Tabroom.com

The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks

2014 — TX/US

LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tim Alderete The Meadows School 4 rounds

Erik Baker Evanston High School 6 rounds None

Sebastian Barnes Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 16, 2015 at 3:53 AM CDT

Barnes, Sebastian Edit 0 24…
I debated for 4 years at Grapevine High School as well as working on and off with the UNT debate team.I have little experience with the topic as of yet so please try to be explicit with what your arguments are talking about if they are specific to infrastructure.

I will be as impartial with arguments as possible. I think it should be up to the teams where the debate goes. I debated both policy and kritikally all throughout high school, and understand both sides equally. Give me a framework with which to evaluate the specific round. It may make sense to do this on a separate sheet, although generally embedding this discussion in the impact calculus is fine. If there is no discussion of framework I will almost always default to offense / defense as it is generally the most objective. (to clarify, that doesn't mean I think this is a particularly good or true framework. It's just simple and easy to use when nothing else comes up.)

T/ theory: These debates are not challenging to win, but debaters tend not to impact these debates. It's not enough to just say “They abuse us, and we lose ground.” There needs to be explanation of why that happens as well as why what you lose is critical to debate or education. If these impacts are not well explained I will default to reasonablity / reject the argument not the team.

Non – traditional arguements: I love experimentation. Imaginative new ways of debating make me happy, so if you are looking to experiment I will be a good judge to try that with. That being said singing me a ballad with no explanation as to why that is good for debate isn't going to earn my ballot.

“Dumb” / squirrely arguments: Again, I like variety in debate. If you really want to show off, and prove you can win on spark, wipeout, ashtar, or whatever go for it. That being said if you can't read these arguments in a way I would consider at least possibly successful your speaks will be docked for wasting everyone's time.

Argument precedes evidence. Always. No matter how much evidence you read if you are wrong you lose. I try to avoid reading too many cards after the round. If something is very well articulated in a card let me know but if you say I need to look at more than 5 cards after the round I will probably stop believing you (obviously there are exceptions, but as a general rule don't let your evidence lead the debate.)

Unless someone makes an argument otherwise going for a counterplan in the 2nr gives up the defense of the status quo.

If you are unclear the I will yell “clear.” If you decide to ignore me I will ignore you.

As a final note please be kind no matter what you think of the other team. Speaker points will reflect not only how well you speak, but how well you act. Treat the other team badly enough, and I could start looking for reasons to vote against you.

Hopefully this will be enough to give you a basic understanding of what I will judge like, but if you feel like there is anything I should add feel free to let me know.

Chris Bentley Brentwood School 4 rounds

Mike Bietz Harvard-Westlake School 1 rounds

Bekah Boyer Greenhill School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 2, 2020 at 1:41 PM CDT

Updated for 2020

Top of mind:

· I default to a comparative worlds paradigm. I would like the affirmative to do something; the negative’s job is to prove why that action is bad/undesirable.

· I need a weighing mechanism and offense that links in to that weighing mechanism. Unless given another method, I will default to v/c structure as the mechanism to evaluate & prioritize the round impacts, otherwise. I acknowledge and endorse the advent of multiple, valid methods of argumentation, but I prefer a topic-centered evidence debate comparing pragmatic solutions using CBA, but you do you. Whatever you do, please make an effort to do it well (your arguments must have warrants). Most importantly, I need you to outline how both debaters can expect to access my ballot - particularly if you are employing a non-traditional method of debate

About me: I competed on various circuits, first in policy debate for 2 years, LD for another 2 at Colleyville Heritage in TX under Dave Huston from 2005-2009. I've worked at Greenhill School as an assistant LD coach under Aaron Timmons from 2010-2018. I haven't been actively involved in debate at all since 2018, but below is still true - I'm just "old."

I'm helping Trinity High School in Texas for the 2020 Debate season.

I feel very strongly about evidence ethics in academia.

IF YOU DO NOT SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE IN SOME WAY WITH YOUR OPPONENT (EITHER THROUGH FLASHING, VIEWING LAPTOPS, SHARING COMPUTERS, E-MAIL CHAINS OR PAPER COPIES) I WILL NOT CALL FOR IT AFTER THE ROUND. Exceptions will be dependent on previous disclosure of the citations and extenuating circumstance.

