Pronouns: they/he | Email: ixdebate at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '21, University of Houston '25

Howdy! My name is Nine (pronounced like the number). Assistant coach for Seven Lakes. VP of the University of Houston policy debate team, 2x NDT qualifier.

If you're interested in debating at UH, shoot me a message!

NSDA PF UPDATE:

1) please add sevenlakespf [at] googlegroups [dot] com to the chain.

2) please make the subject of the chain: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (NEG)" or something similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) pre-flowing is pre-round prep. if you're pre-flowing during round start time, you should be taking prep for that.

NSDA CX UPDATE:

1) please add ixdebate [at] gmail [dot] com and sevenlakespolicy [at] googlegroups [dot] com

2) please make the subject of the chain: "NSDA Nats 24 CX Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (Neg)" or somethign similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 CX Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) the tldr is you do you, i'll flow and adapt to your arguments

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Important Note!!!

If you're looking for a cost-effective speech/debate camp, come to the UH Honors Debate Workshop (HDW). We have top faculty from across the nation and an intense two-week course for CX, LD, PF, WSD, Congress, and IEs.

Check out the website for more info: https://uh.edu/hdw

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- please do not refer to me as ma'am, miss, etc. my pronouns are they/he. if you have questions about this, please ask!

- i do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, etc. please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

- debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. if you have concerns, please let me know and i will work with you to try to resolve them.

- feel free to email me with questions! i love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it. even if you have questions about college, debating in college, etc., hit me up!

- have a good debate! have a good performance! have a good attitude! and most importantly, have fun!!!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate (Policy, LD, PF):

if you’re WSD, you don’t have to read this section and can scroll below for the WSD section.

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

- put me on the email chain. set up the email chain even if i'm not in the room yet. email chain >>> speech drop unless there’s an issue with school emails or wifi.

- debate is for debaters! you do you and i will adapt accordingly! i'll vote on almost any arg. specificity, comparison, and contextualizing is important. offense over defense.

- yes, spreading is okay with me. yes, i’m okay to read ks in front of. no, i don’t care how you look or if you stand or sit, etc. just feel comfortable while you’re debating!

- probably not going to vote on condo bad.

- "nine" > "judge”

- i will always try to disclose my decision and provide feedback if the tournament allows it. i will not disclose specific speaker points.

- i flow on paper, so give me pen time and slow down for analytics. you can ask to take pictures of my flows after the round! yes, you can email me with questions later too.

doing prefs? here’s what i’m good for and what args i’m most familiar with. (you should still read the rest of the paradigm though):

- i'm good for both policy and k arguments. i coach both policy and K arguments, and will be good for a policy v policy, K v policy, and K v K throwdowns.

- i’m less good for high theory, phil, and tricks/blippy theory. but, if they are read in front of me, i will evaluate them as best as i can, and i am likely looking for clarity/explanation of the argument and an impact to vote on. burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. if i can’t explain your theory/shell/k/argument back to you, i won’t vote on it.

- i’m probably a better judge for policy thank you think–-i spent my first few years thinking about, going for, and getting to the NDT with topicality, DAs, CPs, and the cap K (which i went for like a DA/CP). technical policy debate still largely informs my decisions. i haven't completely removed myself from learning policy arguments (still coaching policy arguments and going for them occasionally) but i might be out of the loop of specific topic DAs or CPs, which means you might need to spend 10 seconds more explaining what the argument is.

- recently pivoted to K debate and now spend time thinking about various strands of setcol, cap, quare/trans/queer theory, black fem, and performance debate.

want more explanation? here’s the longer version (in no particular order):

i can not express this enough: debate is for debaters. i will adapt to your debating style accordingly. you do you! i will evaluate based on what’s on my flow. most importantly, have fun :-) !

- tech >>> truth. exceptions are, of course, if you are being explicitly racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. everything else is fair game.

- stealing prep is bad. i will dock speaker points if i catch you stealing prep and tell you to stop multiple times. taking the time to take out analytics/to make a send doc is using prep. time your opponents' prep/speeches and hold them accountable.

- i flow on paper and flow each advantage and off case position on separate sheets of paper. give me pen time to flip pages between sheets. slow down on analytics. when you give an order, give me time to flip between my sheets.

