Hey y'all! I did LD in high school and do IPDA in college at Mizzou (go tigers!!). I'm an occasional speech girl these days, mostly in limited prep events like extemp and radio, but I'm definitely more knowledgeable as a debate judge. Put me in the email chain: madisonarenaz23@gmail.com

The following is mainly for LD, but feel free to apply relevant points to other forms of debate:

• I'm cool with higher speeds. If you're used to debating nat circ, maybe decrease your speed by about 1/4 for me, but generally I should be good. If I'm not, I'll stop flowing to indicate that I need you to slow down.
• Debate should be accessible! If you need a round without spreading, or if there's anything I can do in general to make the round best suited to your needs, please let me know.
• I try to be a relatively non-interventionist, flow judge. I can believe much more in-round than IRL, but I do still need to believe your arguments, especially if they're a little outlandish. You can sell me on anything if you're clear with those links! Just make sure you're not saying something that I would know to be categorically untrue or misrepresented with the limited knowledge I have as an undergrad polisci major.
• I just don't buy most LD theory arguments I see. I'm not bringing my outside opinions into your actual arg ever, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me to vote on, or even consider, disclosure theory unless the tournament requires disclosure. I tend to err on the side of "drop the argument" vs "drop the debater" for nearly everything.
• I value impact weighing and comparative worlds, like most other LD judges. I have faith that y'all will do that, but novices - make sure you're learning this!
• Please please don't drop framework. I don't love framework debates (seriously it's just a lens I use to evaluate your performance please don't dedicate a ton of the debate to it), but make sure you're proving how you uphold yours. Ideally, uphold yours and your opponent's.
• Run literally whatever kind of arg you want to. I can evaluate a totally trad round, a K vs case, K vs K, a round where y'all are essentially LARPING as policy debaters, a philosophy heavy round, whatever you want. I will note I'm not the best judge for performance affs, but I value their place in the debate world - maybe just with a judge who is better prepared to evaluate them than me.
• If the point above meant absolutely nothing to you, do not worry about it. If you know exactly what I'm talking about and even think I'm putting it a little too plainly, and you enter a round with someone who clearly doesn't know what that previous point is about, ESPECIALLY in novice, consider that the point of debate is education. How you run it is your call from there. Be nice though and I'll boost your speaks every time.
• I prefer roadmaps off-time.
• Too many rebuttals are entirely scripted, and too many cases just aren't dynamic. Adapt your case and your performance to the round. Be funny or be serious, come prepared for every possible point or don't, but give me the vibe that you're actually in the room with us right now and not still on the Wiki or copying your captain. Say words beyond just what's on your cards. Even if I know what you're talking about, make it clear. I'm not a coach, I don't cut cards or develop args for any topic, and if I can't explain the argument you just gave back to your opponent, I'm not voting off of it, even if I do think I understand it. This may make me a worse judge for tricks debate and unevidenced Kritiks.
• Tldr: be a good person. Throw out this whole paradigm if you want! Your argumentation can overcome basically any of this, and anyone who tells you otherwise is doing you dirty. The point of this paradigm is just to ensure a good debate round that I can give good feedback on, but it is not my place to offer absolutes about what you can or should do. It's your activity - make it yours. Above all else, be kind and have so so much fun.

I'm the executive director for the American Speech and Debate Association. I appreciate well-organized debates with clear flows. I dislike spreading, kritiks, and counterplans. Argue the topic at hand, please.

Rock Hill CG (2022-2024) 1A/2N

kadenjcarr05@gmail.com

Tech over truth -- I will vote for any argument if you tell me a comparatively better reason to vote for it. I don't have a preference against any argument, do what you do best, but below I will note some of my biases and predispositions.

Top-level note, whatever your argument is, it makes judging easier when I can explain in your words why the other team lost after the debate. This means your arguments should have sufficient warrants for me to make a decision. I have a decently low bar for what I consider a "warrant" until your opponent raises the bar with their response.

Plan Affs

I think the role of the Aff is to prove the plan is a good idea compared to all other competitive options. Prove that is true under a framework that you have won is best and I will vote Aff. I do not have a preference for the type of Aff you're reading (I.E soft left, big stick.. etc) just win an impact to an advantage and explain in terms of impact calculus why that impact is the highest risk in the debate.

Planless Affs

I have read a few planless Affs, I am most familiar with Settler Colonialism and Anti-Capitalism literature, but you should read whatever you read. I do not have a predisposition against planless Affs, you just need to win a framing argument for why I should vote Aff or prove that the Aff solves an impact that outweighs negative arguments.

Against Topicality, I think I lean slightly negative in most debates but I am very willing to vote affirmative. The two most convincing strategies I have seen against topicality are a counter-interpretation with an educational net benefit or a straight impact turn to the practice of topicality. I am fine voting for either of these positions if you prove your model of debate is preferable.

In K v K debates I typically lean heavily affirmative, but I think that is structural to how the tech of those debates works out, not a bias. Usually going for the permutation and contextually answering neg links is more than sufficient and it is very difficult for K teams on the neg to generate competition. That said, I am happy to vote on technical concessions both ways.

Topicality

Win that the model of debate your interpretation proposes is good and better than the counter-interpretation and I will vote on topicality. I was a 2N who almost always took a Kritik while my partner took Topicality, so I am less versed than some others. Because of that, I think it would probably benefit the 2NR to explain to me what your model of debate looks like, why your interp is net better, and cover other technical concessions like the C/Is vs Reasonability debate (I think reasonability doesn't exist until you explain what you think it means to me). I don't have any particular opinions about standards, I'll vote for whatever you prove outweighs.

Kritiks

They're great. I am most familiar with Cap K debates because that's what I went for a lot, other than that lit base assume I am familiar with your argument in the context of debate but I have likely not read source material for anything. I am willing to vote either way on K framework, I treat it like a theory debate with reasons to prefer either interpretation. It will take a high amount of time on the page to make me forget the Aff entirely, but if you're winning arguments that say I should, I will. Links are strategically better when specific to the Aff, but are not required to be as long as they explain why something about the 1AC is bad. The alternative should resolve your link offense unless you're going fully for framework as a reason to reject the Aff prior to consideration of consequences, or rejecting the practice of imaginative fiated scenarios.

Counterplans

Counterplan debates are good. Win a solvency claim for some or all of the Aff and the scenario for an internal or external net benefit. For process counterplans, I am lenient to the NEG on theory arguments and am convinced by the argument that these are just reasons to prefer different metrics of competition. If you're going for a counterplan that will get into the intrinsicness/severance debate heavily, it will be easier to predict my decision if you handle it like a theory debate. Have an interpretation, have reasons to prefer it. If you have questions about my preferences to specifics of competition debates you should ask me questions before the debate. As I get farther out of debate this is what I imagine I will lose the specifics of first, so you will probably get a better vibe for my aptness to judge you accurately by what I say in person.

Disadvantages

Perfectly fine. I've gone for them, people have gone for them against me. Win your scenario (Uniqueness, Links, Impact) and I will feel solid voting for this argument. I think a DA that turns the case is far more strategic than one which tries to purely outweigh the Aff, but either are viable. Try to contextualize your link arguments in the block and do some implicit weighing in terms of how your scenario happens faster, at a broader scale, etc. I believe 0% risk can exist if the DA is structurally wrong about something (For example if the DA is about Russian Revisionism but the Aff heavily wins Russia is not revisionist) but in almost all cases the DA has some level of risk. That said, I don't like debates that bounce back and forth with unjustified lines like "1% risk is enough", when they haven't justified why in comparison to their opponent who just said the same.

Theory

It's fine. I won't change my conscious decision-making calculus for any theory argument, even if I am likely to take Conditionality more seriously than "Debaters must not wear shoes". Have an interpretation, have reasons to prefer it, and contextualize why your reasons outweigh the ones they are going for.

My defaults are,

1. Drop the Argument over Drop the Debater
2. Competing Interps over Reasonability
3. No RVIs

These can be changed in the debate, but you'll need a warrant as to why I should.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Elijah. senior at Bryan High.

Email-ejc122306@gmail.com

Fellow UIL haters rise up!

My career-

My primary strategy was the K and policy, my 2NRs always went from set col to the econ da.

I came from a very underprivileged background and funded my career with minimum wage job after school.

I may seem like a super dogmatic and bitter person but im just tired and wanna see some good debates.

Debate Thoughts-

TLDR- Great for the K and policy, Ok for Phil and T (Not TFW or USFG), Likely will be lost in a dense theory debate, probably get striked for trixcks.

Tech>Truth, unless the debate was incoherent and unclear.

I am influenced by people like- Parker Traxler, Lydia Wang, Hunniya Ahmad, Holden Bukowsky and Alexis Sibanda

For your pref sheet-

Clash>>>

Policy- 1

K- 1

TFW-1

Phil- 4

T- 2-3

Traditional- 1

Theory- 3-4

Trixcks- 5

Aff- do something that isn't the status squo

Neg- Rejoin the aff and prove why its a bad idea.

I will listen and vote on any arg, including ones that are morally bad and cheaty. I dont get why tech is given to nihilistic Ks, but not the antinatalism nc or ad homs(id rather not vote on ad homs tho) While i will listen and happily vote on any arg, it doesn't go without saying that objectively stupid args will be harder to win(eval, wipeout, word PIKs etc.)

Judging and rfd quality has dipped. Policy people are becoming more disgusted with the K, and K hacks auto down u at the mention of ur actor being the USFG. This is horrible and is probably why debate is dying (along with the elitism). Therefore, it is my goal to be as objective as possible and give u the best rfds i can. if i dont meet this burden, than i will be sad and so will u, so ask question and postround if u feel the need to.

Policy Style Args-

Evidence = Spin

Probability x Magnitude, unless told otherwise

0 Risk exists, but its rare

Sure judge kick but idc

Condo is good, until told otherwise.

Affs-

I fully understand these! Have recent inherency along with clear warrants. For both internal links and impact, there should be clear warrants. The links should be contextual to the impacts. PLEASE give me a clear plan text, people are starting to not say them for some reason. Being super vague will hurt you, but don't ramble about the nitty gritty details of the actions. In the 1AR plz extend case.