DO NOT CLIP CARDS - Every time you clip a card, a kitten gets kicked. Don't kick kittens; don't clip cards. You will lose the round if you have clipped. I will not be lenient on this issue. I may spare speaker points if you attempt to follow the norms outlined or demonstrate a norm that prevents the harms of clipping, etc. *e.g. "saying "cut the card there" and then IMMEDIATELY marking where it is cut instead of saying "cut the card at (last word spoken)."

Check out this article if you don't understand "card clipping."
<http://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/>

I expect cites to be able to be provided for all evidence used. I reserve the right to call for them if I so choose - I may do so randomly or if I suspect something is amiss. Evidence ethics is extremely important, and I will let card-clipping, plagiarism, and forged evidence affect my decision as I see fit - in the past, it has just affected speaker points. If it is an egregious, intentional violation (yes, I determine this) I may vote you down/decrease your speaks/refuse to vote on that argument, even if your opponent does not point it out; if your opponent does indicate that I should punish, I will be more comfortable smiting your points.
If you do not know how to cite something,
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/ is a great resource.
I am happy to talk to you about this. Seriously, y'all, people get kicked out university/have their careers ruined for improper, albeit unintentional, citation. I'm not opposed to an entirely analytical case if you don't want to take the time to give credit where credit is due.
One great way to combat this in the community is to disclose your positions on
http://hsld.debatecoaches.org/bin/view/Main/

Speech Docs:

You can e-mail speech docs to bekahboyer@gmail.com

If I'm sent a speech doc, I will only open it during CX to follow along with questions about the evidence. Pointed indictments about evidence will increase speaker points.

Generally, I don’t call for evidence, unless the debaters haven’t gone in depth enough with a contestation or I want to give you tips, but I do feel comfortable calling for evidence when I I want to see it.

What is on my flow is what counts. You will be able to tell if I am lost or confused.
I consider myself alright at flowing, but I am not afraid to admit I am not perfect or even close to the best. That said, I will not vote on something that I:
a) do not not understand
and/or
b) don't have on the flow

o If you want to win an argument you need to start by extending, at minimum, the basic parts of the argument (e.g. You need to extend T/theory violations; ROB/standards/weighing mechanisms if you want me to vote on them)

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree) .

What I don't want: having to wade through the arguments and establish my own opinion

Speaking:

· I'm fine with speed, but I'd prefer you to make a couple of really solid arguments than many blippy ones. I will say clear twice per speech before I stop flowing that speech. After a 3rd "clear" in a speech/round speaks will be noticeably affected. Speed is a strategy - I will be annoyed if you go super fast just to make 4 underdeveloped arguments and sit down with lots of time left. Also, now that I'm old (and during e-Debate), please default to going slowly, esp on card tags and theory args.

· Best way to make sure we are on the same page? Be clear. SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU ARTICULATE A WARRANT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN ROUND. I have a terrible poker face. Use that to your advantage. It is obvious when I am not getting something. Loudness and/or clarity is usually more of the issue for me than speed and if I am having a “bad disability day” with my hearing, I will let you know at the beginning of the round so we can all start at a higher volume.

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree).

o Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters. This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws. AND it will increase your speaker points

· Speaker Points, in general-

o I try to average a 28.5

o A good debater who does everything necessary to win with a smart strategy and clear extensions, evidence comparison, and weighing between arguments will receive a 29-29.8. If it is a local, Texas tournament and I think you should break, I will give you a 29+ ; @ TOC circuit tournaments, anything above a 29 means I think you are the bees knees.

o I only give 30sin certain circumstances, usually for a perfect speech, and I will tell you why you got one. In a given season, I usually give 2-3 30s.

o I assume everyone starts with a 27.5 you go up or down by tenths of a point based on strategy, extensions, speaking style, etc --- if tenths aren't available, I will round to the nearest .5. If I round up, I will indicate that on the ballot or in the RFD. Yes, I know this is subjective: welcome to any evaluation of public speaking.

o Protip: If you give me a phrase I write on my ballot, I start you at a 29 automatically instead of 27.5.

