CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

I have actively involved in Speech and Debate for the past two years. It was only this year that I took over as head coach after being assistant coach last year. I have judge rounds in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Prose, Poetry, Extemp and Congress. With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first.

LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive.

In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

Conflicts: WHS '23

Loose Conflicts (Not insta-struck): HHS '23 // OCHS '23 // PTHS '23

Case Sharing // Questions: aidanbirjandi2@gmail.com

(TLDR at the bottom, but it's very brief and there's a lot to cover so at least read the bolded stuff pls.)

(To incentivize you to read the entire thing, I placed 8 emoticons of kitties throughout my paradigm. Can you find them all?!?!)

Hello! I’m Aidan Birjandi! (He/Him). Good job reading your judges paradigm! It's the first step to a win!

I was a 4-year LD/Congress Debater from Whitehouse High School in ETX. Currently I do Parli at UT-Tyler. I love love love the competition, and community within Speech and Debate- I wouldn't be here if I didn't haha. Debate is dying, so thank you for holding it together! If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out!

__________________

Forensics Debate:

Games-Player Judge, because everyone should be tab, and above all else, debate is itself a game. I love love love wacky arguments, feel free to try DeDev, Silly Ks, or other fun arguments as long as they make sense. Fairness violations, if legitimate, are huge for me and will outweigh anything else on the flow- within reason. Major fairness violations (round stopping) are often few and far between, so don’t grasp or make something out of nothing BUT are nonetheless a serious concern. If you suspect rule breaking (fabricated evidence / unauthorized use of technology) err on the side of caution and let me know immediately, I can't help you after the round. Education, while admittedly less important to me, is still a major voting point, so winning impacts pre-fiat is huge.

While speed is expected, spread within reason. Adhere to "Clear" or "Slow" the very best you can. Your speaks will reflect this. Accessibility is huge, so if you simply outspread your opponent, and they can't keep up, I won't feel comfortable voting on drops alone.

Like most judges, I have zero tolerance for hate, racism, or any form of bigotry. If your opponent specifies their preferred pronouns, try your very best to respect them. (Asking for preferred pronouns before the round will help!)

Speaker points shouldn't be your primary concern, but it's cool if they are! My formative years within debate were spent on a very lay very trad. circuit. Due to this influence, I tend to prefer slower, much more articulated rounds, but do whatever is your norm. I will adapt to you. My standard speaks are 28 for a normal round with standard mistakes and verbal clutter. Depending on your performance, my awarded speaks will be higher if you exceeded expectations or lower if you didn't reach them.

I firmly dislike the current 'Meta' of debate. It encourages debating Topicality regardless of a violation, erroneous theory, tricks, and of course, abusive outspreading. If your K challenges this meta, I'll def be more interested in it as opposed to the millionth Cap K.

I am comfortable with most strategies, traditional and progressive, but I will (usually) not do the work for you. This depends on the complexity of your argument, so if you plan on running advanced philosophy, progressive, or theory arguments you must fully articulate what it is you are asserting. Specifics are given below:

Tech ———I—————— Truth

⣴⡿⠶⠀⠀⠀⣦⣀⣴⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⡄⠀⠀⣠⣾⠛⣿⠛⣷⠀⠿⣦
⠙⣷⣦⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠀⣴⣿
⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⠿⠋⠁
⠀⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢸⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀

_________

VALUE/CRITERION ARTICULATION:

Value/Criterion (V/C) construction is an extremely big deal to me. While they must both stand on their own, removed from each other, their function in tandem is the crux of your argumentation. This is, naturally, my first evaluation before most other things within the round.

While impacts are a huge voting point, I am always looking for a dynamic and developed framework debate to understand the impacts of the round. Securing V/C FW is just as central to winning the round as securing impacts. No matter how good the impacts you have are, the framing, and perception of them is what sells them.

The value debate is supposed to be abstracted! The material consequences of the value come from its relationship with the criterion and case as a whole. Talk about values more conceptually rather than literally, it makes the debate both more dynamic and interesting!