Read any scenario, as long as it's sensical.

DAs-

Love em! Huge fan of uniqueness that is extremely recent and paints a clear story of the squo. The links should also be painting a good story of how the aff triggers the impact. A risk of a link should be stated in the 2NR when weighing vs the aff. DAs that turn and or solve case are super clever. Plz state what the impact is and wont power tag the evidence. Some DAs just state global war but not with nukes.

Read any impact and weigh it well and ur chillin.

CPs-

Very interesting. Do something that isn't the aff PLZ. PICs are good, but explain the competition in the 1NC. All CPs need a net benefit. Whether the DA, Its own or even the aff. At least the CPs should solve some part of the aff. I think competition debates are interesting. At the least CPs need to textually compete, but the way it functions in context of the aff should also be important. Winning a Perm means the CP is dead so plz respond to them.

Weigh them like a DA, But also do the important work.

note on util

this is just one of my quirks but just say util and not hedonistic util. hedonism to me reminds me of cyberpunk goons and monotony.

Topicality and Theory style Args-

i dont default reasonability or ci first.

DTD, unless told otherwise

Education or fairness idc.

TFW/TUSFG-

The best strat Vs K affs. Please include warrants for why Switch sides debate solves. I've seen too many shells that just say SSD and no warrant. I think the TVA is the best aff inclusive arg to go for. The TVA likely won’t include the whole aff, but a good amount is sufficient. These debates come down to the models of debate. Yes you can win fairness first, but the model you are advocating for should be included as well. ANSWER IMPACT TURNS AND CRITICAL DAs.

T Subsets-

Cool shell. I think with subsets the aff is almost always abusive and it comes down to the defensive vs the shell. I think limits are true to the extent of how small the subset is. Precision or ground is usually what wins.

Extra T-

Also cool. Most of the time, extra T comes down to how the aff is explained in the rebuttals. However, unlike other situations, the neg can still interact with aff. I am willing to vote on them, yet it comes down to how the aff is articulated in context of the violation.

Effects T-

Basically extra T. Most of my opinions apply here. Though I will say topical k affs are probaly effects T.

Nebel T-

Just read subsets, ill still vote on it.

Critical Style Args-

I love these! But im not a k hack, any arg made vs any k is probaly just as true as the k (cough cough Cap good or heg good vs set col).

Epistemic confidence

aff gets case unless told otherwise

winning ontology wins FW (vs util, not the whole FW debate)

Alt needs to solve links

I need a ROB

Floating PIKs, Vague Alts and perf con are not voters until told otherwise.

I have read set col, baudrillard, cap, anzaldua and IR literature in debate and out of it. I understand and have read afro pessimism, other pomo, abolition(:<), and critics of the academy outside of debate.

Negs-

Give me a theory of power or a thesis claim PLEASE. Make good links, im not against generics like state bad or IR bad, But the more contextualized to the aff the easier it becomes to win. Alts should solve ur links and not any ontology claims u have made, i think a good amount of alts solve case, but thats not a floating PIK, frame that arg as the alt solves the affs impacts and or the aff is a non starter because of ur links. I think some FW is needed ie ROB at minimum, but u should also explain why the aff shouldnt get to weigh case if that is the arg u are going for. If the aff drops any ontology or structural claims PLZ utilize it. Also Ks have an impact, weigh them.

Affs-

PLZ HAVE A METHOD THAT ISNT VAGUE. Use ur case as a way to beat back TFW or any generic pushes on case. You should be able to explain y debating the topic is bad or why enagaging in policy debate is bad. I am kool with performative like poetry, monolouges and music. K Affs dont follow stock issues but i think u should have some inhernecy and at least impacts.

KvK-

These fun to watch WHEN DONE WELL. The debater k sterotype really show here, So plz, DONT BE VAGUE, DONT AVOID LIT BASE INTERACTION, EXPLAIN PERMS, METHODS, LINKS etc.

Philosophy style Args-

Epistemic confidence

Flag where ur indexicals are

Dont top speed spread through 40 reason y induction fails

Overall-

Phil and the k are similar but different in lit at least. I know kant, baudrillard, some of deleuze, and really any pomo. When it comes to phil its more a clash of ethics so i expect a lot done on framework. I am not going to lie, i probably wont evaluate the debate the best because im not fimilar with a lot of the phil out there (unless it realates to the k).

Trixcks-

Compartive worlds until told otherwise

please dont hide them.

Overall-I understand hijacks, skep and some TT args, but a prioris and identity tricks i struggle. This again means im not your man if read trixks, im not paradigmatically against them, but i just not familar with them.

Speaks-

Im pretty generous, lets just say if u get below a 28.7 u weren't good. I start at 28.5 and usually go up, i don't subtract speaks its like the SAT. Sure ig 30 speak spike but its just cringe and u will lieky only get a .1 bump.

Get better speaks by:

+ .4 reading something that ive never seen and is actually fire.

+. 3 being able to read, go for and explain any pomo position

+.2 have a policy v policy debate that doesn't put me to sleep after the 9th off

+.3 being funny

+.5 saying taglines in spanish

+.5 saying taglines in polish

End

Be blunt and straight foward but not to the point of erogence

i have a bad resting face so im not mad at yall im just locked in

with that i try not to show emotion

Rfds will be given no matter what(f@#$ texas trad circuit norms)

PLEASE POST ROUND ME IF YOU FEEL I MADE A BAD DECISISON

UPDATE FOR NATS: Congratulations for making it to nationals! Have fun and do your best.

I have never judged BQ before, but I am a relatively competent individual (hopefully) and understand the format fine. I am still, however, getting used to the structure of the format. You should assume I am applying to my BQ judging thought process anything in my paradigm that is logically applicable to BQ.

This tournament pulls together an eclectic mix of localities. Please be understanding of differences in norms and accommodate each other in good faith. The emphasis I place on accessibility will be even stronger at this tournament.

Yes, I want to be on the chain. email:doddsbw1@gmail.com

PLEASE HAVE FUN! debate is fun :) engage in practices that benefit our community and represent it well. Debate is an activity in which many, myself included, have found their passion--use your common sense and leave debate better than you found it.

TL;DR: I am a tech/flow judge. Weigh. Be accessible.

I’m the LD coach for Minnetonka High School. I did debate all 4 years of high school on the Minnesota circuit, mainly. Only competed circuit like once a season. I attend George Washington University and am studying economics and international affairs---I mention this because you can assume I have a greater than 0 amount of prior understanding of these concepts.

Alright, now onto the actual paradigm. General stuff at the top, circuit stuff at the very bottom.

If you're a novice and I am judging you

LD Novice Guide: A little cheat sheet/glossary for speech times, flow structure, case structure, and general debate terms.

General notes

I am definitely tech>truth, and I prefer good argumentation>presentation. Don’t be monotonous or spread at locals, but otherwise be as technical and use as much jargon as you want. You can assume I have some topic knowledge, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your arguments clearly. If I have no clue what you're actually arguing, my threshold for voting against the arg is low.

You need to explain the implications of CX concessions, drops, turns, etc. If you make an argument, don't expect me to implicate it for you. Rounds are very hard to decide when the debaters are so wrapped up in the line-by-line that they fail to explain the implications of the line-by-line.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE extend specific cards and warrants if your opponent reads a generic block against them! A huge missed opportunity I see all the time in all divisions is debaters responding to generic blocks/arguments without realizing that their original contention contained a card/sentence/warrant that accounted for or had an embedded response against the block. Be specific, be nuanced, and be surgical.What separates a good and a great debater is the extent to which they're able to be specific and nuanced. Debaters who rely on broad strokes instead of surgical nuance will almost always lose to debaters who know and can explain the specific mechanisms of arguments.

On the MN circuit, please keep it relatively trad. I will err heavily on the side of trad norms, so be circuit-y at your own risk. Be accessible, please.

A walkthrough of my decision making process:

1. Evaluate which framework to use and any other constraints like burdens or contentious definitions.
2. Look at the articulated offense under these frameworks.
3. Look at the defense on said offense; this helps me determine risk of offense.
   
   
4. Evaluate the weighing done on this offense under the framework (s).
5. Make my decision based on who has the most offense under the framework.

I place an emphasis on good, explicit weighing. If you don’t weigh you won’t get my ballot.

Some people that have influenced my understanding of debate (too lazy to link their paradigms so just look them up lol)

-Raymond Zhang: coach freshman and sophomore year, learned the basics from him

-Sam Anderson: judged often by him and agree w his paradigm

-Nick Smith: judged by him a lot and agree w his paradigm

SPEAKER POINTS

I'll default to somewhere between 28-28.5; points will go up or down from there.

Things that will get you high speaks:

-Any kind of turn, but especially impact turns

-Not using any analytics--don’t just read a card as a block without explaining the implications

-Being extremely clear where you are on the flow

Circuit Pref Shortcut:

LARP/Trad-1

T-2

Neg Ks-3

Simple phil-3

Theory-4

K affs/tricks/phil that you don’t even understand and are just spitting out because you found an overcomplicated Levinas FW-Strike

Unless otherwise instructed, I default to CI and DTD on theory.

If you are using fiat to get out of neg offense, you should make some sort of justification for your version of fiat-fiat comes in all shapes and sizes and interpretations.

Hello! I'm Anthony (he/him/they/them). Clements '24. TFA State qual 3x, went to a few bid tournaments, wasn't overly successful by any metric.

I want to be on the email chain. westankorsgaard@gmail.com

General:

Tech >>> Truth. I am willing to vote on any argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact, as long as I understand the argument/can explain it back to you in my RFD. I try to intervene as little as possible: the more words/arguments/connections I have to deduce in order to make my decision the more likely that you won't be happy with it and the lower your speaks will be.

That being said, my personal experiences/biases will inevitably shape my evaluation of arguments. Take the rest of the paradigm as an FYI about how I view debate, not a set of hard-and-fast rules.

Most of my thoughts on debate are influenced by Vikrant Maan and Perry Beckett. My favorite judges were Joey Georges, Wyatt Hatfield, Holden Bukowsky, and anybody else who was very tech over truth. You can probably pref me the same way you'd pref Joey or Wyatt.