- i flow based on what i hear. i will follow along with a doc to check for clipping BUT i will not flow off the doc, i will be listening to YOU. that means that you should be clear when spreading, you should not flow off the doc, and i will flow tags/analytics that are not on the doc as long as they are said aloud by the debater.

email chains/evidence:

- email chains >>> speech drop. add me to the email chain. please make an email chain before i’m in the room–i want to start on time. speech drop is fine if there are school email issues or if there are wifi issues, otherwise, please use an email chain.

- card docs are appreciated

- clipping cards: i will give a warning if i catch someone clipping cards. depending on how bad it is, i will either stop the round and/or dock speaker points

- ev ethics: missing paragraphs in between highlighted parts, misquoted/misattributed authors, cards starting in the middle of paragraphs, incorrect cites, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round. if an ev ethics challenge is called, i will stop the round and evaluate the evidence unless tournament rules say otherwise (ex: UIL tournaments)

- for PF: paraphrasing is bad. actually formatted cards are good.

disclosure:

- this section is mostly for ld/pf: disclosure is good.

- personally, i think disclosure as soon as you get pairings/when you know who you’re hitting next is good. but i understand the ld/pf (?) standard of 30 minutes before the round.

- i’m very amenable to not putting things on the wiki for safety reasons.

- i will be slightly annoyed if i have to judge a disclosure debate unless the other team outright did not disclose anything. that being said, i will still flow a disclosure debate and will still default to my flow.

speed:

- yes you can spread at top speed but slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

- clarity > speed. i will yell "clear" if i can't hear you or if you are unintelligible. if i yell it enough, i will stop flowing.

- i have minor hearing damage in both ears and it flares up once in a while, usually in my left ear. i will let you know beforehand if i'm having a flare up and if you need to be extra clear or position yourself to the right of me. i will say “loud” if you need to be louder.

cross-examination:

- i will take notes on CX on a separate sheet of paper sometimes. but, if you want the answers from CX to be applied to your speech, you need to say it in a speech!

- CX is so under-utilized. debaters need to be making more arguments during CX and aligning it with your speeches. please use CX to make arguments!

- i will boost speaker points for actually good CXs. (i.e., not spending the entire time on clarification questions, not doing flow check questions with the exception of status/reasons to reject housekeeping questions) how do you give a good CX?: matt liu's cross examination lecture

framework:

- you should have an offensive reason to prefer your model of debate or the aff.

- specificity is best, reading generic framework blocks is unpersuasive to me. you need to apply it to the aff.

- TVAs are nice to have but not necessary

- the best fw arguments implicate the aff's theory of power and/or describe why fw turns case.

- please give me judge instruction, framing points, etc.

- i really like implications to skills and iteration/testing. i like fairness if you’ve implicated it to case/the method.

case:

- yes case turns, yes impact turns, yes case debate. there isn't enough case debate in most instances.

- i am comfortable on voting on presumption if there is enough defense and/or i could not tell you what the aff does by the end of the round.

- for PF: defense is not sticky.

topicality:

- more teams should read it!

- T debate is best when the violation args are specific to the aff. but, don't miss the forest for the trees–you should still do comparison on the model/world of debate.

- i default to competing interps, can be changed in round

- will vote on reasonability if a reasonability arg is made, but this can be changed in-round.

K:

- yes, read the K if you want to.

- don't expect me to fill in gaps. don't rely on buzzwords and expect me to know them.

- if you're going for the alt, tell me what it looks like and how it applies to the aff. you can kick the alt if you don't think it's strategic, but you need to flag it and tell me how you win on everything else.

- link turns case args that are specific and contextualized to the aff are >>>>>>!!! please make more of these arguments!!!

- Ks with links to the consequences of the plan are the most intuitive links to me. but don't let that deter you from going for links to reps or similar non-consequence based arguments

DA:

- don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better. i don't have opinions on specific DAs, read whatever you like.

- i will look for a clear link first then evaluate the impacts. link/DA turns case is always nice

CP:

- i don't have strong opinions about any type of CP. go ahead and read any flavor of CP you like, even if they’re “cheaty”.

