but you have quite a bit more ground to cover if you insist on using policy strategy. All constestants are expected to bring arguments and voting points across the flow for consideration. I will not flow if you spread. Do not spread.

PF: No preference in style/presentation with exception given to spreading. Spreading is not preferred - contestants will be judged on the quality of arguments in relation to their opponents. Arguments made in crossfire will not be voted on unless they are extended to rebuttal. Arguments extended in summary speeches will not be voted on even if they are introduced in crossfire (if they were not previously in rebuttal speeches).

Congress: All contestants will be ranked based on the entirety of their participation in the session. This includes quality of questioning, participation in speeches, quality of speech presentation, ability to cooperate with others on passing or failing legislation, ability to stay within speaking time, and quantity of participating speeches. Presiding officer will be ranked based on their ability to adhere to Robert's Rules of Order, proper lingo, ability to keep session organized and timely, creation of the docket, and ability to be fair and impartial in selection of speakers.

I was a LD debater in high school and I currently debate in college. I primarily did progressive debate so Im well versed in different debate styles and arguments. This also means I wouldn't recommend running anything you don't understand well. I mainly look for big picture debate which means weighing and voters are appreciated. Speed is fine. I don't like frivolous theory but will buy it if argued correctly. If possible please have your case already flowed before you enter the room. I don't really like card readers, like obviously when needed but not every speech. There's value in analytical arguments. Don't be rude to one another, have fun!

Coach at THE Atascocita High School

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: John.Rogers@humbleisd.net

I debated for New Caney High School for three years and have completed my seventh year as a high school coach. My program competes primarily throughout the Houston TFA circuit and has a heavy focus on Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Dramatic Interpretation. I judge as needed at local invitational TFA tournaments and have experience judging all debate events, with the exception of World Schools.

CONGRESS:

Presiding Officer Philosophy- If the PO runs a flawless chamber, it is almost certain that they will advance to the next round, especially if they were the only one volunteering to do so.

I like to see all of the normal things we look for within a speech (arguments, evidence, responses to arguments from previous speakers, etc.). Offense is key.

Pet Peeves- (1) Do not tell the PO you have a speech when gathering splits and then not have a speech for the chamber. This makes for bad debate. (2) Faux outrage in order to gain a ballot is annoying. Refrain from shouting and pretending to be angry about something that you don't have a personal stake/connection in/to. (3) Questioning should not be a competition of who can scream over who. It's not a shouting match. (4) Gotcha questions and questions that you already know the answer to are annoying.

CX Shortcuts (1-YES; 5-STRIKE):

T/Theory: 3
DA: 1
CP:1
Conditionality: 4
K: 4

General CX:

· From the 1AR of one of my favorite former Kingwood HS debaters, “You’re a policymaker. You vote on one of three things: (1) a policy option, (2) a competing policy option, or (3) the Status Quo.” I think that this debater did a great job of describing pathways to win my ballot.

· I don’t like intervening in debate rounds. However, I have to write a ballot. My suggestion for all debaters is to use your rebuttal speeches to write my RFD for me. I’m very fond of “even if” strategies when it comes to ordering arguments of importance (Ex: “You vote NEG because of _____. Even if you don’t buy that, you vote NEG because of ___.”)

· Tech > Truth (Please note that I’m reevaluating this idea each time I hear a terrible argument. I don’t recommend counting on me dismissing an argument on a truth standard. I DO recommend going line-by-line.)

· PREP TIME ends when your flash drive leaves your computer. If we’re on an email chain, which I prefer, you will see me get frustrated if I feel you’re stealing prep.

· Line-by-line is important. This is where clash should happen. When you read a long overview, and even though most of y’all tell me to flow it on a separate sheet of paper, those arguments don’t ever cross over to my flow. This is where arguments are missed and, possibly, rediscovered post RFD.

· I will presume NEG in policy rounds due to unlimited prep for the AC. I will, from time to time, depending on the quality of the argument, go for the “any risk of [impact solvency] you vote AFF” in the absence of any negative offense. I will NOT presume NEG for a counter advocacy other than the status quo.

· NEG STRAT: Not a fan of negative teams that go more than 4-5 off.

Speaks:

· In really good rounds, I don’t have a problem giving more than one speaker a 29.5. I don’t tend to give tenths of points other than halves. My speaks in these rounds usually averages somewhere around 28.5.