Quick pref sheet -

1 - Phil

1 - trix

2 - theory/T

3 - LARP

3 - the K

Defaults (can be changed with a single line)

The 2NR/2AR gets new weighing + layering

Permissibility/Presumption Negate

Drop the Debater and No RVIs on theory. I will attempt to default to the shared assumptions of the debaters on competing interps v reasonability, but if competing interps isn't explicitly read/justified I'll likely lean towards using reasonability

Topicality > 1AR theory > 1NC theory

The ROTB is Truth Testing

I will default to util if no framework/standard/rotb is read (and your speaks will be capped at a 28).

Theory > k framework = phil standards > contentions/advantages/CPs

Specific arguments:

Phil

Please weigh between framework justifications. I read Kant a lot in my time as a debater, but I should be able to follow any framework that you read. Metaethics are cool, Skep triggers are cool, Contingent standards are cool, Hijacks are cool. Feel free to go for weird/tricky phil strategies when I'm in the back.

Winning extinction outweighs probably requires that you either win util or win that ethical theories must be consequentialist. If you don't win either, I'll likely treat "extinction outweighs" as a claim lacking a warrant (and thus will not vote on it).

Tricks

I have no qualms with voting on stupid arguments, though my threshold for responses may be lower. I enjoy substantiative tricks (ex: trivialism, condo logic, indexicals, good samaritian's paradox, etc.) more than theory tricks, but I'm willing to vote on either.

Please do a lot of weighing, judge instruction, and argument interaction in tricks v tricks rounds: otherwise the debate becomes very irresolvable (and your speaks won't be too good either).

I'm very receptive to arguments that K/phil/LARP come before trix.

Theory/T

Please weigh. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

the K

I will be tab, but given my lack of experience, you probably don't want me judging these debates.

Better for techy K debaters that do most of their explanation on the line-by-line. Bad for K debaters that read a 2-minute overview or expect to win by crying about racism for 6 minutes.

I really don't care if the arguments you make feel "icky" or disturbing. Feel free to go for heg good, cap good, and skep against Ks/K affs. I won't auto-down you for anything short of saying a slur or endorsing racism/sexism/ableism/etc.

I think that blippy 5-second ivis and impact turns hold the same status as tricks, and will evaluate them as such.

I think most Ks in ld nowadays are very under-warranted given the claims they make. I will not assume that civil society is irredeemably racist just because you said the words "natal alienation, general dishonor, gratuitious violence" in the 2NR/2AR.

LARP

Please weigh. Please do evidence comparison. In the absence of weighing and/or evidence comparison, I'll usually err towards the arguments that I find to be more persuasive or supported by better evidence. I will not read evidence after the round unless you ask me to or the round is irresolvable.

I never had an in-depth policy throw down, so I'm going to need a significant amount of explanation of things like counterplan competition if you're in a policy v policy round.

Happy to vote on death good, wipeout, etc. Speaks boost if you manage to work a True detective quote into the 2NR.

Speaks

I try to start at a 28.5 and work my way up or down from there. Higher speaks are given for a deep understanding of your arguments/case and smart strategic decisions.

No, I will not evaluate the 30 speaks spike.

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

First of all, I’m still a senior in highschool, so obviously if you’re seeing this then you’re probably either a novice, I forgot to update my paradigm, or this is an EIF tournament. That being said, obviously I have different requests for each event.

for LD: please don’t spread, I consider it abusive especially on the traditional circuit (if you are EIF this doesn’t apply). I prefer philosophy heavy arguments rather than card vs card debate. This isn’t policy so please don’t make it one person policy debate all due respect. Please don’t give me off time roadmaps unless it is specific, I would rather just flow what I hear than being prepared to do something that is inevitably going to be changed because let’s be real this is novice LD and it’s hard out here guys. Please don’t call me judge repetitively, I understand a “judge my opponent…” but don’t constantly ask if I’m ready by asking judge just say “is everyone ready”, I’m picky and it’s okay if you do this it’s all just preference, obviously that won’t skew my judgement. If you provide your opponent a copy of your case because you do plan to spread then I also will need a copy.

for pf: pretty much the same as ld but I’m a bit more lenient with the ruling about cards and stuff obviously. Please don’t yell over eachother, it’s rude and immature, you can cut each other off if you deem it necessary but no need to yell.

policy: honestly the likelihood of my judging policy is low until I graduate but if I do judge you for policy I would just ask that you please be respectful of both me and your opponents time and don’t run a joke argument because you got dared to by your team member who’s older than you.

Generally just be respectful of my time and you opponents time and feelings good luck!!!!

Rock Hill CG (2022-2024)

Email: danushftw@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

I have gone for all types of arguments. I care about how you communicate more than the particular content of speeches. I appreciate debaters who approach each individual round from the perspective of winning the judge's ballot. This means answering arguments in an orderly fashion, emphasizing places where you are ahead, and condensing down to a few central issues.

I am not Tech > Truth and will probably give more leeway to teams that drop technical arguments on the flow against things like Wipeout versus a standard DA vs Case debate. This does not mean you should stop reading Process CP's, Theory Violations, or anything else that can be repeated in multiple debates but assess the quality of academic literature upon which your positions are based.

Affs should probably be topical but I don't care. I read planless affs in many of the most competitive debates of my career about Settler Colonialism and Capitalism. Negative teams should go for procedural fairness in front of me combined with some form of "debate doesn't shape subjectivity". Affirmative teams should just go for an impact turn by the end of the 2AR - winning a legitimate counterinterp is something I've never seen done that well.

Really really terrible for strategies about "call outs" or testifications of your opponents' character, if I see things like screenshots or other accusations in a non-disclosure context it will be almost impossible to win. Debate is not court and I am not qualified to adjudicate your character in one hour and thirty mintues. Please leave these discussions outside of the debate and if you geniunely feel unsafe in the room with an opponent we can work to get that resolved with the tabroom.

Condo is good but I will vote otherwise if the 2NR spends 10-15 seconds answering it. Both teams should understand how powerful theory is when it often uplayers every other word that has been said in the debate. I will judge kick if you tell me to but probably not otherwise and it is easy for aff teams to convince me not to.

You must READ rehighlights of the opponents evidence - this a communication activity please remember that in all aspects of the debate but especially this one

hi i’m emilio clear springs 25’

add 2 chain pls emiliogarza525@gmail.com

ive done circuit ld + policy and have made it to bid rounds / got speaker points in both

my ideological standing have changed since switching over to policy this last year

Quick Prefs

K - 1 (Setcol, Futurism(s), Pessimism(s), Psycho, Cap, Etc)

Larp - 1

TFW - 1

Theory - 2 (Condo, PICS Bad, just not frivolous)

K POMO - 2 (Baudy, Other white pomo men)

Phil + Tricks - 4/Strike (k/identity tricks 2) - i’ll try i’ll be lost

K- Favorite arg on aff and neg - in 3 years only like 2 of my 2nrs (in both policy and ld) wernt setcol - winning TOP is key - yes you can kick the alt if u r winning framing + links - link work is lacking in most teams i prefer a collapse on 1/2 links you are winning in the 2nr - k v k is my favorite but can get messy pls just stick to your order

for larper - yes i will vote on extinction o/w - ontology false etc if won - ive had enough debates to know when someone is winning - go for link turn / fiat good interps best strat probably easiest to win

for non black pessimism - it is weird and odd i’ll vote for you but probably turned by like just any competition ivi or most pess authors work - best staying away ill lower speaks

Larp- so fun, switching to policy i can enjoy a good larp debate - pls weigh - plank counterplans with more than 3 planks prob are abusive but i can be persuaded otherwise! also more than 6 condo is probably abusive and will have a harder time changing my mind! - aspec is boring but ill vote on it

Theory- enjoy a good theory debate that’s not frivolous (spec etc) - pls weigh standards - more open to non black disclosure practices but anything is up for debate - also policy t debates r fun be as nit picky as u want - if u pull it off i’ll give goood speaks

TFW - appreciate tfw teams that aren’t racist/sexist etc… tfw is fun answer impact turns disads and have a clear ballot story!!! - tvas are best strat along with tfw tricks (limits da, ballot pic hidden inside, etc)

Speaks- If u annoy me u will get low speaks ( condescending, etc) but other than that i’ll give good speaks i start out at 28.5 go up and down - speaks theory is no - be clear pls….. i can handle clear speak not jumble your speaks will show it - love a good low point win

Prefs short---high school debater, down for process and meh for Ks. Super tech>truth except for hypertrolly args. The less of the 1NC that could be read last year the better I am for you.

geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25
LD + PF at the bottom.
Yes put me on the chain. I would prefer an email but SpeechDrop is fine. If your docs are verbatimized word, I will probably not get a headache. The farther your email content gets from that, the greater the chance of a headache.
Please email me after the debate for clarification - I'm always happy to explain.
Anything bolded is not up for debate. Anything unbolded can be changed by better technical debating.

I view debate as a competitive research activity. I will reward strategies that involve topic and aff specific research. This can look like topic CP and Econ DA, but also politics with very specific links, a cap K with turns case and aff specific links, or a process CP with an aff-specific solvency advocate.

---------------------------------

I will never vote on ableism / transphobia / homophobia / racism / sexism. I will stop the round if you do something that makes the debate space unsafe.
Ad-Homs or use of slurs / bigotry / misgendering will lead to instant loss, extremely low speaks and I'll email your coach.

Do not read Death Good/Wipeout in front of me UNLESS both teams agree to it beforehand. If the 2NR is 5 minutes of wipeout, the 2AR can spend 5 minutes talking about their favorite tea and I'll vote aff. For every speaker that extends a wipeout/death good arg without permission from their opponent, -2.5 speaks.

Berating your teammate will shred your speaks.

Disclosure is a must. This means verbal aff (unless new) and past 2NRs OR updated wikis. This also means being on time to your room for disclosure. +0.1 speaks for full, working citations, +0.3 for OpenSource that is highlighted (tell me after the debate). Exception for lay / MS debate.
CX is binding. Make sure you are asking questions in your CX. Tag-team CX is fine, as is using it for prep - you don't have to ask me for permission. I don't consider prep time cross to be binding.