-If you are neg and don't flow the 2ar, I will dock .5 speaker point

Argument Specific Questions:
Theory

o I don't like frivolous theory arguments - I tend to find them underdeveloped and not enjoyable to judge. BUT, I love topicality debate, especially if the 2n goes all in on it.

o I default to drop the arg over drop the debater

o The in round abuse story needs to be strong if I am going to drop the debater on theory

o I default to viewing Topicality/Theory as gateway issues, UNLESS other justifications/arguments are given

o If there is not a voter or a violation extended, I will not vote on theory/T.

o I default to reasonability on T if the interp is inclusive not exclusive. I prefer Competing interps because it leaves me less to wade through

o "Reasonability" vs "Competing Interps": Forget the buzzwords: everything collapses to reasonability if the debaters aren't doing comparative work. I would prefer you to have C/I's and substantial clash/weighing against each other's standards OR establish a metric of "reasonablity"

· RVI's –

o I don’t think you should win by being topical or fair; those are obligations and should not be rewarded --- It is unlikely that I will vote on RVI from an I/M on Topicality unless there is demonstrated abuse in the round (you can prove this by running something where the link depends on the interp --- or you can establish it in CX).

o I am more open to independently justified voters against T/Theory than I am RVIs (e.g., T Is racist)

o I am open to listening to RVIs as long as there is clear, obvious weighing between the standards of a competing interpretation!

Default Spikes/Presumption/etc:

· I hate skep triggers and presumption. You can run them, but I will be annoyed. It’s a pretty common strategy... mostly because it's easy. I have voted on them when the lack of clash leaves me no other option and speaks have suffered. Risk of offense means I will unlikely resort to this. Prove to me why you don't need them and speaks will certainly reflect that.

· I just need a reason why those arguments are true, just like any other argument AND how they function as offense/terminal defense. Those arguments have strategic value; I just fear the trend that many debaters employ: blippy spikes as a crutch to avoid substance. If you want to discuss this, please let me know.

Narratives/Micro political arguments –

· I am alright with these. I do believe that the debate space can allow the oppressed to speak.

· I am a firm advocate of the consensual nature of all dialogue. The speech act is half talking and half listening: it is undesirable to force people to participate in discourse that would wound them in some way.

· If the narrative is graphic, I expect you to disclose the nature of the discussion before the round starts to warn me, your opponent, and anyone in the room. Feel free to talk to me about this.

"Policy" Args versus "Traditonal" versus whatever:
Debate is debate. An argument is an argument. As long as it has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I'll listen.
o A CP need a net benefit. Solvency deficits on their own do not make a CP competitive – e.g. If the CP solves the aff and the aff solves with a risk of advantage and no unique advantage on the CP, I will affirm.

Perms are a test of competition (Affs should have clearly stated perm texts to minimize confusion and/or potential severance)

Misc. Laundry List of Paradigmatic questions:

· You gotta have uniqueness to win a turn.

· If there is inherent harm in the squo and there is a risk that action would solve for that harm, I will take that action. (meaning I'm extremely partial to "risk of solvency" args). Defense doesn't win debate rounds.

Other Issues

Flex Prep:

I am okay with "Flex Prep" if that means you can ask questions during prep. If your "flex prep" is the practice in which you can apply cx time for extra prep, that's not cool. (ex: "I have 1:42 sec of CX left, I'll add that as prep."

Behavior:
Be kind to each other. We are all here because debate is awesome - though our reasons may vary. Be courteous and polite. Say what you need to say and stay appropriate.

Questions?:
If you want to do a rebuttal redo, ask how to clarify an argument/response you made, or ask me anything post-round, that is definitely alright. I will do my best to help with the time I am allotted.
Feel free to ask me anything I may not have covered adequately/did not address at all.
You can always reach me through e-mail at bekahboyer@gmail.com
If I don't respond to the follow-up email within 72 hours, please email again.

Tl; dr: You do you, but watch my face - if I am annoyed or look confused, proceed at your own risk.

Chris Castillo Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

I rarely read evidence after debates.
Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

Dylan Cavanaugh Grapevine High School 6 rounds None

Jerry Chen The Harker School 4 rounds None

Richard Colling Stony Point High School 4 rounds None

Daniel Conrad Calhoun Home School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 4, 2019 at 1:07 PM CDT

Debate experience

I debated in Varsity policy debate for Trinity University for one year and in the JV division for one semester, then I quit college policy debate. In high school, I did LD and PF for one year, then policy debate for two years, all on the TFA high school circuit. One year, I coached two high schoolers in LD. If I’m about to judge you in a round, it’s probably been a little while since I’ve last judged a tournament.