With all that said. I hate basic values. While they work with most of anything, they're SO MEANINGLESS. Using a more specified value can be challenging to initially find, but the benefits are incredible! The trade off here is that you have to do more work, but I expect that from you! There is an infinite amount of values for you to run, so don't use the safe and simple ones over and over.

Basic Values (These are the worst):

(Human) Life // Morality // Democracy --> :(

Cool Alternatives:

Security // Mercy // Liberalism --> :)

_________

PHILOSOPHY STRATEGY:

• Phil Authors: I love love love philosophy in debate. Using a phil. author/theory alongside V/C framework will make it substantially stronger. I am most familiar with Locke (Second Treatise), Nietzsche (Beyond Good & Evil), Hobbes (Leviathan), Rawls (Theory of Justice), Mills (On Liberty), Rousseau (The Social Contract), and Kant (Cat. Imp./ Barebones Metaphysics), but run whatever you've got. BE SPECIFIC WITH YOUR CHOSEN PHILOSOPHY. If you’re using a specific philosophy to frame your case I expect you to both know the author and which version of their work pertains most directly to your case. Examples are given below:

E.X. 1.) Social Contract:

—> Default to Locke for Social Liberty / Property Rights / Materiality

—> Default to Hobbes for Human Life / Security / Basic Natural Law

—> Default to Rousseau for Human Worth / Intrapersonal Morality

ᓚᘏᗢ

E.X. 2.) Utilitarianism:

—> Default to Mills for Rule Util. (Legal Utility / Moral Rule)

—> Default to Bentham for Act Util. (Basic Social Utility / Maximizing Expected Well-Being)

_________

PROGRESSIVE STRATEGY:

• Ks in LD: I’m cool with Ks, especially wacky ones, but please please please have a good FW/UQ and a decent alt. The most important part of selling a K to me is to make it apply both to the resolution and the squo (or maybe even myself!). Get me interested, but don’t be nonsensical. ฅ^o ﻌ o^ฅ

• K Affs in LD: Much of the above applies, but you must must must establish why punting the topic is justified, or at least why you don't feel comfortable defending it.

• CPs/Solvency Alternatives: I’m cool with CPs, just adhere closely to the resolution and clearly define/assert what it means for both sides (have solvency lmao). Topic specific PICs usually work best, and yes PICs are cool, but only if they have reason behind them. Don't be abusive with it, Example: (We do the Aff in all states except the third Federated State of Micronesia until 3:47 P.M. on August 1st, 2025)

• Plans in LD: Not a fan, I'm not sure why you'd want to limit yourself more than the resolution already does, but run what you have and be as simple as possible. I haven’t seen these very often so keep it basic. You're playing a dangerous game with fiat especially in LD where the brightline for fiat is so obscured, so make sure you defend that you actually can* do whatever your plan may be.

• Conditionality: Condo by itself is cool, and I'm 100% chill with you having one or multiple conditional advocacies but remember that your opponent can and will make offense on them. Just kicking out of your side of a DA/K/CP doesn't mean your opponent can't get turns and garner offense off of them. This does not reflect my view on the T-sheet.

_________

TOPICALITY/THEORY STRATEGY:

I was never that deep of a T debater, but with that said I'm big big big on reasonability. More on this below...

Reasonability ———I————— Competing-Interpretations

• T IS (usually) A PRIOR QUESTION. We need to understand the game before we can debate within it, so naturally it has to be the very first evaluation. However this becomes obscured when arguing a K. If you go for T in a situation like this, make sure you secure that its evaluation is prior to that of the K, if not, your opponent might win it, and the K itself would presuppose the T sheet as a whole. ^•ﻌ•^
• T IS (usually) NOT CONDITIONAL. I differ from many others on this point. A team is either topical or they're not. If you lose or kick out of T it will look very bad for my evaluation of you after the round. Don't make me flow a whole separate T sheet just because you wanted another argument on the flow. With the exception of specific circumstances, if you open up the T debate I expect you to go for it, at least in some capacity.