PLEASE give me a roadmap
If the other team has dropped something like T and there's no theory extended, you can stop the round an tell me why. Other team can explain why there's a way out, any way out, they win. Otherwise you win. If you do this and are right, I will give you much higher speaks (29+), and can dedicate the rest of the time to helping the other team. If the other team is right, double 25s for you. If the 2NR drops condo, the 2AR can be 5 seconds of "dropped condo bad because its unfair---dispo solves---vote aff".

Assume I want a card doc unless it's like a condo debate.

--------

Love an impact turn, read lots of cards.

Topicality -
PTV is very good.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
ground > predictability > cult of limits.
A T violation that cannot explain why that specific aff is bad for ground should lose to C/I only our aff. Unlike most judges, I think that this is a viable 2AR C/I.
An aff that says "one or more of the following" should lose to aff condo is bad.

Theory

I think condo is good up to double digits. I'll still vote on the flow. Models > in-round abuse. Research + strat skew > timeskew.

Neg flex + logic + dispo doesn't solve + you didn't define dispo >

If you can kick Adv CP planks, each plank (n) counts for 2^n advocacies. I won't make the arguement for you but 2As should.....

Solvency advocates frame theory - rehighlighted 1AC cards or aff specific advocates make me much more lenient to the neg on any theory.

Love process but give me pen time. Probably better for the other issues perm than PDCP.

Ks -
Impact turn / DA to the alt if you can.
The more the K turns the case, has material link and has an alt that solves or outweighs the case, the better I am for you. Similarly, the more aff-specific the better. 2NRs that kick the alt are fiiiinnnneeee but you probbaly lose if the 1AR doesn't drop a DA and defense.

Counterplans:

Adv CPs and PICs>>>>>>>

Do process ever solve their own net benefit?
I default to judgekick - aff debate against should start in the 1AR at latest.


DAs
PTX DAs - PC DAs are mid. Horsetrading DAs make me happy. Riders make me sad. Floor time makes my eyes sparkle with joy.
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.
5+ 1AR cards usually make a good debate
Do impact calc in the 1NR

K Affs - i'll vote for them if they win the flow. I'd like but don't need both teams to have a vision for debate, how arguments evolve and get evaluated over the season, etc.
2AC K aff w/m means the 2NC can and should read states and politics
I'd prefer clash as with "debate solves the aff better" as a straight turn, but if you want to go for fairness I'm chill with that. Sometimes this is called "Michigan's FW 2.0", for an example see DML's 2024 UMich FW lecture.
revive jurisdiction!!!!
Dogma and advocacy skills turn the aff / fairness is why their impacts are bad = yay!
Fairness is good. What's a warrant? = not yay.

insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
condo good---x------------condo bad
cap / security -x----------Bataille
clarity + pen time-x---------------------------speed
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------slow down on the cards
evidence comparison--x----more cards
silly args-----x--win with style, especially if you're heavily favoured

People who've influenced my thoughts on debate:
Nick Lepp, Tim Freehan, Rockwell Shapiro, Margaret Jones, David Weston, Aaron Vinson, Jeff Buntin, Rafael Pierry, Tim Ellis, Gabe Jankovsky, Arvind Shankar, Will Soper.

Postround me.


Policy Voting Record:
IP:
Econ:
5-6 Policy v Policy
0-1 Policy v K (it was cap)

-----------------------------
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies.

Public Lands
Policy vs Policy --- 0-1
Tricks aff vs Trad --- 1-0
Trad vs Trad --- 0-1
Policy vs Policy + K --- 1-0

I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do LBL.
Probably more open to affs that defend a plan.
Performances affs are also fine, T against them is often true.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
yes I do flow cross
disclosure is good. lack of it may even be worth a ballot based on the flow.
silly args--x--win with style
silly args mean phil and paradoxes, not "vote after the 1NC" or "formal clothes theory". Clash is good. I have a higher bar for things like a warrant that y'all probably expect.
PICs---7/10
phil - proud util hack but tech over truth. Util > Rawls > Hobbes > Skep > Virtue > Kant > Rand > dead French guys who use "the Other" that you cannot explain. Only thing LD does better than policy.


PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever, including prog stuff / Ks / spreading.
0 PRO - 1 CON Trad on the HSR topic.

Misc things:

Any use of AI to generate prompted text and use the text as "evidence" is deemed a fabrication of evidence and is a reason for an ethics challenge.
If the 1AC clips, I won't stop the round unless the 1NC points it out. I will however, vote against the clipping team. I just want y'all to get an educational debate and I will give a full substance RFD.
If an argument says extinction is good because the alternative is worse, it is wipeout.

Current debater and president at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in most of the other debate events as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it. With that being said, I do have my preferences, opinions, and pet peeves.

Y'all, my paradigm is long and probably poorly written cause English is hard, ask questions prior to round start. I'd rather start round a little late than have you confused about what I like.

I prefer using Speechdrop but email chains are fine. Email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

(LD)

PANIC!!! WHAT DOES THIS JUDGE LIKE:

1 - Phil, Trix (phil), Trad

2 - Theory, T, Ks you can explain

3 - LARP, Identity Ks

4 - Friv Theory, Ks you can't explain, Trixs (26 off, opp can't have offense, etc.)

Strike - Performance Debates

Paradigm proper:

Phil - Personally love this form of debate and find that it is underutilized on the circuit and especially locally, people tend to opt for Policy, Util, or some other basic framework which is fine but Lincoln Douglas is the PHILOSOPHICAL debate event, it gets infinitely more interesting when framework is more than just a reused Morality Util one. Frameworks I particularly like are Kant, Hobbes, and Pettit (I know, I'm basic) but will appreciate anything new like Rand or Levinas. I don't particularly like Util, I'll weigh it but don't expect super high speaks (Usually will give +.1 for just having a non-Util/MSV fw). With this in mind, DO NOT run a framework your coach gave you just because I like phil, make sure you truly understand what it's talking about and how it interacts within the round; if I have reasonable grounds to doubt that you have any idea what your fw is saying, -1.0 speaks.

Trad - As a kid in central Florida who primarily (and sadly) mostly competes locally, I'm super comfortable with trad (to be honest, how are you NOT comfortable in trad) and most of my debate year is lay trad debates. That means feel free to pref me highly if you want to ask for a trad round (I'll likely be happy to grant a trad round) but I would prefer rounds that transcend the boundaries of trad. More phil or tricky rounds are gonna make me infinitely more interested in the round but don't feel like you're being forced to not do trad. For trad, just treat me like you would a lay judge but just cut out the fluff that is associated with it.

Theory - Honestly, I'll evaluate it as long as real abuse can be proved. Usually default DTD, Competing interps, no RVIs, yes to 1AR theory but can be convinced otherwise. I can be swayed to buy 2NR theory. Legit theory comes first on my ballot so it's usually key to respond to it. It'll be difficult to get me to vote on friv theory; my threshold on responses is SUPER low and the only way to win with friv theory is basically to have your opponent drop it or completely mishandle it.

Note on evidence ethic theories: I will always ask you after your speech whether you want to stake the round on it. If the answer is no, don't run the shell.

LARP - It's whatever, as long as it makes sense then I'll evaluate it. I default on a morality Util framing without any speaker deductions and will assume you will be weighing as such. Weighing is a MUST to properly secure my ballot in more policy-centric rounds. I always assume DAs turn case and Plans and CPS need a text telling me exactly what the plan is to properly evaluate it. (i.e. Resolved: The United States will slowly phase out fossil fuels by increasing renewable energy production from solar) Solvency is a MUST.

Ks- I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Ks HAVE TO HAVE an alt that can be acted upon; not just reject the aff. The alt can be a CP. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs but no alt here, it should be the resolution text in place of the alt (unless it's radical, then pop off) and the K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all. If you've read my paradigm before, this is where I had identity Ks being a low pref but I'm going to be honest, they've kind of grown on me since I first made this. I still don't think I'm the best judge out there for judging identity Ks but I will definitely evaluate them a lot easier and more willingingly now. Key stipulation is that I will likely not know the lit very well (unless you are running Set Col, Model Minority, or Orientalism) so try to slow down and spend more time explaining the position.

As a general principle, I believe that: radicals alts >> normals alts >>>> reject the aff. Will eval any of them though, I just think some are def stronger than others with rejection being the weakest by far.

Quick side note, I've been loving the Academy K lately. Take that information as you will :)

Trixs- Honestly, as I become more active with using prog tactics, phil trixs have really grown on me. I kinda want you to try and run these if you can cause I feel like they create a fun debate but of course, won't get you the auto-win. Personally been running Kant 1AR indexicals and skep NC a lot and I find them fun to see and do. I don't like judging a billion Trixs so I won't be happy about it but you can run a full Trix case if you want to and I'll try my best to keep up. Key thing to keep in mind, if one of the Trix gets turned or a theory is read against you, you will most likely lose.