- uncarded and/or multiplank advantage CPs are fine but generally require more explanation on how they solve. they should be relatively intuitive and/or based on aff warrants/cards. read as many planks as you want (read: condo thoughts in the theory section).

- i default to judge kick. but, this can be reversed in-round as long as there’s ink on my flow for it.

theory:

- condo is good. my threshold for answering condo bad is very low. i will vote on condo bad if it gets dropped.

- RVIs are silly to me, especially when they're just thrown out without a warrant.

- don't have strong thoughts on other theory issues.

- don't blitz thorugh pre-written blocks. again, i flow on paper. give me pen time to write down the analytics.

K affs:

- i like the education/real-world implications of K affs. i really like well thought out, thematically tight, content-packed, and well-structured K affs, especially if there are performance aspects to it.

- i like negs strats v. K affs that engage with K aff's theory of power (which can also include framework!), and am comfortable voting on presumption/framework

speaker points:

- (updated to match reigner's speaker point scale): i start at around 28.8 and go up or down from there. i try to adjust a bit based on the tournament. i evaluate speaker points based on strategic choices and articulations.

- debate can get heated and i don't mind mild roasts or whatever, but if you are just being flat out insulting and making people feel uncomfortable, i will lower your speaks (and stop the round in extreme instances)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

World Schools:

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

– yes, i know the format. i primarily did WSD in high school and used to primarily coach WSD.

– i flow and will vote based on what’s on my flow. i would rather vote on content, arguments, and warrants over speaking pretty.

– i value organized speeches!!! messy speeches = sad nine = sad ballot. ways to make sure your speech is organized: 1) enumerate your responses, 2) signpost your arguments, and 3) condense into clash.

– i would much rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. worlds debaters are really really good at making defensive args, but not necessarily offensive ones. please have offense. i want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

want more explanation? here’s the longer version:

– format: follow it. that means no spreading, no “off the clock roadmaps” (i start the clock as soon as you say "as an off the clock roadmap"), taking 1-2 pois, etc. that also means no using heavy debate jargon (topicality, condo, etc.). you’re probably using those words in the wrong context anyway. “fiat” is definitely a word/arg that exists in wsd, but make sure you’re using it correctly.

– explain and characterize! the best debaters are the ones who can best explain their clash, how and why actors will act a certain way, etc.

– strategy and style are important! i value strategic debaters (ex: speech consistency, taking timed pois, not being contradictory, etc.) and if you have style on top of that, you will get some great speaker points at the end of the round. but don’t sacrifice style for content. i'll always prefer analysis > speaking pretty. the best strategic choices debaters can make in wsd is being explicit and giving me some judge direction, telling me what arguments i should prioritize in the round, and *actually* attacking the other team on their highest ground. the best replies are embedded with good judge instruction.

– issues about the debate can be resolved in-round. ex: if there is a debate about whether the team gets fiat or not, make the arguments in round and don't rely on me to default to whatever opinion i have of fiat. or, if you think the team isn't debating the heart of the motion, make those arguments in round. i expect a defense of what exactly the heart of the motion is from both sides in that instance. i'll evaluate those arguments based on what's on my flow.

– replies: the replies should be holding my hand and telling me what happened in the debate. tell me what i should be writing down in my ballot. tell me what you're winning and what they're losing. tell me how you've closed off the other team's path to ballot. please please please give me some judge instruction here.

– ideological lean: just because i do policy debate does not mean i lean towards policy style arguments. i truly and genuinely don't care what kind of arguments you run or go for as long as you give me a reason to vote for it. seriously, you do you. i'll vote on any kind of argument.

– principle debates: if it becomes a practical v. principle debate, i'm expecting a lot of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. i'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). for instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!). if you're running something about marginalized groups being harmed in some way, the impact could be structural violence or psychic violence to those people, which is on-face, bad and is probably overlooked. i love creative principles and creative impacts here.