╱|、
(•˕ • 7
|、⁻〵ノ)
じしˍ,)ノ

_________

MISCELLANEOUS STRATEGY:

• PLEASE CLASH
• PLEASE SIGNPOST
• PLEASE WEIGH IMPACTS // TERMINALIZE THEM

• Don't card dump in the NR - not cool /ᐠ - ˕ -マ Ⳋ
• CX is binding
• I don’t care where you look during CX lol.
• Clarifications during preptime are cool. It's not binding, but be truthful with your responses
• I don’t care where you speak, as long as I can hear you.
• ᨐᵉᵒʷ
• I will most likely be timing, but it’s smart to time yourself (duh) and your opponent (keep them honest)
• Tricks: Really not a fan. Tricks abuse techy debate, which all debate SHOULDbe adapting to.
• Debate is a very stressful activity. Be kind and friendly to everyone no matter what happens within the round.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

My ballot is not a reflection of your skill or intelligence, it is merely a single decision within a single round. Use this to your advantage and learn from every single win or loss the very best you can!

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣠⣤⣤⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⢼⣿⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⣾⣷⠀⠀⢿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠈⠋⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠙⠋⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢀⣀⣀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣷⣦⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⠤⢤⣤⡄
⠈⠉⠉⢉⣙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀
⠐⠚⠋⠉⢀⣬⡿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣥⣀⡀⠈⠀⠈⠛
⠀⠀⠴⠚⠉⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠢⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

natalie crockett

mount pleasant '23 | utexas '27

she/her

-----

as a rule of thumb for all events, please do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. please try and be as inclusive as possible in general!

----

extemp: remember the little details along with your speech. eye contact, citing sources, pauses, etc. are also important aspects of the speech and could be the deciding factor in rankings if need be. i'm pretty particular about proper sources being provided when necessary so please keep that in mind. be sure that you are fully answering your question and providing thoughtful analysis on whatever answer you give. if you keep all these things in mind you shouldn't have many issues!

interp: the only comments I have to make about interp events is to look at the book as little as possible (if its an event with a book lol). A lot of times, the final rankings for a round end up coming down to little details like that so try to be as mindful as possible about memorization. interp is largely up to your interpretation (lol get it?) and i am aware of that as a judge. please use blocking :)

congress: speeches should have structure, adequate research, delivery, etc. make sure to remember proper parliamentary procedure as well in order to not devalue your position in the round.

pf: i'm pretty chill when it comes to pf, most of the time yall know how to run the round without the help of your judge and i'm 100% fine with that. off-time roadmaps are fine with me as well. calling out concessions does not indicate an auto-win, you have continue to extend your argument. try to speak as clearly as possible so i can catch what you're saying and please be professional.

----

make sure you are aware of what circuit you are competing in (tfa, uil, nsda, etc.), each one has slightly different rules for certain things so please keep that in mind.

overall, i'm pretty laid back. if you have any questions about me as a judge, i am happy to briefly answer before the round starts. i know y'all work really hard for these events and i want to facilitate a fair environment for all of you to succeed. best of luck!

add me to the email chain: alyx.debate@gmail.com

This is your round. Be respectful of bodies that are in the room and those you are discussing. I'm open to most arguments at any speed. I come from a policy and critical background. Do the weighing work so I don't have to, because I won't intervene for you if I can help it. The offense/defense debate is important, so think about your route to the ballot. This round can be a complete imaginary if you want, but not just for the sake of winning a debate round. Think about the critical implications toward/away from solvency. If you have more specific questions, you can ask prior to the round.

Hello,

My name is Justin Dwyer and this is my judge paradigm. A little bit about myself before I get into the specific things i look for when judging each event. I competed in speech and debate all 4 years of high school and also competed for 3 years in college in NPDA and IPDA debate. I at one point or another have competed in every debate type and most speech events. The main outcome that I think debate rounds should have is some educational aspect where each competitor leaves the round better than when they walked in. The other key component to every debate is clash. Clash is important when evaluating debaters and their cases. But now for the line by line of what i look for in each event.