Performance - Just don't. Thank you :)

Other prefs:

• Deontological arguments >>>>
• Not a huge fan of PICs, will evaluate but pretty bugrudgingly.
• Tech>Truth unless the arg is very obviously just untrue (1+1=2, it's non-negotiable)
• I will try to not interfere within the round, my ballot is written by the debaters
• Instant L and the lowest speakers possible for any xenophobic argument/comment (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc)
• I will NOT pay too much attention during CX, this is your time, so I'll just passively listen
• Don't just say "My opponent doesn't have a card for this" without explaining why it matters in the context of the round; this will not be treated as a response and will garner -0.2 speaks every time you say it
• Speed is fine, if you spread, send doc
• Signpost
• I am a judge where if you want to test run a new case position/debating style/argument, you should. (Assuming you just want to figure out the viability of an argument and are not trying to guarantee a win)
• I will give a verbal RFD/comments if the tournament allows and both debaters want it
• I don't flow card names anymore because it forces you to properly extend arguments instead of just having your 1AR be "judge, extend x card, they clean conceded it". I care more about arguments than cards, extend the actual warranting and arguments instead of just a card

Common arguments I run: (Decided to add this here so you can see what kind of debater I am and what I'm most comfortable with)

• Frameworks: Kant, Hobbes, Pettit, Rawls, Wu Wei
• Ks: Model Minority/Orientalism, Security, Capitalism, Academy
• Misc: Indexicals, Skep, Determinism, Theories (Disclosure, Condo, ESPEC, etc etc)

PF Stuff:

I'm putting this here just in case I do have to judge PF one day. I am an LDer at heart so I may judge things differently from more technical judges in PF, thus I would personally treat myself like a Lay -> lower Flay judge. (I will still understand and be able to keep up with technical arguments and speed though)

• Coinflip should always happen through tab or in front of me, personal preference
• NO PARAPHRASING, EVER, I'm not joking, just don't do it, I will not vote on paraphrased evidence
• Signposting and weighing are key. Comparative worlds is a great tool for PF because it doesn't use a framework to weigh
• Evidence should be able to be provided in under 45 seconds, if you can't produce it by then it'll be treated as an analytic and you should be more organized. I understand if there are technological issues, they will be treated differently
• Everything you want to mention in your speech should have been extended in the previous speech
• Theory is more sus in PF so probably try not to run it in front of me unless an actual abuse story can be traced that affects the round at large (disclosure is the only exception where it's gonna be a solid no from me)
• Unless you give me a clear reason to do a different form of weighing, I default "bigger number wins"

Congress Stuff:

As I primarily do debate events like LD, Congress isn't really my strong suit when it comes to judging but I have done it more than a couple of times (even accidentally making it to Congress finals at NSDA Districts once) so I'm not completely blind and stupid. Here's just a couple of points on how I eval and rank people in a chamber.

• I usually start the PO at 3. The PO usually either stays there or move down as they make consistent mistakes. POs rarely move up in my eyes unless the other people in the chamber are actually struggling or making fatal mistakes. It's a lot easier for PO to move down than up
• The first four speeches set the tone for the round and I rank based around those four speeches. That means that if the first four speeches were killer, the round is going to be tougher and if the first four speeches were mid, the rankings are going to be more lenient.
• Please, for the love of god, motion to move to direct questioning, it's infinitely more interesting and shows me better strategic thinking in the round than one question can
• I eval based on three things in a certain order: strategic thinking -> argumentation and incorporation of evidence -> presentation. While Congress is technically as much a speech even as a debate event, I value the more "debate" things of Congress over whether or not you stand up there and be super duper confident and outward. I care more about your choices in argumentation and why/how it's important.
• TBH, safest thing to do with me as a Congress judge, treat me like a lay judge. I may have slight opinions because I've done debate and Congress before, I'm more than happy to go along with the flow and adjust to you guys.
• (Side tangent here, y'all need to write better bills man, a lot of them either just don't do anything, are boring, or written just so so so so poorly)

Policy Stuff:

Y'all, I did policy debate for the first time at the 2024 NCFL Grand Nationals Tournament in Chicago and I personally had a blast (couldn't say the same for my partner sadly). It was fast-paced, information-heavy, and huge on strategic thinking, it's everything I love about LD, especially prog. Insofar that policy doesn't wildly change on me, a lot of my comments from the LD section can be applied here but I will be more open to most of the arguments in policy as a) you have more time to explain them and b) the same arguments get used for the whole year so they are more refined than having to change every 2 months in LD. Anyways, here's a basic chart on how much I like args in policy

1- T, K, CP

2 - Identity K, t

4 - Performance

Anyways, here's some miscellaneous ramblings from me

• Dispo > Condo
• More warranted CPS > one card benefit CPS (This might just be an LD thing but CPs tend to be longer with more net benefits, a good example is to take a look at states CP on the policy and LD wikis [States solve vs States solve plus avoid dual sovereignty])
• Planks are good insofar that we don't spend half a minute on them
• DISCLOSURE IS SUPER IMPORTANT
• Tag team CX always, don't even ask, it's a yes
• Please actually link the DAs, don't just say the aff links into the DA.
• Adv 1 -> Plan -> Adv 2/S >>> Plan -> Adv 1/2/S
• Honestly, if you can bring in phil somehow, extra brownie points to you

add me to the email chain: patmah729@gmail.com
but for team events I'd prefer a speechdrop
Please set up the filesharing before the round. Rounds should start on time.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR SPEECHES FOR ONLINE DEBATE

Conflicts: Byron Nelson (the whole team) and Tempe Prep CO

he/they
call me "Patrick," "Pat," or even "Judge" is fine, anything more formal makes me uncomfortable

Debate is a safe space, keep it that way. This means don't be violent. It also means give content warnings.

TLDR: I'm comfortable listening to most arguments at most speeds. Give me pen time (even if I'm laptop flowing) or it will not get to the flow. Refer to cards by authors and dates. Pop them tags. Flash analytics or slow them down. Give me a filler word between cards. Tell me what to do and I'll do it, leave the decision in my hands and you'll be disappointed.

General Paradigm (Mostly LD)

I will try to be tab

- Speed: I don't have the best hearing, so maybe around 80% of your top speed is best.
- Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible.
- Comparative worlds > Truth Testing
- competing interps > reasonability
- yes RVI
- you should probably read some kind of framework, but I'll default to util if nobody says anything.

Pref shortcuts (I'll evaluate anything but I'm better at some things over others)

Ks: Bad K debate makes me sad. Good K debate is what I'm here for (1)
K Affs: are good, explain things pls (1-2)
Larp: is fine, go for it. (1-2)
Phil: is fine, go for it. Explain your wacky philosophy. (3)
Theory: I actually really like these debates, but I'm bad at flowing procedurals so be really clear, send the doc or something, otherwise I'll probably mess something up. (2-3)
Trad: To each their own? Like you'll be fine but I don't particularly enjoy these debates. (4-Strike)
Trix: are for kids. Low threshold for response, I will still evaluate them, I'd just rather not, and if I can't understand them, I will not vote on it. (4-Strike)

Rapid fire misc thoughts:
Disclosure is good, I think open source + RRs should be the norm.
Condo is probably okay, but you still have to justify it
RVIs are good (in LD/PF)
The best rebuttals have minimal/no overview and do everything on the line-by-line.
There is such a thing as a bad argument, but that is totally irrelevant to my decision.
PTX Disads are fun and I like them, but you should be reading updated, unique, interesting scenarios. When every team at a tournament is reading the same scenario and it's not even very good I question why you're reading it in the first place.
Dedev is good and you should read it
Nebel has a point but please make new arguments
"I don't need this to win, but I'll extend this anyway" is one of the most frustrating things to hear. Collapse. Don't go for everything, just because you win it doesn't mean you should go for it.
Speech times, safety, and whatever tab yells at me for are the only actual rules of debate. Anything else is a norm and can be changed.
I will vote on ivis vs trix, especially if you're reading identity based positions.

I'm pretty solidly in the trial by fire camp, but there's a line between trial by fire and just throwing your weight around. Don't make it harder to be a less experienced or institutionally disadvantaged debater, there are already enough barriers to success for the least privileged. Read what you want, but don't be inaccessible. Be the support you wish you had as a novice. Be nice and take the round seriously and I'll boost your speaks.

An off-time roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. Please just leave it at that.

Traditional framework debate: Framework is not a voter, it's just the lens I use to evaluate the round. Contextualize how your case best achieves the winning framework of the round. Ideally, you should do some weighing under both frameworks if the debate is at all uncertain. Anything less is gambling with my ballot. Btw, value debate is meaningless and I would rather you concede a value of morality/justice and then do the framework debate on the criterions.

Also directed at trad debaters: Arguments need evidence, and evidence needs citations. If I don't hear a citation, it is an analytic, and if it is an analytic vs a carded piece of evidence, it had better be a pretty good analytic. If your case is entirely analytic, you're behind from the beginning. You've already (presumably) done the work and have a citation. Just tell me the author's last name and the date it was published and I'll be happy.

I hate paraphrased evidence, it makes misrepresentation easy, and I will vote on potential abuse. Please just read highlighted cards.

I LOVE evidence comparison, PLEASE rehighlight your opponent's cards and tell me why their authors suck, I BEG to be in the back of the room when you go for them.

Speaker points

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on strategy, delivery style, norm setting, and round conduct. I will disclose speaks, just ask. I'm trying to be objective about how I give speaks, I think speaks are a dumb thing overall and I try to be cognizant of the fact that they determine breaks.

I am very comfortable giving an L-25 to people who are rude or make debate a hostile place to exist.

If you just docbot, I will tank your speaks. Good speaks are for good debates and just reading prewritten blocks instead of making your own arguments does not make for good debates. Some of the messiest and most boring debates happen because debaters refuse to make arguments in round.

Speaks calculations:
I'm pretty relaxed on these with novice rounds and if there's tech issues, I'm not gonna tank your speaks for them, don't worry abt that.

+ .1 for each card you read that has your initials in the cite (you had to cut the card) and that has author quals and everything in the cite (Max is + 1.0, tell me if you want these during your prep, otherwise I'll probably miss it)
+ .5 if you send analytics in the doc
+ .5 if you innovate and read something unique and interesting that I haven't seen before
+ .1 for reading a PTX disad that was updated the day of the tournament.

- 1.0 for stealing prep
- 1.0 for misgendering someone (It's an auto loss if you do it twice. Be better)
- .5 if you don't send a doc
- .5 for weird gross purple highlighting
- .5 for calling me "Mr. Maher" or "Sir" this just makes me super uncomfortable.

25.3 if you lose disclosure theory at a TFA tournament that tells me I'm not allowed to vote on it. I think TFA is setting a bad precedent by enforcing rules about what arguments are/are not allowed to be made, and I want all arguments to have implications. Following these new rules, tanking speaks is the implication I can have access to. I fundamentally disagree with TFA's decision, I think any non-offensive argument should be able to be considered, but I don't want to get yelled at, so that's the best I can do.

25.3 and under is reserved for people who are rude/violent.
29.7 and over is reserved for people who are nice, give optimal speeches, and are organized.

I feel like asking for 30 speaks is silly.

CX: I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to policy.

Docbotting is probably not strategic but it won't hurt your speaks

RVIs are dumb in policy, condo is probably fine unless it's something absurd

PF: I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to PF.