– model debates: both models and countermodels need to be characterized. teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with core stakeholders. prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where i usually see prop fail). opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model and why it is preferable, i.e. net benefits or what the opp countermodel does better/how it avoids prop's model's harms (and this is where the opp team usually fails). i think model/countermodel debates are appropriate for a few policy leaning motions.

if the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish 1) what in the wording of the motion grants you a model (usually the action verb and applying it to the context of the rest of the motion) and 2) why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, i will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speech/interp:

a speech/interp paradigm feels useless sometimes just because y'all have already memorized/blocked out your pieces and there's little my paradigm will inform you about how to better adapt to me as your judge. but i guess my brief thoughts are here in the off-chance someone reads this and gets something out of it:

you do you, just follow the format and perform the best you can!

for extemp, looking for format things (i.e. having a roadmap, using on-tops, following the speaker's triangle, etc.). i prefer content over speaking pretty most of the time, but since it's a speech event, i still take presentation seriously. i don't really care if you do a three or two point speech, but the content should still be in-depth and make sense.

for oo/info, most of my ballots come down to the implications/why it matters portion. humor (even attempts at humor) is always a plus.

for interp, i'm mainly looking for clarity of plot (also, if there is a plot to begin with), embodiment and distinctions between characters, and clear blocking/binder "mojo".

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.

Email- Aaron.Does.Debate@gmail.com - add me to an email chain. Feel free to email me any questions after the debate.

Hello to all who reads this!

My name is Aaron, I did 4 years of Highschool debate and am currently doing my second year of collegiate policy debate at the University of Houston as a sophomore! As such I am very familiar with all forms of debates and styles so don't be too scared to run something new and fun.

In general, I will vote for anything, just explain your position well. I have been delving mostly into the collegiate policy topic, so I haven't spent a lot of time researching the high school topics as such make sure you're clear about your argument.

TLDR: I will not explain nor extend arguments for you. I think theory, framework and T come first. Generally, I don't like T (I just think it’s boring to evaluate I will vote on it). Impact calc key (extinction outweighs is my default though I can be persuaded with FW and other arguments), extend warrants not taglines and compare evidence. on case args are key. I love clash of Civs :). You should make sure you signpost and control my flows if you want to win.

K- 1

Framework-2

Policy- 3

T-4

Theory-5

--Broad Topics--

Speed- Always clarity over speed. I will accept fast arguments but expect a hit to the speaks if you sacrifice clarity for speed. otherwise, if you're fast and clear expect an increase in speaks- unless you have some kind of disability which inhibits this in which case, please let me know so I take that into consideration.

Stock issues- always important if you're lacking harms, you lose.

Evidence- If you have to ask yourself about whether or not it needs ev then it needs ev. Make sure you understand your own ev. Even if I know what your ev is saying I will pretend I don't and down you if the ev is key to the round. Can't convince me if you can't explain it. Ev comparison is Key.

Weighing- my default is weighing based on key arguments and magnitude so I will weigh extinction over structural violence normally BUT if you explain to me why I shouldn't, I will happily listen and weigh differently (extinction rhetoric bad, SV prerequisite, ETC).

General notes- make sure you're extending arguments and warrants not tags. (Tell me why your evidence is true and what the evidence is saying. I hate hearing rebuttals that just repeat taglines.) Tech>Truth except in cases that are very clearly not good tech/good for education. (Even if your opponent's drop a slavery good argument even though you were technically ahead on that I will not vote on it.) Don't make Bigoted/bad arguments in front of me. Bigoted arguments will get you downed and reported to your coaches/the tournament staff.

--Specific Topics--

K- framework is key. you need to tell me why and how I should weigh the K vs The AFF or vice versa, In general I lean more towards basic Pess K's and the cap K for voting, but I'll vote on anything just make sure it makes sense. Beyond framework make sure your alt solves and that you're explaining your links. For the neg, I think most K's require robust framework debate so make sure you're doing work here - Links need to be clear and you need to explain how they lead to the impact and how the alt solves. specific stuff here - I don't like omission links that much but I try not to let that sway me, I prefer big impacts on the K page in the event you need to win impact calc (unless you won FW), ALT SOLVENCY IS KEY, also I hate immaterial alts, I will vote on immaterial alts but It takes more work on alt solvency to make sure I understand exactly how you solve.- alt solvency is key because presumption does flip Aff if the alt is net worse for the squo- performances need to link to your theory of power don't just start yelling for no reason.