LD:

In LD I was a very traditional debater. The philosophy aspect is huge when it come to deciding the round. That being said, you can win or lose a round with me strictly on the value debate. If you cannot uphold your own value or show me why yours is what should be looked at first it is very had to win. After that it is up to you as a debater to steer me to what you want me to vote for. If the value and framework debate is a wash I will look towards the voting issues brought up by both debaters. That being said, the more flushed out your argumentation is the better. I will not do the work on the flow for you.

CX:

When it comes to CX I am a judge that is very persuaded by the flow. If you do the work on the flow and give me reasons why that is important to the round I will be more inclined to vote for that side. I feel that K's and off case hold a lot of weight if used effectively to combat the AFF. I am willing to listen to any and all argumentations but, if it is more of a out of the box argument then you need to do the work to guide me on how it is relevant and how it adds to the debate. For the Affirmative the best defense is a good offence. If you can prove to me that voting for the AFF would in any way lead to a 1% net positive increase from the status que the round is almost decided for me. At the end of the day just make sure there is clash and all information presented is relevant and realistic to what the topic is asking for.

PF:

When it comes to PF I am a very lay judge. If you can persuade me to vote for you in a realistic way you win my ballot. In PF there is many ways to do that but for me the easiest is the flow.

When it comes to speaker points I feel like I might stray from some judges. I enjoy a nice pleasant voice as a lot of judges do but, the content of your speech also effects your points. Be effective and on topic along with that and you will garner more speaker points from me.

UNT Dallas College of Law – Juris Doctor Candidate

She/Her

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I have a traditional approach to judging rounds – I am particularly focused on the framework (value, criterion and contentions) and your overall arguments. Do your best to uphold your case against the other side. If both cases are upheld, I will vote on speaker points.

Dress professionally in rounds.

Eye contact will help you earn speaker points.

Speed will cost you points, if I cannot follow your flow you may end up with a low point win or ultimately lose the round.

Please feel free to ask specific questions in round and I will give constructive feedback to both competitors at the end of the round (if you want it); however, I won't disclose the ballot.

Good luck! I have been in your shoes before and every round is an opportunity to grow as an oral advocate, try to have fun – you can do this!

Extempt Speeches

Answer the question presented, follow your roadmap and cite your sources.

Feel free to reach out with any questions (post-tournament): rachelfernandez@my.untdallas.edu

Debate

I have a more traditional background in debate. However, I evaluate what is presented in the round. I like to hear in rebuttals why you believe you're winning the round (how there's a path to vote for you). Explain how you access impacts and weigh those for me.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

CX Debate:

For your roadmap try to make it brief.

When speaking, please try not to speed, so everyone can hear what you are saying throughout the speech.

Extemp:

I pay a lot of attention to your sources, facts and information that you present, when it is very important in this event.

Overall, please make eye contact throughout the speech no matter what kind of event you are in.

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TFA STATE 2024 UPDATE: I feel like at this point in the season, judges should outline specific preferences that align with the topic, given they've judged a considerable amount thus far. I have developed a few of those preferences. First, because this is an economy centric topic, I need you to isolate a market indicator that should frame the direction of the economy. Whether is the CPI, Stock Market Projections, BizCon surveys, etc. Absent this specification, it makes it hard to judge econ uniqueness in debates. Second, the central T debate is Taxes v Deficit Spending. A lot more time needs to be allocated to the predictability standard when going for "you must tax". There are tons of taxes the aff could choose, only one way to deficit spend. Finally, is evidence recency. Though I believe dates on cards matter less than the warrants themselves, when debating the ever-changing economy, the most recent analysis is more likely to sway me. The same can be said for politics scenarios. We are deep into an election cycle, Super Tuesday is 2 days before tfa state. Please update your evidence.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

PF

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

As a CX Debate judge, I prioritize clear communication and respectful engagement over spreading. I value debaters who present their arguments effectively without sacrificing civility and decorum in the debate round. I encourage participants to engage in thoughtful, well-structured discourse that fosters a positive learning environment for all involved.