I believe in norm setting for evidence norms: straight up if you send your evidence without being asked I will start your speaks at 29, I'm so tired of wasting time waiting for cards. Only way to get a 30 in pf is if you send a speechdoc with non-paraphrased evidence (policy style cards) like how every other event does it. If you choose not to send evidence initially and we end up wasting time (cumulatively over 5 minutes) for you to find it and send it, I will be docking speaks heavily.

If someone asks for evidence, sending a link to a study paper or webpage is not acceptable, you have a responsibility to clearly mark where you're paraphrasing from (that means send highlighted evidence). Each time it happens is -1 speaker point, I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote on it. Debate has clear standards for evidence and you don't get to just ignore them. This is like the simplest thing.

read paraphrasing theory

Flower Mound '25

2A at camp but primarily do LD.

um202190@umich.edu

flomospeechdocs@gmail.com

Coached and largely influenced by Vikrant Maan, Brett Cryan, Enya Pinjani, Bryce Sheffield, Peregrine Beckett, Raunak Dua, Tuyen Le, Aidan Etkin, Adarsh Agrawal, Agastya Sridharan, Sachin Aggarwal, and Sebastian Cho.

[Tournament]---[Round]---[Team] (Aff) vs [Team] (Neg)

CX is binding. Open CX is fine.

No inserts unless the words were already read in the debate. Rehighlights are fine.

Not voting on ad hominems under any circumstances.

I think intrinsicness tests are bad.

Default judge kick, competing interps, no RVIs, DTA, and comparative worlds.

robertou@umich.edu -- Send out the 1AC before the round if possible.

Have never read a k-aff or extended T-USFG.

It is up to the debaters to call out new arguments, I'll only intervene in the 2AR, though sometimes they are inevitable/necessary to resolve a late-breaking debate which is the 2Ns fault.

I acknowledge my pairing on the tabroom will cause a decision that a team will dislike. Therefore I will do my best to outline when I will intervene, but in general hope to practice non-intervention because debaters work hard and judges should not rob them of that work by intervening.

I'm not very knowledgeable on critical literature but will vote for Ks when technically won like in policy debates. Also I'm not that good at debate, feel free to tabroom surf from my wikis below if you want to know what that means.

I will not:

-vote on "new affs bad" or a similar theory argument if newly read in the block. Theory arguments that could have been introduced in the 1NC must be.

-evaluate ethics challenges in an offense-defense manner, only based on personal belief.

-evaluate death good if the other team said don't read death good in the pre-round/wiki.

-open the speech doc/docs until the debate ends.

-read evidence unless its referenced by name in the 2NR/2AR.

Defaults---easily swayed by in-round debating:

Hedonistic Util is good.

No Judge Kick.

Presumption affirms.

Reject the arg if applicable.

Zero risk requires a technical concession.

T>FWK>Condo/Perf Con>everything else.

Wikis:

https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy23/SanAngeloCentral
https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy22/Westwood
https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy21/Westwood

Speaks will be higher if you:

-send out the 1AC before the round.

-are chill/kind.

-are the only team from your school at the tournament.

-have a well updated/pretty wiki. The more pretty/well-updated the higher your speaks.

Extra:

I'am decently knowledgeable on and enjoy, complicated counterplan competition debates.

The only thing that should be on my computer screen during the debate is an excel sheet, and after the debate the speech docs/email and tabroom. If there's something else on my computer screen that isn't one of those three things feel free to call me out. To adjudicate clipping accusations I'll audio record the round and delete it afterwards if asked to.

Put me on the email chain: hannahowenspierre@gmail.com

About me: I debated for four years in LD at Edina High School in Minnesota. I've only ever debated and judged traditional debate, but I've watched progressive LD rounds. I was also the NSDA 2022 National Champion in LD and 2023 Top Speaker in LD. I won the 2023 Minnesota State tournament as well.

TLDR: Offensive rebuttals and extensions of offense are the key to winning any debate

Cases: Most importantly, have quality evidence. Don't mistag or miscite sources. Make sure to portray your sources accurately and don't extrapolate or exaggerate the claims they make. And make sure your sources are credible. Quality evidence from peer-reviewed studies, meta-analyses, etc are always preferable

Cross-Examination: This mostly goes towards speaking points AND it's good to incorporate into rebuttals. Too often cross is wasted on clarifying Q's. It is designed for offensive attacks and leading questions. Think about a lawyer's CX. CX in law is designed for trapping your witness and pointing out flaws in their case. The same is true for debate. Not just to ask about things you forgot to write down that you then don't even use. And always use the full cross-time.

Rebuttals: The biggest thing is clash. This means having offensive and specific blocks against your opponent's case. Offensive blocks are otherwise known as turns. I count evidence critique as a very good rebuttal as well. Evidence critique is often the most effective rebuttal in my experience. Don't let cross-application of the case be the only form of “rebuttal," because that's not a rebuttal, it's just restating your 1AC or 1NC. Signpost. Number your arguments and answer arguments in the order they were presented.

Clear extensions of arguments in rebuttals are also key (Extend contention 1 which says....). Extensions should contain the claim, warrant, and impact but they can still be brief. Explain the link and impact chains clearly and concisely. I was a big fan of pre-written extensions for the sake of clarity and time.

Weighing impacts is really important. In every debate, there is at least one argument being won on both sides (OK, almost every debate). The easiest way to do this is through specific impacts such as terminal impact evidence. Describe how many people are affected, how severely, etc to weigh against opponents' impacts.

Framework debate determines how you weigh the round. It unfortunately usually ends up being a wash, because both sides have arguments for/against the FWs but don't weigh why those arguments are most important/weigh under their opponent's framework. You should always do the second thing.

I will vote directly on the flow and weighing provided. Drops=conceded argument and weigh heavily in the round. I don’t have any ideological preference for specific arguments and will vote for literally anything as long as it’s extended and well explained. Tech>truth

Put me on the email chain - amlswick@gmail.com

Hi! Below are my paradigms and some resources for different events. Before all of that though is a little about myself! My name is Athan and my pronouns are They/Them/Theirs. The most formal thing I'm okay with being called is "Judge". I'm currently a college student (HOOK 'EM) who competed in speech and debate for 3 years at a high school that didn't have a lot of resources in general and specifically in speech and debate. In high school I did Policy, LD, WSD, Congress, Extemp, Prose, & Poetry. I look forward to being your judge, and if you have any questions at all feel free to ask in person or shoot me an email.

The biggest thing on my paradigm is funnily enough, not specific to any event. In a round, I will DROP or RANK LAST anybody who makes bigoted arguments or takes a hostile action. I don't know the beef, and if I think you're being unfair in round my ballot will reflect that. More than anything, Speech and Debate is an activity of growth that should be available to anyone who wishes to participate, if you are an active hindrance to that I won't tolerate it. AlsoPLEASE GIVE CONTENT WARNINGS if your material calls for it. Speech and Debate is notorious for getting into sensitive subject matter very quickly and seemingly out of left field.

Debate: OKAY! This ALL subject to change as I judge more rounds and change my understanding what I believe debate to be. Last edit April, 2024

I think one of the biggest things that separates debate events from IEs is that debtors have the opportunity to just create the rules. That's something that I quite honestly love and wish was possible in IEs. In spirit of that, that my entire debate paradigm is up for debate. I am willing to change my paradigm in round if a good enough argument is made against it. With one exception, ✨Evidence Ethics✨. Please please please please please please please please please please PLEASE be ethical with your evidence. Properly cite it, don't lie about what your evidence says, where it's from, or anything similar. I've dropped debaters in the past for this, I will probably drop debaters in the future for it, it's sadly incredibly rampant in the community (at locals especially), and it's a very serious offense in my eyes.

Spreading? Huge fan! Can't super keep up with it though. I did Trad Policy in HS, so my flowing ability reflects that. If you speak so fast that I miss something that's tough I won't flow it [which is why you extend]. If you do decide to speak fast I won't drop you, but please slow down and really enunciate at specific things you want writen on my flow verbatim/paraphrased closely. If I really can't hear you I'll yell "clear" and I'll expect you to slow down and enunciate.

Moving along, who said debate had to be boring or full of jargon? I am a fan of style! Don't just read evidence, give me analysis on how it functions in-round and do it with some flair if possible. Make me laugh? That's some extra speaks. Do anything memorable? Higher rank than someone who didn't. At its core this is a public speaking event, it's meant to build your communicative abilities, so take risks, be "lame", be "corny", be you.

Also ALSO, I like weird arguments. Is there some objectively bad / uncompetitive argument that you've been trying to find a round to use it in? Guess who's definitely open to voting for it (ME), so go crazy.

Lastly, I'm a fan of reading paradigms, so in an effort to incentivize that at the beginning or end of one your speeches say "Judge, you can't farm tuna, give me a speaker point" and I'll give you +1 speaks.

CX/Policy -

As it stands right now, I'm pretty sure I'm a mix of Tabula Rasa & Game Theorist, though honestly every debater should be skeptical of judges who just use a label and don't explain their positions or at the very least their history. I've been trying pretty hard to be a non-interventionist judge, but I was brought up Trad, so it's a battle. Quite literally, I have two wolves inside me. I like to think I'd vote any argument, a concrete list of arguments I know I'd vote on are Theory, Topicality, Ks, K Affs, Case Args, Plans, Disadds, CounterPlans, and Tricks. Be warned, I have very little experience with K debate, so if you run a K please take the time to explain to me how it functions. I'm pretty big on theory arguments having voters, so don't just tell me "X thing is bad" and hope I'll take it off the flow impact it out. Counterinterp > Reasonability; please have standards so I can effectively judge both interps. If you are trying to win on theory and your opponent is any level of competent / the abuse isn't incredibly blatant you should almost definitely be collapsing onto theory, or, at the very least, spending a substantially amount of time on it. On final speeches, I love voters! Mmmmmm I love voters so much. Tell me what I should be voting and why. Ballots for rounds I judge with people who write my ballot for me are usually look like what they told me to write out in my ballot.