Judging paradigm—policy and LD

I love strategic debating. Smart, strategic maneuvers are awesome to see well-executed. As much as I love technical proficiency, I’ve got to provide a big caveat: I used to be great with speedy debate, but I’ve been away from the activity for a little while, so you should definitely prioritize clarity over speed. I won’t hear you at your fastest, and I know that sucks. Sorry about that.

I’m very familiar with kritikal debate, but I enjoy listening to all sorts of arguments. Nothing is sacred to me; I love listening to far-left kritiks and performance debates as much as I enjoy well-done topicality and framework debates against such affs, and the usual policy and LD shenanigans are just fine too.

I’ll pull the trigger on theory and I don’t have strong opinions about most theory arguments. “Kritiks are bad for debate” might be a tough sell, but literally anything else—from conditionality good/bad to all kinds of counterplan theory—is fair game. Please slow way down for theory. These debates are technical, fast and sometimes blippy, but you want me to have all of your arguments down. Spreading through prewritten theory blocks in the rebuttals is not the way to win my ballot on these debates.

Policy and critical debate alike are great, just be sure to be smart on the flow. Demonstrate strategic vision and situational awareness and you’ll be rewarded with speaker points. Similarly: strong signposting, or being able to guide me to distinct parts of the debate (from overviews, to the line-by-line, to different flows), is very much appreciated; poor behavior on the flow will annoy me, and I’ll probably subconsciously or unintentionally penalize you for it as I evaluate the arguments—and will definitely penalize you for it on speaks.

Despite my experience with K debate, you shouldn’t assume that I know everything about the theory you’re reading—your link, impact, and alternative explanations should be clear enough for me to articulate the kritik to your opponent, for instance. That can go for non-K concepts as well. Core concepts don’t need to be reexplained in the last rebuttals, especially if significant time has been spent on them in earlier speeches or in cross-examination, but it’s always good to be able to effectively respond to generic and specific responses on the line-by-line with nuanced takes on your critical theory.

I love LD framework debates. Policy debate doesn’t have enough philosophical deliberation. Just make sure to explain everything well enough for me to understand. Philosophy students are taught to write in such a way that a reasonably intelligent everyperson could understand them; similarly, you shouldn't come in with the notion that I already know the bulk of the literature behind your framework, because I probably don't. But I'd love to, so this shouldn't keep you from going for the NC instead of the impact turns (as fun as both options are!).

Debate is fun, and debate is a game. Debate can be personally meaningful and rewarding, but don’t forget that it’s a competition. At the end of the round I have to make a decision, sometimes when arguments relating to students’ personal livse are at stake, and I have to choose a winner and a loser. I hate that this can really hurt students’ feelings. I know I’ve been hurt by decisions before. Take pride in your hard work, no matter how I decide the round.

Judging paradigm—PF

Everything written above holds true for public forum debaters, generally; as weird as it is to hear about kritiks and theory in public forum, I understand that these arguments are becoming more popular, and I’m fine with you reading them. Don’t let that make it sound as if I’m unreceptive to traditional PF debate, though. I should emphasize that I will evaluate the debate based on who is winning the most important arguments. Your job is to focus the debate to a few issues that you’re winning and prove that they outweigh any issues your opponents might be winning. I’m not looking for techy line-by-line here, but responding to your opponents’ warrants and extending your most important arguments is crucial if you want me to be persuaded to vote for you. The worst is trying to vote after a PF round with very little, or very unfocused, clash—making my job easier will be rewarded in speaker points and ballots!

Theory stuff

I figured it’d be helpful to put a list of my default positions on theoretical issues in debates, so here I go. This is just a guideline of how I’ll consider things if these aren’t ever brought up in a debate, but I can be persuaded otherwise in a round, no problem.

Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies.
Presumption goes aff if the 2NR advocates anything other than the status quo.
I will not judge-kick an advocacy unless I’m told to. (And if I’m told not to, I probably won’t.)
I usually regard dropped arguments as true. That doesn’t apply to dropped shadow-extensions of claims without warrant.
On that note, smart analytics are way better than mediocre cards. Also, explain why your cards are good and why theirs are bad. Evidence analysis is undervalued and too rarely done in all forms of debate.
I’m receptive to total defense take-outs. The mere possibility of an impact scenario doesn’t make “try or die” work.

Speaker points

Impress me and you’ll get more. I’ve noticed that I’m a speaks fairy as it is. Maybe I’m too easily impressed, but things like clearly spreading, clear and technical line-by-line, well-executed strategic moves and going for theory well (and slowly) are all pretty neat stuff that I think should happen more often.

Contact information

I’m a big fan of discussing rounds in great depth after the round, but tournaments rarely allow for the time needed to really dissect a good round. Email me anytime at daniel@dconrad.me if you want to discuss a round in greater detail, or find me between rounds at the tournament and we can discuss stuff in our free time.

Shout-out to Darya Balybina for being a cool badass, y’all LD folk should pref her highly. Same goes for Cathy Terrace.

Ruben Delgado Law Magnet High School 6 rounds None

Fred Ditzian Lake Highland Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 4:50 AM EDT

Yale 2020

So yeah as you can tell it has been a while so I have no clue what has changed in debate or even what the topic is so just keep that in mind when debating in front of me. Nothing about my judging has changed aside from that. Good luck have fun.

Stanford 2017 Update
A lot of people regard me as a speaker fairy however, over the years I have become a saltier person as I get older and less tolerant of current debate practices you will all see the speaker points I award will definitely reflect this fact and therefore if you are looking for a speaker fairy I am not your guy. If you have any problems with this
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/209/784/5de.png . In all seriousness I have not judged that much this year so I am kind of rusty at flowing so please adapt if you want to win or get good speaks.

My judge philosophy is pretty simple I will vote on ANY argument so long as it is articulated well and is warranted. So long as that it is done there is no reason for me to just drop an argument I don't like.

Theory
Theory is just like any argument make sure to warrant it meaning an actual abuse story, warranting your interpretation, reasons why the standards are important, and why I vote on theory -why fairness, education, ect.. is important-

Kritikal Arugmentation
refer to the top

Evidence
I will call up evidence if I need to

Warrant Threshold

So sometimes people run really poorly warranted arguments and sometimes people also run really bad no warranted arguments please don't do these things it makes me sad if forced to I will have to do argument comparison myself if two arguments contradict but that won't do well for your speakers points. Granted different arguments require different level of warrants so all of this is rather subjective when I refer to my threshold on warrant analysis how you ought to compare these claims if if you don't do this then I will have to intervene which is bad.

Skep Triggers

People seem running this argument incorrectly -in my opinion- as some form of a hidden a priori at the risk of sounding very punny I will just let you know that one does not simply trigger skep if you want me to vote on skep the reasons why a meta-ethic provided in case will lead to skepticism if proven false -or some similar form of argumentation- need to be articulated and compared against alternative frameworks still standing in the round.

Getting the 30 -update since Harvard 2012-

Since many talented debaters can end up being screwed speaker point inflation and I have found myself judging at tournaments where cake is easily accessible I am going to sadly put an end to my previous paradigm of giving the 30 for chocolate cake or coffee instead I will simply award speakers points based off of strategic thinking and decision making if I find that your strategic choices were perfect than I can see no reason to not give you perfect speaks.

Edit Yale on speaks

I kind of have this reputation of being a speaker fairy -someone who just gives out high speaks willy nilly- but that was 2011 and before Fred a much nicer guy who seriously did not pay much mind to speaker inflation and didn't seem to adjust his speaks to prospective tournaments. Well I am afraid that I -2012 Fred- f@#%ing killed that guy here is a funny video to help you through the loss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDndS5N9tes ok that being said I am not a complete jerlI just don't give out 28-30s so please just debate well. Also I have been noticing that people tend to lie about their arguments in their last speech like as if I am not paying attention or something, this makes me want to dock your speaks now granted you might say "But 2012 Fred that seems kind of relevant and your perception of the round isn't perfect" I might say in return "If it was that blatant then you had it coming but I will let you explain yourself because well I don't like accusing people of things like that" either way I swear I am not a complete tool and generally don't give bad speaks unless the round was horrible if you ask me "Fred was I really that bad?" I will probably say "Oh hellz yeah" either way you can ask me. Now if you want specific ways to get good speaks from me I would suggest you pick good strategies and make good arguments and also I have noticed that when people make decisions easy for me and telling me specifically how to evaluate the round -and do this well obviously- I seem to give pretty good speaks just putting that out there. Also DON'T BE RUDE!!