Eight Years of Judging Experience

Over a year of Coach/Clinic Experience (Interp)

No collegiate circuit experience

Event Preference(s): LD, Congress, Extemp (Persuasive, Informative, Domestic, Int'l) & Interp

CX Debate: Stock Issues

AFF: I rarely know the topic before I enter a CX round. Be clear and make sure your policy and topic are deeply connected. Cut cards if you plan on spreading through your first speech. I want to know exactly what the plan aims to achieve. Without this clarity, there will be no way I can understand any arguments throughout the round.

NEG: Keeping with policy debate theory and norms, arguments like CPs and Ks can and should be run by the negative if they're capable, but always with clarity and fairness. Don't deliberately confuse your opponents or judges with spreading or elaborate arguments. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, even if I do. If you can't run off-case arguments with this in mind, stick to on-case.

As always, ask specific paradigm questions before the round; after the decision has been made, there's no way I can clarify paradigm in a useful way.

LD Debate: Tab

1. Framework is King. Make it clear, defined, relatable, and relevant. It is not separate from the criterion.
2. If Framework is King, then Voters are Queen. Please include them.
3. Keep clarity and delivery in mind. Words, words, words.

Congress:

1. POs: you're not the reps' boss; you are leading the session. Be respectful, consistent, and know your stuff if you're going to run.
2. Reps: this is about persuasion, speaking, and education. Have your points prepared, but do not read them from a script. Adapt to the round. If your words are not more beautiful than silence, then be silent.

Interp/Extemp:

1. Clarity: every letter of every word is meant to be heard (Interpers, especially if it's a word in the accent of the character).
2. Variety: give me vocal variety in tone, pitch, pace, tempo, volume, etc.
3. Impact: for extempers, impact is why your prep-time research became a decision or a summary; for interpers, your character(s) is/are not the same at the beginning and end of the piece. Show me that.

I am a Tab judge meaning that if you can explain the argument well enough to me, I will vote for you. I'm not a fan of the Theory/K debate but if you present this make sure you have all the facts/parts you need to. I'm really big on technical and structure debate, so make sure you have all the parts of your arguments/case and be ready to explain/defend them.

Topicality- Topicality is a voting issue. I will vote for this but please make sure you have all the parts you need to run it! (Same for DAs)

CP- Make sure you tell me how it is competitive in the round; this is most important for CPs.

On-Case Arguments- I will vote on all On-Case attacks, especially Funding, Inherency, and Solvency.

As far as New in the 2 I am okay with it as long as it isn't abusive to the round. I understand that you might spread for time's sake, but I give speaker points based on your ability to explain/analyze your own evidence and your opponents. Make sure that you give an off-time roadmap of your speech and that you signpost during the speech as well, this helps with the flow and organization.

Remember questioning is for clarification, not argumentation!

When it gets to the rebuttals, please do not just re-read old cards, give your analysis, weigh impacts, give impact calcs, etc. This is where you tell me why you win!

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 23 years and I am an NSDA Three-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

Tab judge (I.E. I will not connect the dots for you). Any and all arguments need to have offense behind them for them to be counted Stock issues, DA's, CP's, are all good. Theory and K's I will listen to and weigh as long as they are not being run just to run. This is a speaking event and not a speed reading event is my take on speed in a debate round. Meaning, if it is not on my flow, it does not exist in the debate. I do not like new off-case arguments in the 2 NC unless the affirmative opens the door.

mount pleasant '23 | texas '27

email chain/questions: aoorellana535@gmail.com

*please ask your coach to reach out to me

- - -

TLDR - too long, didn't read

debate how you debate. be strategic and organized. judge instruction is very persuasive. don't make flowing your speech hard for me. have fun and treat people with kindness!

STOP SHADOW EXTENDING. good debaters extend arguments thoroughly.

i will try not to do any work for anyone. i try to be as transparent as possible in my flows and decisions. the more work you make me do, the lower your speaks go and the chances of getting my ballot. if you have any questions, feel free to ask me after the round or during the tournament.

- - -

CX – cross-examination or policy

do whatever you know best: traditional stock issues, contentions, etc.

