I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

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

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

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

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

Congress

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

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

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

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

misc/personal preferences:

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

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

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

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

LD

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

tech > truth, but in a trad way!

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

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

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

PF

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

Extemp

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

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

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Since I am an English teacher, I care about the organization of your speeches. If I have a hard time figuring out your argument, I will be more likely to dock speech points. I absolutely do not tolerate any discrimination in my rounds. I prefer hard facts that are relevant and up to date, and if you lie or exaggerate/understate your evidence, I will vote that down.