Edit:
I have noticed that other judges have included this and to be honest I thought they were pretty good to add to this

1. As most college students I am generally pretty tired please try and keep me awake

2. In the absence of any reason to prefer either debater -including presumption or permissibility- I will be forced to intervene for the most intuitive argument but I would rather not be forced to do this though

Edit since Yale 13'

Sometimes judges like myself don't understand arguments and ideally don't vote on them however I am sympathetic to how people want to try arguments that may take a little more explaining so if I don't understand an argument I will make it clear that I am in a state confusion by flipping over my ballot -since apparently I am not good at controlling my face- to give you the opportunity to go "oh snap Fred's confused I should take time explain an argument better". In fact if you need any sort of indication of anything or feedback just ask.

EDIT FOR THE END OF ALL TIME

In order to get a 30 in front of me you must have swag END OF STORY. If you ask me what swag is then you clearly don't have swag and will never be able to understand the true meaning of swag so it would be pointless for me to explain it to you. Thus if you ask me, you will bring great shame upon your family.

edit from Harvard 13'
I am currently watching House of Cards but have only watched up to episode 3 if you begin talking about this show and mention anything past this episode that spoils it for me I will dock your speaks and then harm you physically think I am joking? Try me
edit from Emory 13'

Often times debate rounds are won or loss earlier than many debaters might think if I make it obvious that I have already made my decision please stop if you misjudged whether that actually happened I will make that also obvious also I don't worry I don't dock speaks for you failing to do this I just would like to spend less time judging is that so wrong?

MUY IMPORTANTE: I become an incredibly crappy judge -no seriously- when I am tired and you'll know I am tired because I will complain about it constantly if you want me to judge well I suggest you get me some caffiene to prevent me from being stupid -no seriously- or at least check if I have caffiene otherwise I am not going to make much sense. If you see me on the brink of falling asleep please yell at me and throw things at me do whatever it takes because I deserve it.
Speed
I can follow speed so long as you are speaking clearly -which I will let you know if you are not by yelling clear- however if I can't understand it I can't vote on it

Any specific questions can be asked before the round or you can email me at: fredditzian@gmail.com

eric emerson The Kinkaid School 2 rounds

Travis Fife Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 19, 2024 at 7:23 AM PDT

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

Ryan Fink The Harker School 4 rounds

Patrick Graham Law Magnet High School 6 rounds None

Paul Gravley Northland Christian School 4 rounds

Michael Harris Walt Whitman High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 6:19 AM PDT

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

-Have a debate about the standard.

-Come up with and articulate your own responses against your opponent's positions rather than hiding behind cards, and don't be blippy.

-Be very clear. Your spreading should be clear. Your explanations should be clear. It should be very clear in your last speech what my RFD would be if I'm voting for you. A good final speech makes me sign the ballot immediately because there is no ambiguity about how the round is breaking down.

-Start doing argument comparison as soon as possible. When responding to an argument, explain why your response is better/makes more sense than the original argument (leaving all of this work until the 2NR/the 2AR will require judge intervention on my part to resolve the debate. Also keep in mind that argument comparison is different than merely weighing impacts).

-I don't vote on disclosure theory. I don't like the concept of everyone knowing the full content of everyone else's positions in advance -- I think it leads to pre-scripted debates and has turned LD into an activity that focuses too much on evidence as opposed to analytic argument generation, which was a skill that LD used to be very good at training.

-I also don't vote on any theory or kritik that only links because of something that happened outside of the round.

-There are some concepts from policy-style debate that I plainly don't understand. Textual and functional competition, germane versus non-germane net benefits, how process cp's work... Explain yourself, and don't use jargon.

-1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

-I almost never read cards after the round. If you say insert rehighlighting without reading the card out loud, there is a 0% chance that the argument will have anything to do with my ballot.

Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

Michael P Harris Marcus High School 4 rounds None

Chad Henson Liberty Christian School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 5, 2014 at 10:28 AM CDT

Last updated: 01/05/2014

I am no longer actively involved in the college debate community, and have no stake in any fight. My time influencing this activity is done, and 10+ years was more than enough. If you're a debater reading this, debate is about you, not about me. Run what you want, and I'll evaluate it as best I can. On issues like the use of prep time for flashing evidence, I will go with whatever the community consensus is.

Debate Background: Debated NDT/CEDA (2002 - 2007) for Towson University and University of North Texas; coached Washington University in St. Louis (2012-2013), University of Illinois (2008 - 2011), Loyola Blakefield HS (2002-2004) and a number of high school LD debaters trying to make national circuit runs (in between). I now volunteer as a high school debate judge, and occasionally do so in college.

Education: B.A., University of North Texas; J.D., University of Illinois; M.S. (Finance), University of Illinois

Current occupation: Attorney. I do high stakes litigation, often focusing on economic modeling and damages work in intellectual property litigation.

The Role of the Judge in Debate

The role of a judge is to put forth a good faith effort to neutrally arbitrate a debate round according to standards that are broadly accepted by the debate community. I am willing to "abandon" this role only if you win an argument as to why I should. Doing this is almost always non-strategic for you, because it is precisely my fidelity to this role that makes me vote for arguments (and debaters) I dislike. Don't ask me to personally endorse your project, because then winning framework means that you're me to render a decision based on my personal beliefs, which are almost certainly not yours unless you're an anarcho-capitalist with an aretaic ethical bent. Ask me to vote because you have won that I *should* endorse your project based on the arguments in the round, and irrespective of my possible belief that your project is stupid, evil, and/or counterproductive. I usually assume that this latter view is what debaters mean, but more precision is better.

Ten Things You Should Know

1. I don't judge very often and may not be as capable of dealing with high rates of speed or as familiar with the currently in vogue argumentation as more experienced judges. I'll assume most things are my fault when it comes to speaker points, which tend to average in the mid-low 28's. I will make a good faith effort to flow you. I'll say "clear" or "slow" at least a couple of times before giving up and doing my best in silence - more if doing so actually results in increased clarity for me or I can see that you're trying. I will do my best to give a clear explanation of my decision in round and answer any questions you have about how things factored into my decision. I consider this a fair warning to everyone that there exist judges in a typical NDT/CEDA pool who are paradigmatically similar to me and more competent, so if you pref me highly knowing this I expect you to make a good faith effort to make the round comprehensible and non-painful for me. Specifically, successful debaters who desire high speaker points will do the following:
a. Include Explicit Substructure
b. Provide pen/processing time for taglines, which are read slowly and at a slightly different tone/pace from card text
c. Enumerate arguments - especially when arguments aren't carded.
d. Use easy-to-flow taglines, preferably consisting of small words, that reflect the argument in the card and/or the importance of that argument in the round.
Examples: "NEXT OFF: / POLITICS DISAD / A. / UNIQUENESS / Obama's political capital is high now, but avoiding drastic spending cuts in the upcoming budget will require all of it. New York Times, 1/03/2013." or "FIRST OFF: / OBJECTIVISM / A. / FRAMEWORK / 1. / The round should be judged under a framework of competing philosophical systems. the judge's role is to decide which system of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics is best for human beings to embrace. This is true because political conflicts result from underlying conflicts in these areas of philosophy, and change in philosophical worldview is key to practical change. Piekoff, 1997."

2. Debate is a game. We should have fun and play fair. Your advocacy is purely strategy as far as I'm concerned, so make the arguments that will win you the round without worrying if I'll be offended. I won't be, and if I were it would be my problem.

3. You are responsible for your rhetorical choices, as well as your strategic ones, for the purpose of K/theory.

4. Debate is about clash. It's more fun to judge an ideological throwdown than try to figure out which of 10 positions articulated in the round best subverts capitalism or whether the 7th standard on the 3rd condo theory shell was covered. Seriously, just say the other side is wrong.

5. Speaking of theory... see previous limitations on speed. If you're giving one-sentence blips on a theory shell, there's no way I'm actually going to get that. If you're articulating a comprehensive standard for the sort of things that are/not fair in debate rounds, actually having a genuine debate about debate rather than a coverage contest, that is not only flowable but also fun to judge.

