[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]

[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu

Public Forum Debate:

TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.

Similar Outlooks: My view on debate is very similar to those of my former teammates Grant Barden and Fionella Caputo. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as they do in their paradigms.

A Couple of Specifics:

Cases. I'm open to pretty much anything here. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative, or otherwise not stock. After all, debate loses its productivity if competitors have the exact same round again and again. If you're spreading you MUST send a document BEFORE the speech.

Impact Warranting & Terminalization. I would think this is obvious....ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED. Too many debaters are failing to do this, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death], it is not presumed.) Examine opponents' arguments for lack of warranting and terminalization, there's a high chance it's there.

Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary, the first gets a little latitude. If you make abusive new arguments or false claims (like your opponents dropping something they didn't) I dock speaks. Also, collapse and weigh.

Framework. Defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably just concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so as soon as possible. (Not mandatory, but it makes the round easier to understand, and thus more likely I'll understand why I need to vote for you.)

Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be especially in-depth. Make sure to include uniqueness, links, and impacts. If you are going for a turn: YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. If you don't, I can't vote on the turn. If your opponents don't extend, make sure to bring it up in a speech, it makes it much easier to evaluate as part of the round (DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM THIS).

Frontlining. The second rebuttal must frontline. Defense isn't sticky.

Calling for Evidence. Despite my desire to be included on an email chain, I will only review evidence for abuses if specifically asked to by a particular team. Only read the evidence you have on hand, it shouldn't take forever and a day to retrieve, if it does, I dock speaks quickly. A hyperlink you found on Duck Duck Go mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also properly full-format cut it mid-round too. Also, one of those fancy hyperlinks that highlights the text when you click on it does not count.

Notes on Speech Docs. Two things here: (1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read on your doc. Don't include evidence or rhetoric you are certain won't be read on the doc. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. If you don't understand what I mean here, don't worry about this. (2) Docs should only be sent through irreversible means, they shouldn't be able to be un-sent after a round. The classic example of this is with Google Docs. Not once have I been on a shared Google Doc that wasn't immediately un-shared after the round or had the download or copy features disabled. There are also evidence ethics concerns as teams can insert new evidence into the doc after a speech and falsely claim that it was read as it was "in the speech doc."

Cross. I'm listening to cross, but I'm not flowing it. If a key point is made here, it needs to be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are excessively rude or stage a soliloquy that rivals those of Shakespeare to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.

Grand. I'm fine skipping grand cross, but doing so means the round goes straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocations earlier in the round.

Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, let's say if someone paraphrases I would be more than content to hear a theory shell calling it out.

Trigger Warnings. If you are wondering whether an argument needs a trigger warning, it probably does. These should also be anonymous, I'd suggest an anonymous Google form. If you read a harmful argument without a trigger warning, I will be very perceptive to a theory shell on the matter. (For clarification, "wipeout" and "spark" arguments need trigger warnings, you are telling everyone in the round that they should die.)

Weighing. Please do this. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (i.e. scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Most notably, please steer clear of using "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are low-key abusive and amount to either: (1) new un-warranted defense claims; or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." Less common, but even more ludicrous is "cherry-picked" evidence analysis. DON'T do this. ALL EVIDENCE IN DEBATE IS CHERRY-PICKED at the point a debate case is an agglomeration of evidence that forms a specific narrative. While weighing is important, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it.

A2: Weighing. Except in the occasional situation where it might be advantageous to concede to your opponents' weighing mechanism, you must rebut their weighing. It can be easy to overlook weighing in a busy round, yet it can prove to be fatal. Too many teams end up losing despite superior argumentation because they lost the weighing debate even though they won large portions of their offense.

Timing. It is not the judge's responsibility to time y'all. While I likely will do so for reference, y'all should time yourselves and hold each other accountable for staying on time. The only time it MIGHT be okay to go overtime is if your opponents have already done so.

Speed. I'm good with speed/spreading. When spreading, it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are not clear, I'll shout "CLEAR" two times before docking speaks. If you're pushing 300 wpm, you MUST send a doc BEFORE the speech. You must also slow down on analytics (presuming they're not on the doc), and you MUST signpost when going off the doc.

Signposting/OTRs. Please signpost and give an off-time roadmap. The only thing worse than not giving one is giving one and not following it.

Presumption. If there's no offense in the round, I'll vote for the status quo (which is usually, but not always, the negative). That is unless a team presents and wins an argument in-round that a presumption ballot must act differently. If you do this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary, there can't be a new-in-final presumption argument because you've just now realized you don't have offense.

Post-Rounding. It's fine, ask as many questions as needed for you to properly understand my decision. Feel free to email too.

Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate arbiter of what you consider abuse. If you're alleging abuse, you need to read the shell immediately after that abuse. Friv theory might have a place in PF, but it is certainly not to steam-roll some novices who don't understand it for a cheap win. It's clear when this is a team's goal. If reading theory, shells don't need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final. I don't expect a word-for-word extension, but its spirit or intention shouldn't fluctuate.

Disclosure Theory Specifically. I'm on the fence on whether disclosure is beneficial, I don't lean to either side, so I'm open to seeing it run. That being said, please keep the following in mind. First, see the note about the new TFA rules below, if applicable. Second, I stand vehemently against the all-too-common 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, particularly when it is run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. Put simply, if you're a big school and run this standard against a small school, I'll down you. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even potentially for big schools against small schools, just use other standards.

Ks. I'm willing to go here. I've used common Ks like Capitalism and Securitization. However, if you're doing something uncommon make sure you explain the literature as I am likely not familiar with it. (Like theory, don't use Ks for a cheap win, they should be part of a productive debate. Once again, if you use this to steam-roll novices......I WILL DOWN YOU.)

Tricks. I am open to these, but I have a very low bar as to what is a sufficient response against them. So, you're welcome to read "nothing's the cause of anything" but I'll consider your opponent calling your argument dumb a sufficient response.

Blippy. Don't be. This is usually a cheap excuse to not provide adequate warranting or terminalization. See above.

TKOs. (Technical Knock-Outs.) TKOs are stupid. Even if a team has eliminated all of their opponent's paths to the ballot early in the round, there is still ample time for that team to make technical errors in later speeches leading to their loss, or for the opponent to introduce independent offense or weighing (if sufficiently early in the round) to remedy the situation. I have seen both of these eventualities occur. As TKOs preclude necessary argumentation, if you go for a TKO, I WILL DOWN YOU.

IVIs. (Poor-Man's Theory.) IVIs are usually stupid, particularly evidence ethics IVIs. Shell format is nearly always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round.

Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being discriminatory, I'm more than happy to down your opponents off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present, beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (i.e. racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech. However, if it's never mentioned in the round I won't be able to vote off of it.

Economics. I'm pursuing a BS in Economics, and as such I understand economic realities. Please make sure that if you're running an econ argument, like interest rates, that you know what you're talking about and aren't stumbling around in the dark. I'm not adding this disclaimer out of being biased against poorly run econ argumentation, but rather if your econ argumentation makes no sense it's hard to look away from it unless it goes completely conceded.

On the Recent Amendment to the TFA Constitution Regarding Disclosure... as some of you may be aware, the TFA has recently adopted an amendment to the TFA Constitution that reads: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." Given this, if you intend to run disclosure theory, please first ensure that the tournament, if operating under the TFA, hasn't stipulated that judges are unable to vote on it. If this is the case, regardless of whether you win disclosure on the flow, I will be unable to vote for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I very rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in rather progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority if not all of LD argumentation. Relevant commentary above on debate in general applies, that being said I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD the way that I do in PF (as detailed above). Please make sure everything is neatly on the doc, or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I know/am familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Please don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.

World Schools' Debate:

I don't think there is too much to be said here. When it comes to how I will decide on the round, I will decide before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should be taking at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also if you are speaking at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive, or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate, I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.

"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.

For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

I have been a judge in some capacity (coach, hired) since 1998. I've seen many trends come and go. I used to be a traditionalist when it came to interp and blocking, but understand how the events have evolved and adapted my judging to suit what the community has deemed appropriate. However, here are some event specific elements of my paradigm.

Extemp - I believe that fundamentally, an extemp speech must be founded on answering the question that is posed. I think the unified analysis is the best way to support your thesis, but am open to other organizational methods. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. I know what's going on the in the world. Do not lie or embellish with me. It will not go well. I would rather have someone give their best try with a hard topic than to have someone make things up or misrepresent the facts of the matter. Especially with having access to the internet, there is no excuse for making things up in Extemp.

Informative - I have been around Informative speaking for a lot longer than it has been a TFA event. This event is one where you can do a speech about anything, but that doesn't mean you should do a speech about anything. It should be something where you are informing us about a topic with relevance to you (the speaker) and which you can "sell" to us as interesting and relevant to us. The quality of visual aides matter. Sloppy VAs speak volumes about the speech. Neat and clean VAs speak well and set a good impression. This should not be Infosuasion (meaning that it is a persuasive in tone, but using VAs). The best informatives have balance in them (pros and cons) and a lot of information that we wouldn't otherwise know but for this speech. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight.