2A's should STOP card dumping and start strategically using the 1AC to make creative responses.

the 1AR is not a constructive speech. just don't make it a constructive speech.

the 1NR should not be using prep time after the 2NC. instead, use the time prior to have enough time to strategize in the 2NR.

the 2NR should be condensed down to the main winning arguments. 5 off and case in the 2NR is not a flex.

framing is important but winning framing (structural violence, util, etc.) is not synonymous with auto-winning the round.

for k aff's:

prefer to have some sort of tie to the resolution ... i have a hard time envisioning why a model that rejects the resolution is good for debate.

go for a clear impact/model comparison debate and blow it up.

explain the impact of my ballot on any rob/performance claims. i can't weigh anything if i'm not told when and why.

don't make it messy for me. this only makes me not want to flow the round and i will be sad.

- - -

LD – lincoln douglas

everything above applies.

winning the value criterion/standard is not synonymous with auto-winning the round.

calling out concessions doesn't mean auto-win either. explain your well-developed arguments and go for what you know!

extend, explain, and weigh your impacts! i find impact weighing and comparison very persuasive.

please condense in the 1AR ... the speech is way too short and you'll spread yourself thin.

definitions frame the debate. if conceded, i will assume such definitions as limits within the debate.

don't read trixx. it's jargon to me. don't do it.

- - -

T – topicality/theory

i hate messy t/theory debates. make the flow as clean as possible.

i won't flow theory shells that have no applicability to the round.

i will more than likely default to competing interpretations unless instructed otherwise.

i love some good, warranted, definitions debate.

if there is no violation, i won't vote on t/theory.

- - -

T - FW – framework

i typically buy into the impact/models debate in these rounds.

again, i have a hard time voting for k aff's that have no connection to the topic because it's hard for me to envision why a model that isn't related to the "topic" is good for education, etc.

explaining why t-fw is bad, resolution is bad, etc. and proving another model that exports "x" education, etc. gives me another route to the ballot.

- - -

K – kritiks

i know the common literature (set col, cap, fem, abolition, etc.) but i'm not too familiar with complex literature.

i won't evaluate death good, or anything in relation to supporting the death of people.

try to answer the higher theory of power ... if i can't disprove ontology, how am i to weigh material implications against it?

explain the impact of my ballot on any rob/performance claims.

cool with generic. the more specific, the better. that's just better for nuanced debates.

aff probably gets to weigh the plan against the K or the K's framework.

2A's should determine whether a big case OW push or a link turn/perm/alt fails push works best.

explain the alternative. big fancy words aren't a substitute for an explanation. if i don't know what the alternative is, who resolves the links?

- - -

DA – disadvantages

da's should probably tell a story.

include case turns and impact weighing analysis.

cool with generic. the more specific, the better.

i think evidence comparison, especially in ptx debates is pretty important.

reading taglines and hyperlinks without proper cut evidence is NOT evidence ... i won't flow it.

- - -

CP - counterplans

explain how the CP is preferable. and there has to be some competition between the CP and the affirmative plan.

if using an internal/external net benefit, explain why the CP solves and outweighs.

explain the permutations to the CP in the 2AC, don't just say perm x.

intrinsic perms go crazy!

- - -

speech - CONG, EXT, PRO, POE, DI, HI

do whatever you want! i'm here to evaluate your performance and rank! just be yourself and everything else will get taken care of!

treat others with kindness ... talking over others, being rude and rolling your eyes is NOT persuasive or convincing whatsoever.

For CX and LD:

I am primarily Stock and Policy. I.e. Framework, evidence, why this outweighs, clash, etc. I'm not a big fan of Kritics, but it's a case-by-case basis, and I'll still flow it. Give Voters!!

Seating isn't too important, but I prefer Aff on my Left, Neg on my Right. (Your Right and Left respectively as you're facing me.)

Speed-reading is okay as long as it isn't 1000wpm. If you do spread, at least slow down for taglines.

You can keep your own time if you'd like, but I will be timing as well, and my timer is final. My timer begins on your first word. For Prep Time, I will give 30 second intervals unless told otherwise. Be sure to tell me to "Cease prep time," otherwise it will continue to run.