LD - I did LD and Policy in HS. I'm open to progressive LD arguments, just not its speed (see spreading above). I am a fan of framework debate, I think it gives LD a lot of arguments that just won't fly in CX. Util is boring and basic, useful, but boring and basic. Util has a myriad of counter-arguments that allow for interesting debate. If the debate comes down to Util vs Util please for the love of god do impact calculus. With all of that said, I do believe you can win framework and lose the round, so don't go all in unless you have a very clear line of reasoning that prevents the other side from accessing offense through your framework (There are theory args that attempt to win round on framework alone, which is something I am open to voting on). On case, feel free to go crazy. Like I mentioned earlier I'm here for it all, that means K, Theory, Topicality, Disads, Counterplans, Advantage Take Outs, and Turns. Really the one thing I'm not a huge fan of in LD is extinction args, really in general, but esp in LD. If you have an extinction impact you better have a solid link chain and a damn good warrant. Have fun, don't be intentionally abusive.

PF - I think it's tough that this event is explicitly formatted not to incentivize K's and to a lesser extent Theory as well. I'll def still vote on them if you run though. Look to policy for my paradigm.

Congress - Briefly, I view Congress as more so a debate event than a speech event. That means I'm not looking too much at the speeches side long as what you say is killer. If you give a crazy rebuttal that delinks and/or turns the main points contention and generates solid defense or offense for your side’s key points but sounds robotic while you do it, I’ll probably still rank you highly, esp if most of the other time has been spent on pretty speeches and surface level analysis. To further, I really really like analysis that changes how I feel as though the round should be argued. I will almost definitely rank you highly if you consistently introduce analysis like that. PO will probably break in round as long as they aren’t more so a detriment than a help. Most of all have fun with it. Congress can get so boring so feel free to add some spice.

That being said, congress is also a speaking event and so I'll be looking for those things that let me know you're an effective communicator. Things specific to congress are presence, LARPing, and understanding of speaking cycle. Congress people who exert influence over the chamber are noticed more readily by myself and a lot of other judges (if its through motions and POIs it also serves as a demonstration of the finer more technical points of parliamentary procedure which I enjoy). On LARPing I think you should lean into it and that in general it's just funny. The best congressional debaters lean into the fact that the event encourages the LARP and fully immerse themselves, their content, and their mannerisms within that context; if you ever find yourself wondering "Should I be more or less LARP-y" in a congress setting the answer is always more. Understanding speaking cycles I feel like is pretty self explanatory. Don't give me a speech that feels like a constructive as the 11 speaker, don't rehash points your side of the debate as mentioned 3+ times, give a crystallization speech at toward the end of the debate, and please for the love of god DONT be afraid to give a first affirmative or first negative, esp in competitive tournaments (like c'mon y'all quite literally you're the best of the best of the best, if you won't do it who will?) Finally the "Extemp" and "IEs" portion of my paradigm neatly sum up my ideas on what good speaking looks like. As a final note, I hate the super cookie cutter congress style. Please for the love of everything change it up, even if it's only the amount of cadences or times you raise your voice for emphasis.

WSD -I think every team should ask at least 1 POI, preferably 2 - 4 per speech. For worlds I place a lot more emphasis on argumentation than style, but if you do some stylistically cool things I'll reflect upon that favorably. I esp like when things seem to have been extemp-d in round, so good POI responses I find to be very neat.

Speech:

Extemp - By far my favorite event. Does the fact that it’s my best event have something to do with it?? Maybeeeeee. On what I like to see though? The first and most important thing are the basics. If you're unfamiliar, study up! You should have a strong grasp on macro-level organization and at least a understanding (consciously or not) of microlevel organization, you should be able to continue speaking after a stumble (big or small) in a coherent manner, your points should be logically sound (fallacies make my heart sad & your in round ranking low) and contain a Claim - Warrant - Impact (data too, but honestly warrant > data in extemp, you could just be making things up), and CONFIDENCE oh my goodness so many rounds can and have been won off of confidence alone.

-Also huge tip for novice extempers: presenting as an authority figure on your topic is big for a lot of extemp judges in the Central Texas Circuit, so it’ll be a huge help to your extemp career if you work on reaching the 6:30 mark consistently, sounding confident regardless of whether our not you feel confident, infusing emotion into your speech, and “professionalism” (this term is so nebulous and gives me the ick. a lot of extemp judges take it v seriously though).

The next thing I like to see is(assuming mastery of the basics) advocacy, advocacy, advocacy. As an extemper you are a story teller. Often times in extemp as a competitor you find yourself telling people about events that they have little to no understanding about, and so you control narrative. With this control of the narrative you should use it to center the people who are being harmed, esp those being harmed by the materialization of seemingly abstract societal concepts (like patriarchy, imperialism, etc). By the end of your speech I should have a clear idea of those who are being advocated for and the relationship they have between those who are perpetuating harm. Along with the content it can’t be underplayed how important it is for you to speak fluently. You can’t convey the story of another person if people won’t give you the time of day. This doesn’t mean I’ll rank you as last speaker if you stumble a few times, but long pauses, continual and frequent vocal breaks in fluency, or distracting body language won’t do you any favors. Punching down is a big no-no for me, esp in the realm of comedy I have ranked folks last in round for an inappropriate joke and I'm very much so prepared to do again without hesitation.

For my intermediate+ extempers I’ll be looking for style, flair, and little things that demonstrate your skill in the event and mastery of the more technical elements of the event like use of a theme (or extremely clear line of reasoning/convergent point), NON CANNED, TOPIC SPECIFIC INTROS (this is my #1 point of improvement, your AGD is my first introduction to your speaking and you want to start it off with something non-unique, low effort, and often times un-inventive? that makes me sad.)multiple rhetorical devices in speech, compelling SoS, high level organization (substructure), use of experts or highly qualified sources (professors, research studies, multinational service organizations, research centers, etc), mini agds before contentions, efficient use of time, effective use of performance space, and switches in general but esp mood/tone. Honestly my advice? If you make it to higher level tournaments, but are yet to break at one you need to go back to the fundamentals/basics. A lot of intermediate extempers I've encountered will do some really cool advanced stuff and then have multiple logical fallacies, improperly use their time, or (god forbid) not answer the question.

I'll be evaluating rounds on a range of factors and for sure won't immediately vote you down if you don't demonstrate perfect mastery over the elements listed, but it makes it a much harder, uphill battle to give you the 1 - 3 if you made an elementary level mistake but incorporated multiple advanced technical elements vs someone who should complete mastery over all fundamental concepts and showed budding knowledge of the more technical elements of the event.

As a final, please give me the publication/organization, author, and exact date of evidence you use in your speech. If you have a non-mainstream source, please qualify the author or the organization. This is an academic activity and I'll be looking for citations as such.

IEs - Honestly GLHF, like there's not much to say here. Me personally? I don't think it's a good idea to try taking major risks and/or highly tailoring your piece to judge preferences unless you're in an extremely stacked room, even then though judges have a tendency to be switched around, replaced, and/or absent. Though honestly it's in all those smaller tournaments and less important rooms that you should be the most creative in. Explore things you haven't thought of, do things you you've only ever considered in the abstract,HAVE FUN.

In any case, I pay a lot of attention to characterization - I want to see you become the character through properties and traits unique to them. Which also means I SHOULD FEEL A DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU START PERFORMING. I don't care who you are, I care who you become and whether or not you can consistently continue to be that person(or those persons) throughout your performance. Your volume and the emotions conveyed through your voice are vitally important too. You shouldn't be flat, people are dynamic and so should the emotions and people portrayed. I'm a huge proponent of using space effective manner, even if your event constrains you to a specific point in space I think there are ways for you to interact with the environment that make the piece more interesting and unique to the medium. I'm not super strict about time in IEs as long as you don't go over the grace period I generally don't care.

amlswick@gmail.com if you have any questions at all:)

Hey y'all! I'm Will (he/him) and I primarily did LD on the National Circuit. Qualified to the TOC my senior year reading every argument under the sun.

Yale '28. Go bulldogs!

If you're a FGLI student or associated with a UDL, Title 1 School, or Questbridge (either a match finalist or college prep scholar), please feel free to reach out for advice regarding researching/applying to colleges. If I don't respond in a few days shoot a follow-up email.

Speechdrop is easier but I prefer email chain.

Email: trinhwilliam258@gmail.com

Feel free to ask questions to that email before or after any round/tournament!

Please format email chains properly. “Tournament Name (Year) -- Round # -- Aff School [team code] vs Neg School [team code].

Example: “TOC Digital 3 2024 Round 3 AFF Southern California Debate Union RN vs NEG Heritage WT”

I expect email chains to be sent on time (ideally sent 2 minutes before start time so we can begin on time) or else whoever is responsible for the delay gets -0.1 speaks a minute the 1AC is late. This obviously does not apply if I am not in the room or I am still getting stuff ready. That is on me and I'll let you know when I'm good. This also does not apply if the internet is being stupid.

I've been getting a lot of questions about this recently. Tech>>>Truth. Go for whatever frivolous shell (or true shell) you want if you are confident in beating your opponent on the LBL so long as it isn't smth like clothes theory.

Shortened this cause yapping is silly but if you wanna see my weird takes here's this document.

This paradigm will only include stuff for prefs/weird defaults I have that can all be reversed in two seconds.

I am a slightly more fascist but less grumpy version of Holden Bukowsky so you can pref me where you would pref them but lower cause I'm young.

The prefs below don't represent my particular liking for arguments but rather my ability to comfortably evaluate them.

LD Prefs:

1: Policy or Kritikal Arguments. T (of all types) Straight up Phil. Clash rounds

3-4: Tricky Phil (Determinism is not tricky).

4-5: Dense Theory Shells/Trix

Clipping tags and analytics have not been, are not, and will never be a thing. If your opponent cannot flow, they should lose. If your judge also cannot flow, you should strike them. Saying the words 'clipping tags' will result in a reverse postround.

I would prefer that teams learn to flow rather than ask for marked docs. To be clear if a speech marked a lot of cards (as in didn't read fully as opposed to skip), I think asking for a marked doc is fine.

I primarily flow on my laptop (paper is when things get desperate). I will flow author names and top down. I will only flow the words I hear you say. I will only open the speech doc during CX, prep, or after round to read evidence. You can be as fast as you want but please slow down or clear up when I shout clear. You get 3 free clears before I start tanking speaks.

I don't know if this means anything, but some of my friends in Debate I share varying levels of takes with include Albert Cai, Aiden Kim, and Iva Liu.