K Aff's- Refer back to my opinion on K's except now you have to convince me on why I should weigh your K at all or else I will vote on T.

T- T is a procedural fairness question so I will evaluate this first but generally I don't like T debate I think it's a boring debate and more often than not the Aff is most definitely topical. That being said I will not ignore the T flow if you are a T centered debater don't be scared to read it I will evaluate it I will simply be unamused while doing so. That being said I'd recommend putting your time elsewhere. (If you're hitting a K Aff - T is strategic this is one of the only situations where I'll happily vote on a T debate that was too close for comfort.)

Disad's- Good links! I generally don't like generic links. I will accept link boosters in the 2NC if need be but try and make your link clear to begin with. + 1 Disad is almost never enough to win a round against a good aff remember to pair with something else (DA+Presumption, DA+CP, DA turns case)
CP's- You need net benefits, and you need to explain why it cannot be permed very clearly or I will not vote on it (assuming your opponent correctly calls you out on these things). - also, presumption flips Aff when the CP is net worse for the squo.

Adv CP's- same rules except only apply to specific advantages- net benefits to the advantage and why can't they perm?

Case- Case is the most important thing for the Aff. if you lose on the case flow then nothing else matters. Make sure you properly defend case. On the neg however if you have proper framing and off case positions case is less important, I still recommend covering it as much as possible as you're only more likely to lose if you don't cover case.

Theory- I will make fun of you for making silly theories on the RFD BUT a dropped/not covered argument is a true argument. That means even a silly theory could lose you a round if its properly explained and you don't cover it.

--more specific theory--

Condo bad- generally I don't like to vote on this either, but I will if the neg mishandles it or if the neg is running like 10 condo Args (yes, Conditional planks count, and I think act as an impact multiplier on condo).

Dispo bad- same as condo

Perf con- Usually this has to be super blown up and or conceded for this to even be considered a voter to me. I personally subscribe to multiple worlds. A good Aff and debater should be able to answer performative contradictions and a good neg debater should be able to explain why they can be contradictory.

General theory- judge kick bad- default is reasonability- Theory should be a rule of debate that is good not just a random reason to reject the team. - most theory probably isn't a real voter besides condo- I am VERY unlikely to pull the trigger on theory unless its condo, perfcon, or dropped.

Presumption- you have to tell me why. I will not explain to myself why the Aff or the CP or the Alt is worse than or for the squo

General biases- on the neg I like good K debate, so a good K is an easy way to the ballot, I am also partial to Disads, I dislike T, everything else is fairly neutral. - on the Aff side I like seeing new and fun advantages and am partial to strong yet new (to me) link chains that I haven't seen before. If you can make an advantage that has strong links and impacts that I haven't seen before I will love to vote on it, that isn't to say you can't win without originality, I just like it when I am judging is all.

Speaks- I Think I go by standard norms, but I'll outline anyway. (I can tend to be harsh don't take it personally.)

30- perfect (if you get a thirty out of me be proud)

29- very good

28- good/acceptable

27- ok...

anything below 27 you had to have messed up extremely bad.

I view debate as a communications event. So, present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. If I'm not flowing, you are not clear. You may speak at a pace a little faster than that used during normal conversation as long as you are not speaking in a monotone and normal breathing is not inhibited.

There is a reason the topic is being debated at this time. Take it seriously and don't waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers' intent. Debate topics reflect real concerns present in society. I'll consider most anything you present as long as it's done professionally and with thoughtful analysis and supporting evidence. I try hard not to debate you and to vote based on the arguments you and your opponent present.

TFA World Schools Debate:

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required): Clements

Hired (yes/no) (required): No

Years Judging/Coaching (required): 20 plus

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

20 plus

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

__X___I have not judged WS Debate this school year but have before

Rounds judged in other events this year: Congress

__X__ I have not judged much this school year. --My team has a strong parent volunteer group that judges during local tournaments so that I can be available to problem-solve, etc. for our competitors. These include a large number of World Schools debaters. I teach four full-year debate classes.