Please ask "Judge/floor ready?" before you start, I may still be writing or getting my timer ready.

Framework/going down the flow is important, and sign-posting is much appreciated. If you jump back and forth from On/Off case, I may get lost and mistake your attacks for your defense and vice versa.

Off-time roadmaps are preferred, but not necessary.

I personally will not join your Speech Drops or take a copy, what I hear is what I write. This is so I'm not reading ahead of what you say, or adding in any cut portions. You can still share your speeches with your opponents if you'd like.

I'm not great at disclosures, but everything will be on the ballot and hopefully helpful to your learning experience.

For Extempt:

One person in the room at a time. Hand me your topic when you're ready.

The timer begins at your first word. Starting from 7m, I will start hand-signing at 5m-1m, give 30s (horizontal, extended index finger), 15s (half, horizontal, index finger), then hand-sign again from 5s-1s. For practice tournaments, a 10 second grace period past 7 minutes will be given, but you will not be in first place. I apologize ahead of time if I'm too engrossed in writing that I forget to hand-sign.

My scoring criteria is as follows, in order of importance:

Speech. Introduction (Attention grabber, topic, answer, preview of key points), Body (Key points with sources to back them), Conclusion (Restate topic, answer, closing statements.)

Body language and voice. Any or lack of: swaying, stepping into points, hand gestures, eye contact, stutters, changes in pitch, rate, pauses. Essentially, confidence. If a notecard is being used, are you reading it word for word, or are you just glancing at it?

Time. This isn't as important, because if the rest is done properly, a 2 minute speech could be better than a 7 minute jumble of words. Was each point given an adequate amount of time? Was it over the time limit?

hi I'm so excited to be judging for you all. I use he/him pronouns. I think that speech and debate is such a big part on how we can grow intellectually and emotionally that being said please respect to space and be mindful of others at all times. Just a quick background for me I did speech and a bit of CX in high school and have competed on all UIL levels. I have also competed in TFA tournaments so I know the differences and little idiosyncrasies that go along with it.

here is just a quick run down on what I'll be expecting in events.

IE:There isn't much to say here as these are performance events so perform. I will more than likely be typing/writing comments as you go please don't take this as a sign of disinterest I want you to do your best. Its important you know your circuit i.e. UIL, TFA, NSDA and be familiar with the specific quirks each one has.

Extemp: there isn't a ton to say here either stick to the prompt be creative and keep your speech organized. Be clear have thought out ideas and evidence and you should place well. Again, I will more than likely be typing/writing comments as you go please don't take this as a sign of disinterest I want you to do your best.

LD: I don't like spreading i'm usually okay with a little speed though. I was brought up mostly in CX so keep that in mind. Stock Issues>> Tell me why you're winning what parts of the debate you are winning. I will be flowing the arguments keep in mind your Value and Value Criterion or whatever debate jargon you use in its place this is LD I will let it come down to that.

CX: I don't like spreading i'm usually okay with a little speed though. I'm way more of a traditional judge so watch your stock issues. Stock Issues>> Tell me why you're winning what parts of the debate you are winning. I will be flowing the arguments. Be respectful during CX this should go without saying debate is a safe space.

again super excited to be judging and I wish you luck on your speech and debate endeavors

amrod2027@gmail.com

POLICY/LD

I understand both tech and trad arguments. I promise I can understand most spreading but if you think you are one of the fastest speakers in the world just start a chain. I have 5+ years of LD experience. I have 2+ years of policy experience. If no voters/role of ballot/ whatever framework is not given on how I should weigh the round I default util. Shadow extensions make me sad however I will allow it. I do collegiate debate. Tech over truth.

K's- I am pretty good with western political literature, some cap literature, some afropess literature, psycho, and that is about it. Not to say I will not vote on a K of another topic but just explain the story to me better if it does not fall under that better.

Aff K's- It is what I primarily run now.

Counter-plans- It is what I primarily run on the neg (specifically the DA + PIC double whammy).

Disads/advantages- The bread and butter of the basics of argumentation. Just keep in mind on the impact calc I will default mag > probability > timeframe unless giving clear reasons otherwise. I am pretty easily convinced in framing that probability should come first.