TLDR:

I have massive respect for all the work people do for debates. I am tired of seeing teams not put their best foot forward because of judge dogmatism. Thus, I promise you I will do the best of my ability to evaluate every argument before me. These days, most debaters are more scared of incompetent judges than their opponents themselves. As such, I will try to not intervene unless necessary such as in the event of safety of a student or if an argument is truly irresolvable.

Stick to your guns and do whatever. Go for T-Framework. Go for planless affirmatives. Go for the K. Go for extinction outweighs+Plan focus. Go NC/AC. Go for whatever. Just do it well and put thought into it and your speaks will go up.

The statement below is stolen from Lizzie Su.

That being said, I will only vote on ARGUMENTs. That is claims with warrants. I have no problem voting on some absurd arguments in debate such as skep or must disclose round reports but you cannot extend a shell hidden in the 1AC for 6 seconds in the 1AR like no neg fiat and expect to win.

Nonnegotiable

Safety first. I refuse to vote on "arguments" such as "Truth Testing/Skep takes out misgendering/racism/other objectively morally repugnant things." Be a decent human being or else expect an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Cross-Ex is good and is best used as a speech. I am fine with you prepping while asking and answering a question but you cannot say "I'll take the rest of CX as prep."

Claims I refuse to vote on regardless of how you warrant them. (Many stolen from Alice Waters)

Evaluate/Adjudicate (you get the idea) after the 1AC/1NC.

Ad homs/arguments about a debater/ callouts (if something is genuinely unsafe for you, let me or tab know before round.)

Any morally repugnant arg (i.e. saying racism good, saying slurs, etc.) (No you can still read heg good vs Indentity affs...) The debate will end.

Shells that dictate what your opponent must do outside the context of a debate round/dress/you get the idea. (Disclosure is something in the round).

Give me/my opponent [x] speaks

No aff/neg arguments, or any other argument that precludes your opponent from answering based on the truth of the argument. I will not vote on no 2NR I Meets or the like.

Arguments that were read in a speech but you say were not in CX or that you do not mention if asked what was read (for instance: if being asked if there are any indep. voters and you do not mention one, that is not a viable collapse anymore)

Prep ends when the doc is saved. Please don't abuse this privilege to take 2 minutes to send a speech document.

Misc: All of this can be changed with well-warranted argumentation. Debate it out.

"K debaters cheat. Policy debaters lie. If you believe both these statements to be true pref me in the 1-25th percentile."

Offense/Defense Good.

Topicality>ROTB/Judge Instruction (like K Framework)>Theory>Substance

Competing Interps, DTA, No RVI

Permissibility and Presumption Negate

Comparative Worlds

Epistemic Confidence

Logic outweighs

TJFs are questionable but winnable.

Insert rehighlighting is fine if explained AND it's in the same part of the article/book whatever. If it's a different part of the article, read it.

By insert rehiglighting, you must explain in the speech you insert it what you are trying to assert... i.e you must say "X piece of evidence concludes (insert fact) Insert!" You cannot do "X concludes neg. Insert!" The former is evidence comparison. The other is stupidity.

Same thing applies to inserting perm texts.

I was in LD and state-wide extemp debate at Newtown High School (2006-2008); I've also judged tournaments off and on throughout my college and working years (2010+).

On speed (slow please): I used to speak fairly quickly in my own rounds, but in the real-world the slow spread, speaking slowly, or great word economy will help you in your own careers long-term. You will likely need to persuade people higher up the ladder or others (e.g. in college/job interviews) down the road: this work requires clarity and persuasion. Generally speed at -2X. I'll flow throughout the round.

On structure:

1. Don't want to use a value/vc framework (LD)? Fine. Want to have a ton of a priori arguments, underviews, overviews etc.. No worries. Give me a heads up on what you're using and how I should evaluate it if you're doing anything that's not a value/vc f/w.
2. I like when you're creative and throw in interesting arguments that make me think; use whatever technical terms you want but I need you to explain what they mean to you etc.
3. Always a fan of weighing. Do the work and tell me how I should evaluate the round :). Looking for multiple voting issuses.
4. If someone is making arguments that seem silly and unlikely, I need to hear specficially why they are silly and unlikely.

A bit more..

1. Looking for things like sign posting (tell me where you are going e.g. opponent contention 1), enumerating (numbering) your arguments, weighing (also why your weighing is better than your opponents or why I prefer yours), talking about the argument that was dropped or why you're extending through something etc.
2. Don't forget to breathe and take a chance to practice some voice inflection when making an argument.
3. Try hard to use plain language: the ability to translate more technical terms into easy-to-understand language is key.
4. If you’re extending something, briefly summarize the extension (try hard for less blippy extensions while balancing being succinct).

On cards: When reading off cards, I'm looking for some synthesis e.g. (1) what is this person saying (2) why does it help your argument. I still see cards that have no actual evidence e.g. x person says Y; if your opponent goes in and says no warrant, there's not much I can do.

On final arguments: Again add that synthesis in. Show me where you extended an argument that was unresponded to and crystalize your main points. I can go do the work for you (it may not be what you like), but it's helpful as a speaker when you do it for me (summarize the round and tell me why you win). Give me multiple places to vote on via number (#1, #2, #3) even if we've collapsed issues (I won X of arg, I've turned their arg and it's better/worse in my world -- don't forget to generally mention oh and btw they aren't winning their offense).

On civility: Be kind. Having a great argument and being even-keeled in the process is great -- it makes for a persuasive speaker IMHO. Looking for CCC: calm, cool, and collected (though spirited debate is of course welcome).

Please do not shout at me or your opponent during the round. Please use the speaking voice you use every day when at school or talking to friends. There's no need to shout in the round for me to understand what you are saying. Thank you!

Sidwell '23, Dartmouth '27.

Please put me on the chain - s.k.wallace.09@gmail.com AND georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com (if policy).

Debate should be fun for everyone. If I can help you in any way when it comes to your comfort or safety in the round, let me know.

OV:

1. I don't have much topic knowledge.

2. I will not open docs until after the debate ends.

3. You must disclose anything that isn't new.

4. I am best for teams that, in the 2NR/2AR, tell a cohesive and pretty story about the technical debating that has occurred. If this is helpful, I am most persuaded by teams that debate like: Georgetown AM/BK/KL, Dartmouth SV/TV, Wake EF, Harvard BS.

Policy stuff:

I judge this most.

I basically only read cards as a tiebreaker for technical debating in close debates.

Try or die framing is not very persuasive to me. I evaluate relative risk of advantage vs disadvantage. The risk of the advantage linearly decreases with the risk of solvency.

Arguments about the procedure of debate/debating counterplans are more persuasive to me as theory, not competition. This is not a particularly strong opinion.

I will almost certainly not reject the team for anything other than conditionality.

Planless affs:

I don't judge this much. My voting record is 50/50. I vote affirmative either when the negative drops a trick, or the aff wins sufficient defense to neg debatability offense such that a K of the reading/imposition of T outweighs.

I can't imagine a 2AR that convinces me to vote on "they flipped neg to read T and that's bad." It's a logical criticism of a non-topical affirmative. Similarly, if the 2NR doesn’t go for T, it will be hard to persuade me to vote on disads to their interpretation.

K:

I judge this a bit more. My voting record leans slightly policy. This is broadly a reflection of who has done the better technical debating in the particular rounds I have judged. I generally vote negative when the neg wins a framework argument and a link that outweighs aff link turns.

I really enjoy critiques that make aff specific and nuanced arguments for why the affirmative is bad, premised on framework arguments that emphasize the importance of how we do research or justify policy.

I am very bad for Ks that rely on the logic of cause and effect - if links are non-unique, it makes no sense to attempt to attempt to garner offense from a unique consequence of the plan.

"Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me."

mediocre Policy/LD debater at Canyon Crest --email chain: saihanyiruo.sd@gmail.com.

I try to be a normal person and NOT think about this activity as much as I used to...

reach out to me if you had any concerns about my ballot, issues before and after round, and at the tournament.

UPDATE for MS States: I have never judged Congress in my life lol take that how you will. I do not know the topic whatsoever except for the things that CHSSA provided me in the live doc. pretend that I am a parent judge.

GENERAL

• i'll yell clear once -- if i can't flow you i will stop paying attention
• i wont vote on something that happened outside of the round
• good analytics > good cards > bad cards > bad analytics
• tech > truthy tech > techy truth > truth. the more mishandled the arguments get, the more judge intervention i have to do. please don't make me do that or your speaks will suffer greatly.
• i write my ballot during the last two/four speeches -- tell me how to vote and feel free to overexplain things

Policy/LD

• assume no topic knowledge
• CP/DA -- yes.
• K/K Aff -- SCROLL DOWN
• not good for high level theory, trix, or phil
• tag team ok, spreading good
• condo 3 or more is bad

PF

• assume no topic knowledge
• pref me at your own risk
• PF is a speech focused event
• skip offtime roadmaps of "my case their case weighing"

Things that can get you a speaks bump:

• bring me food
• email me a list of 5 songs that i should listen to
• be funny

ABOUT KRITIKS

if ur reading philosophers please break it down for me. However, I'm good with most common K positions like cap, set col, queer pess, necroptx, etc. please feel free to ask because i wouldnt want you to realize i have no idea what your k aff is until the 2ac

***K RANT

I am sick and tired of seeing and debating against k debaters that run k affs that have nothing to do with the resolution. you HAVE to use the resolution as a point of stasis, otherwise u are wasting other ppls time.

"being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays. arguments are ridiculously disingenuous with little to no academic validity. quite a few authors would disagree with the arguments being produced in their name and it’s disappointing. make actual warranted arguments and interact with competing thesis claims." - sim low

***PF PROGRESSIVE DEBATE RANT

pf isnt the place for prog, so don't run it. believe me that when a parent judge walks into a pf round, they do not expect nor want to hear your 200 wpm lecture on the beliefs of some old dead guy. when i as a circuit judge walk into a pf round i am not expecting u to talk at 200 wpm, and i dont want to hear it. just bc i know prog doesnt mean that i want to judge it in PF. no theory unless its actually legitimate either. if u wanna run prog it might be worth asking me for my preferences first or striking me.