Have you chaired a WS round before? No

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating the debate round

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? A group versus group debate with a focus on world views or global concerns. There is much more emphasis on analysis and logical reasoning than in other debate types where citing evidence is critical.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? I flow what each team member says and I make knows of the opponents' responses or lack of them.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. Not really. I listening for clear and logical explanations for each argument. Debaters should carry a basic thesis throughout the round.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? The "model" should be carried throughout the round. Clarity of strategy is important.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? Style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? Clarity and reasonableness of the claim; relevance is important as well.

How do you resolve model quibbles? Whoever best carries the model throughout the round wins. Making connections and articulating relevance is important.

How do you evaluate models vs. counter-models? They need to be linked to the topic. The counter-model, if given, should clearly link to the topic and provide something that the model does not. Exposing the weaknesses of the model helps.

Do not spread

Do not tell me how to vote

Well spoken

Well researched

This is my second year volunteering as a parent judge and I am humbled by your talents, your dedication, and your hard work in preparing for every tournament.

Debate: - Please speak a little slower than the radio announcer reading the disclaimer of an ad. I like being able to follow your contentions while I make notes for reference as it helps me frame and judge your arguments. - I expect every contention to have well-researched and data-supported evidence. I try to stay abreast of current events and issues and will verify your points if necessary. Unsupported or erroneous arguments do not work well for me. - Please ensure that you fully understand all technical terms and terminology you use in your speech. Please do not reference terms or points you cannot explain during cross. - I also expect you to pay attention to your opponent's arguments and ask intelligent and relevant questions during cross. I also would like you to treat your opponents with respect. Being too offensive or defensive towards your opponents during cross will be counted negatively.

Speech:

Extemp/Info/Oratory: - I listen to the news daily and am quite up-to-date with current events. Please make sure your arguments for your topic and sound and well-researched. I like statistics but only ones that you can source and support. - Be passionate and persuasive on your topic - educate me and win my vote for your argument. HI/DI/Prose/Poetry/POI/Duo/Duet - I welcome and embrace every topic you choose for your speech as they all tend to be subjects that are dear to you. Since you will have a deep emotional connection to your topic, I would like you to share that with me - be dramatic, be emotional, be bold. - I like speeches that are performed with every part of your body - voice variation, facial expression, body movement, dynamics, sound effects, and a lot of emotion. I want to be immersed in your world, your passion, your story. Don't read me a story, tell me a story. Your speech should educate me, make me laugh, make me cry, or make me angry. - I enjoy seeing your creativity and firmly believe that it is the key element to a passionate and moving speech. - I am neutral to trigger warnings. I appreciate that some topics contain sensitive content but I will not be offended if you don't tell me ahead of time.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

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.

Have fun at all times take your time and convey your words with confidence.
minimize spreading as it’s not conducive to a win.

please be respectful to your opponent and yourself at all times. Thank you!

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas debater. I warrant a clash of values, and criterion within the round. The framework of arguments should be concise; and signposting is expected. Do not spread.

Policy Debate

...

Extemporaneous Debate

The speech should be organized, and a clear statement of sources should be expected. The execution of your speech should simplistic, and engaging with the audience.

LD - I would like to see a structured framework because I will flow both cases. I like to see a strong value that ties into your criterion, and I also care a lot about the resolution. I want you to explain to me why I should care and why everything you just said for the last 45 minutes makes sense. I do not like spreading. I want to be able to understand every single part of your case.

Poetry, prose - I care a lot about tone, presentation, eye contact, and overall performance. I want to be able to understand the piece through you.

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

Email: ptraxlerdebate@gmail.com

The debate will be decided based on the arguments on my flow at the end of the debate.

Do not be rude, exclusionary, or bigoted. You will not like your speaker points. Consider an alternative extracurricular if your strategy requires you defame your opponents.

Callouts, character assassinations, and screenshots are an auto loss---no exceptions.

I will not evaluate evidence written by competitors, arguments about your opponent's identity, or personal anecdotes.

I flow on paper. I will not be following the speech doc during the debate. Cards should be clear. If you're unclear, you'll get two warnings. After that, I'll play solitaire on my phone.

If your speech docs look horrendous, so will your speaker points. I am conservative with speaker points. Asking for a 30 gets you a 25. 28.5 is average.

No music. I have chronic migraines.