· I will tank your speaks if you use arguments to attack debaters personally. You should be responding to the argument itself, not assuming that the argument represents the debater that is making it. Same goes to being rude and/or disrespectful to other debaters.

o With that said, I love aggressive debate. If your level of aggressive toes the line of aggressive and disrespectful, I’ll err on aggressive when it comes to my ballot and just make a comment to you at the end of the round.

o Anything overboard that deserves more than just a warning, I’ll stop the round and give you a loss (this hasn’t happened yet throughout my career).

Speed:

· I’m about a 6/10. I can give you a little room to go faster if I have your doc in front of me on my computer.

· Please slow down on your tag lines so as to help me flow. I don’t tend to flow authors unless they’re addressed in the round, so please let me know what the author said (the tag), let me find it on the appropriate flow, and THEN give me your analysis.

-If you try to read at a 10/10 pace and mumble over half of your evidence, that is grounds for 25 speaks. This is almost the same thing as clipping to me.

Disadvantages:

· Go for it.

· Full, 4-card DAs are best for a 1NC.

· Case-specific links are best. As debates get better, I like to see more unique DAs that are more specific to the AFF. Then again, I’m probably more familiar with the generic DAs, so you do you.

Counterplans:

· Go for it.

· Not a fan of multiple CPs as a neg strat.

Impact Calc:

· Please be sure to evaluate risk of impacts instead of making the round about how a nuclear war is definitely going to happen. Appropriately evaluating impacts improves quality of debates tremendously.

K Debate:

· This is probably not the best way to my ballot, but I’d love for a good K team to help me change this mindset.

· While I understand real-life impacts are present in our society (structural violence, racism, sexism), I’d prefer to have some kind of policy solution to these problems rather than just talk about them. I will roll my eyes if the word "reimagine" is in the text of your ALT.

· I have not read any of your literature. I am not familiar with any of your literature. Please make appropriate adjustments if you choose this strategy.

· Not at all a fan of non-topical affirmatives. 1AC should always have a plan text.

Ethical Challenges/Cheating:

· If there is an accusation of cheating, the round will stop, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the accused cheated. If cheating is proven, the round will be awarded to the accuser, if cheating is not proven the round will be awarded to the accused. 30 speaks for winning team; 20 speaks for losing team. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.

· Debaters are accountable for the evidence that they read. I will be a little more lenient if the card is from a camp file, but that does not excuse blatant misrepresentation/academic dishonesty.

Speakers should speak clearly. I am not okay with spreading. I need to be able to understand your framework and I cannot do that if you spread!

In terms of LD, I will reward creativity in argument as opposed to one that I hear every round. Persuasion and clash are necessary. I will not evaluate non topical arguments. I expect all debaters to treat their opponents with respect.

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

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.

A quick note about myself:

Hi. My name is Jackson. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston for four years. I have an extensive background in congress. It was my primary event. I competed in nat circuit tournaments like Berkeley, Emory, TOC, Sunvite, and others.

Congress:

-Before reading into this: don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I understand people have different styles and techniques. I will equitably evaluate all of these.

- Facts first. You aren't making this activity educational by making things up.

- Relevant and captivating introductions will get even the most experienced judge's attention.

- I like hearing direct lines and quotations from your evidence. Sometimes paraphrasing is necessary. Use good judgment here.

- Cite your evidence to the full extent that you can (don't leave out author, date, etc. when that info is made available in the book or article). Make it easy for me to find your evidence!

- Think about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? Remember that this is a debate event. Just as LD or PF starts the round with constructive speeches to set that debater's position, the first few aff/negs in congress do the same. As you get further along in an item, the speeches should be getting more conclusive/overviewing.

- Be careful about tautological arguments.

- As the PO, you will start at 1 and can move down with errors. Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners. This could make the difference between a few more speeches happening or not. If you run against someone to get to the seat, I will expect more from you.

LD, PF, & Policy:

If you get me for these, don't spread. It would be best for you to stay topical, but if you decide to take the theory route, I will listen.

Everyone:

- Have fun :)

- Be respectful, civil, and kind

- Think of what you are about to say. Is it problematic and potentially harmful to someone? If you don't know, think of something else to say!