Theory/T - I am also okay with "meme" theory with something very outlandish as long as you argue it well. Y'all policy kids though gotta get less lazy with that standard/voter debate. Condo is good but I will vote on condo theory if it is compelling. Default competing interps.

Side note: The RVI time skew on a T debate is silly. The RVI good/bad debate is a time skew (so how are you gonna run an RVI and claim time skew) so like idk that's my take on it. I am basically less inclined to vote on it especially if the T sheet preempts it however I also run it all the time so meh.

I do not flow CX but do not abuse that it is binding. Also CX is a speech just like a rebuttal or constructive so use and abuse it.

Basically do what you want I can hang.

NSDA Congress

Only thing you need to know is I judge congress as a speech/performance until given a reason to otherwise. I am all for being the judge that allows the K to make a Segway into congress debate although it probably will not happen lol (that does not mean try something wacky just for the sake of something wacky).

For how I treat the POs for rankings:

I believe the PO can either do a bad job or just their job. No such thing as an exceptional PO only an average (one that does everything right) or bad one. So with this if anyone gives an astounding speech they will be ranked higher than the PO however if this does not exist in the room assuming the PO did their job they (the PO) will be ranked the highest. If everyone (including the PO) does a bad job then the PO will be ranked the lowest.

ie:

1st - Great speaker, 2nd - PO, 3rd - Okay speaker, 4th- bad speaker.

Or

1st- Po, 2nd - okay speaker, 3rd - bad speaker

Or

1st- Great/ok speaker, 2nd- bad speaker, 3rd- bad PO

You get it.

Ask questions if you need them as this is the only thing I find relevant for understanding my rankings that I thought to include. I did not main congress in school but I did it occasionally as a hobby to fight debate burnout. Trust me though when I say I am qualified to judge y'all I am not some parent judge.

TLDR;I would say I'm a tab judge, but I really prioritize offense & defense in a round. Cool with speed but share a doc, that makes flowing easier and allows me to evaluate the warrants of your arguments. I'm cool with any argument just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic... etc. I will vote you down on those actions alone.

Pronouns - He/They

Policy - I did 4 years of policy in high school. I used to run a little bit of everything, but since I've been in college I've learned a lot more about the K and run it pretty much every round. I'm down for whatever type of debate ya'll want me to judge, but please please please give me some sort of framing so I have an idea of how to weigh the round, especially in high school debate. I would like to intervene as least as possible so maybe throw a framing contention into your case in front of me as long as you understand it.

K-Aff's- You can run this in front of me, just make sure you have a well-explained alternative. I'm not the most familiar with all literature out there but do have a keen sense for Queer Futurity and Fem Epistemology K's. Just because I'm unfamiliar doesn't mean you shouldn't run it in front of me, but going super fast in these rounds could be harmful so go at your own risk. I run Cap K's a lot in college as well so I'm familiar with a lot of Marxist literature if that's something you're trying to run in front of me.

K's - probably the same things as above. Negative K's just need a clear link to the affirmative and should be as specific as possible, generally think underspecified links in the 1NC are probably bad for debate.

Topicality/Theory - Love this kind of argument, just make sure that as the negative you are reading standards and voters in the 1NC, I don't care if you expand the number of standards in the Block just make sure you are responsive to affirmative standards (and Vise Versa for the Affirmative Team). As the aff on this argument, make sure your interpretation is textually competitive with the negative interpretation (or vice versa if it's a procedural ran by the aff).

CP's - I would say these are cool. Make sure they are competitive though whether it be textually or through net benefits. Be ready to respond to theory, and I do have a rather low threshold for severance and intrinsic perm theory, as long as there is proven abuse.

DA's - Cool just have a good uniqueness lol. Politics DA's are probably my favorite, and most real world so I would like to hear them. Cool with anything else just make the internal link story make sense so you have a clear path and a high probability of the Impact.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

tab judge; will vote on what is presented.

spreading is accepted

will vote on quality of arguments vs. quantity of arguments