Oratory - I think the best oratories are ones where they are relevant to everyone in the audience, as well as the speaker. Oratories that are overly-focused on the speaker tend to be exclusive and I think feed into the perception of this event as "bore-atory" I like advocacy focused on Problem - Cause - Solution or Problem - Cause - Impact or something similar. Source citations should include the name of the source and the date for me to give them full weight. Personal examples are ok, but should not be the main part of the support for your speech. Research is important for good persuasion for a Logos person (that'd be me).

DI/HI - I lump these together because I view good interp from the same lens. I think that the best interpers make you forget that they're a high school student performing at a speech and debate contest. If it is serious, I want to feel like you set me in that scene and that you are your character(s). If it is funny, I want to see the scene play out with the humor being an integral part of the cutting and your performance. I think blocking is a compliment to the performance. It should not distract from it. The choice of literature matters. DIs should present a good exploration of the dramatic curve - in otherwords, don't stay at one level the whole time. Have some development from start to climax to conclusion. HIs should similarly utilize the dramatic curve to build to the climactic humorous scene or event. Audience appropriateness is also an element in my judging for these events. Both in the performance choices and in the literature selection.

POI - Notice I didn't lump POI with the other individual interps. While much of the same is true of the performance elements as those events, I fundamentally believe that POI must have a thematic argument that the program explores. It is not DI with a few poems thrown in. It is fundamentally different from the other interp events. The intro must establish what this argumentative framework is for me to really appreciate the thematic choice. I also believe that the best POIs are inclusive of the audience in terms of interest and relevance - similar to my thoughts on an OO. Book work should be complimentary and not distracting from the performance.

Duo/Duet - In addition to my thoughts on DI/HI, I think how the performers work together is essential to a great partnered interp event.

Impromptu - The speech must be based on the topic drawn. Please do not shoe-horn in a canned speech into whatever quote you drew. Use your knowledge. Distill a message from the quote/topic, take a position on the message, and back it up with examples. I think variety in example areas and mastery of what you're talking about are important. I think the best impromptu speakers used 1:00-1:30 of their prep time to leave 5:30-6:00 for the speech.

Prose - See my DI/HI and POI commentary.

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

Hello! My name is Audrey and I am so excited and honored to be your judge! I did PF debate for all four years of high school. I do really value logical argumentation and strong warranting. I'll break down the specifics of my judging style. Everything is mostly about how I judge PF, but it is applicable to other events.

General: I expect everyone to be respectful. This round will be a safe place for everyone. I will not tolerate any hateful behavior; I will knock down your speaker points. Secondly, the last time I will be flowing new information is in your rebuttal. In a PF round by summary, I want you to just start hammering home your strongest points, however you see fit to accomplish that. Next, signposting will really help me make sure I am understanding your arguments and flowing them correctly, so just keep that in mind. Also once again, make sure you warrant.

Speed: I am totally fine with speaking fast or spreading. However, send a speech document if you are going to be spreading.

Cross Examination: I am not going to flow cross, but I will be listening. If you want something added to the flow, bring up in a speech. Make sure to maintain civility during cross. If someone is grandstanding during cross, do not be afraid to stand your ground, but just do so in a respectful manner.

Theories/K's: I have run and have debated against both theories and K's so I have the experience necessary to judge them. I am fine if you run these types of cases, however, I express caution. Using these cases can lead to an abnormal debate, so just make sure you understand your own arguments and how they fit into this round. Also, a personal preference of mine is that I do not like disclosure theory. You obviously can run whatever case you want, but I'm not going to like disclosure theory.

Overall, everyone has got this. Have a great round!

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

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.

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD.

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow directly off of the doc but if I can't understand you while spreading, you'll lose speaker points.

Preferences

1 - CP/DA/Advantages

2 - T, Theory (the good kind)

BE ADVISED. RUNNING A K OR NON-T AFF WILL LIKELY RESULT IN BEING VOTED DOWN.

3 - Kritiks

4 - Non-T Affs, Tricks (if the opponent can't understand them, neither will I), Friv Theory, Performance/Identity K's, Spikes

Timing

10-15 second grace period at the end of the speech if you're in the middle of a sentence. Don't abuse this.

PLEASE USE STOPWATCHES. PLEASE LET ME KEEP TIME AND DO NOT INTERRUPT THE OTHER TEAM WITH AN ALARM OR TELLING ME THEY'RE OVER TIME.

Speaker Points:

30: Perfection

28-29: Great with some notes

26-27: Needs significant work

25: Offensive comments were made

Add me to your email chain! mathison.debate@gmail.com or add me on your speech drop.

Debate 

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

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

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

4. Additional items.

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

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

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!