I will assume good-faith on evidence ethics challenges and strike the evidence from the debate, barring extreme circumstances.

Policy

Conditionality is good. I have not yet heard an objection to condo that is not resolved by getting better. Other theory args are reasons to reject the CP, not the team, and better phrased as competition args.

No insertions. Debate is a communicative activity. It is deranged to consider pointing at something an argument.

The AFF does not get "intrinsicness tests"---those are called counterplans. You are not the NEG. Stop being a coward and cut cards.

Evidence matters a lot to me. If you are slightly ahead on spin but they have vastly better evidence than you do, you are in an awful position.

I don't share the same disdain for process CPs, riders DAs, or anything of the like that most people do.

I default judge kick unless the AFF says otherwise.

Zero risk is possible, but usually only when a blatant concession has been made (ex: the NEG concedes impact d). You can get close enough to zero for me to assign it functionally "zero risk".

Permutations don't have to be explained in the 2AC (1AR in LD). Competition is a NEG burden.

I am unlikely to be persuaded that CPs require solvency advocates.

Your vague CPs will not be received well.

No-Plan AFFs

Ideally, the AFF reads a plan that is topical and the negative demonstrates that the consequences of the plan are undesirable.

Equally fine for both fairness and skills---both have their advantages against particular methods/theories of power.

I do not find generic criticisms of topicality, like "T is policing", or "T is psychologically violent", to be of any merit. Teams lose going for T not because criticisms of topicality are good, but because they have failed to explain topicality correctly. When explained right, it is unbeatable.

Really bad for K v. K debates. I have only passing familiarity with most theories.

Non-topicality strategies such as DAs, impact turns, and process CPs, are strategic, enjoyable, and are usually answered even more poorly than topicality.

Lobbing around random voting issues will annoy me. I will likely reject the argument. 'Trigger warnings', screenshots of an author's social media, etc., are pernicious attempts at evading debate.

Ks

I like the K when it is debated as a DA/CP that can both turn/solve case and has explanatory power for the AFF's internal links---I can be persuaded to just ignore the case entirely (begrudgingly).

"Middle ground" framework is obviously silly, but has strategic values against NEG interpretations that take more issue with focusing on representations/assumptions rather than "discussing plan implementation is bad".

If I do not understand how the alt is distinct from the status quo, I will not vote for it. Changing how we "think" about something is useless. If your alt divorces itself that much from reality, you should defend why that is acceptable and good.

Explanations about why the conclusions the AFF has come to are accurate, true, and robust are of way more utility than your generic state/IR good cards.

The arguments against extinction outweighs are bad. Most indicts of consequentialism are tautological.

LD

Will not evaluate shenanigans or unserious arguments. If that's you, strike me.

Dispo is not "whatever you want it to be" - it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight-turned the net benefit.

Dispositionality is not "whatever you want it to be". It means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight-turned the net benefit.

RVIs are for the weak.

You will not convince me that the AFF does not get to read a plan.

Haven't thought about nor judged dense phil debates in a while, but I have historically been decent for it.

email: lydiawang327@gmail.com

background: debated toc ld in hs, now 1A/2N @UH

top level:

tech>truth, if something is conceded then it’s true, but warrants still need to be extended

pet peeves:

- pdfs, google sheets, speechdrop

- counting down

- excessive flow clarification

- stealing prep

- splitting the 2nr

theory:

no such thing as friv theory read whatever you want, default c/I, dtd, no rvis

t:

i like these debates, impact weighing = good

plans:

good, higher threshold on 1AR/2AR extensions than most judges

cps:

equally good for cheaty cps and cp, good competition debate = higher speaks, judge kick unless told otherwise

da:

better than most judges for spin on politics DA, ok for intrinsicness debates

k affs:

been on both sides of the debate, probably slightly neg leaning on framework

ks:

dislike "you link you lose", rep ks, word piks, good for anything else

phil:

never read it in debate but familiar with kant, hobbes, levinas, hegel, etc in academic context

tricks:

err on over explanation, will be annoyed if long underview is read but not utilized well, meaning don’t make me flow your 11^th point on eval theory after the 1ar if you don’t extend it when conceded

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.