6. I was a K debater. I like K debate. I also like good policy debate. I also like good performance debate, with the caveat that I need to know how to evaluate your performance. If your A-strat is 50States/Politics/Econ/T, please do yourself a favor and get one of the many judges better at evaluating risk-of-uniqueness debates.

7. You can do whatever you can theoretically justify in front of me. Now's the time to pull out that strategy you were sure no judge would ever buy.

8. I have no threshold on anything: T, theory, etc. I'm also cool with RVIs as a check against time-suck positions that are otherwise unturnable.

9. Perming a K is a test of the link (e.g., our plan can be done in a way that does not support capitalism, enabling us to also kritik capitalism while doing the plan). A CP is an opportunity cost DA, so the viability of a perm indicates that there is in fact no opportunity cost to doing the plan. I'm open to theory arguments that I should evaluate these things differently, but this is my default.

10. Have fun.

Brian Hodge Dulles High School 6 rounds None

Shania Hunt Northland Christian School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 9, 2024 at 3:26 AM PDT

Update for Presentation 2024(updates to LD sections and overview)

Themost important thing you read from this paradigm is my view on speech docs. Do not assume at any point in time that I am on the speech doc. I will download it etc so I can use it if necessary, but I am absolutely not reading along your speech doc while you speak. I will listen to you and flow the best I can, but if it's not on my flow then it's not in the debate.

If you want me to look at your evidence for some reason, you can do that in a few ways. You can put the evidence at issue in some manner (author quals, evidence comparison, evidence indicts, evidence ethics, etc.) or you can literally just say "go look at the X card" (and not "go look at the entire affirmative case").

This is just forward notice! What this means is please do things like pause when transitioning between arguments or flows, indicating clearly when you are reading new evidence or analytics (examples below), and generally slowing down during analytics that are important for you to win the debate.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate.

Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am currently one of co-coaches for Team USA through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated October 2024]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., LW (living wage) that are topic-specific or super niche Act titles)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Speaker Points:[Updated October 2024]

Biggest things to do while debating in front of me that will get you better speaker points and increase the chances I understand your arguments:

(1) SLOW on taglines, EXTREMELY slow on author names/dates, and I am flexible on top speed through text of cards if you are clear and emphasize key warrants

(2) I need to understand an argument, at least with some surface level understanding, to vote off of it. You can heighten the chance I can understand it by explaining the function of your arguments (perhaps this is "judge instruction" but if it's a way you canwin or a way your opponent canlose, it needs to be flagged)

(3) Have fun, establish your presence in the debate, and try not to be rude to your opponent! Even if they started it!

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points:for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

David Huston Colleyville Heritage High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM CDT

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Christian Jones Union High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 4:28 AM CDT

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

Steve Knell Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 29, 2022 at 1:27 PM PDT

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

Terrence Lonam Lake Highland Preparatory 6 rounds

Julie Malcom Plano East Senior High School 6 rounds

Greg Malis Isidore Newman School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Jane McCoy Eastside Catholic High School 6 rounds None

Greg McGee Mayde Creek High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:18 AM CDT

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

Dan Miyamoto Marlborough School 6 rounds

Howard Murphy Lake Braddock Secondary School 6 rounds None

Shane O'Dwyer Walt Whitman High School 6 rounds None

Rodrigo Paramo Westwood High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 3:55 AM CDT

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

so24:i have one cut one card since toc 24 - it was a thumper vs a politics disad and had nothing to do with the topic. i do not understand the economy and encourage you to keep debates simple and explain any economic theories your scenarios rely on me understanding. i got a 2 on macro and have not thought about it since then.

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell. if your opponent indicates you are going too fast for them, you should adjust. i am comfortable with debaters "slow"ing their opponents speech in good faith to increase the value of the debate.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

The following practices will significantly lower your speaker points in front of me:

any argument that i should evaluate the debate prior to the end of the 2ar

flow clarification questions
spreading or otherwise engaging in circuit norms that exclude less-experienced debaters from meaningfully participating in the debate round
reading through theory/topicality blocks at high speeds
mis-citing a piece of evidence by only reading one name on a piece with two authors, shortening a last name, etc.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (i will not vote for shells where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Matthew Perry North Crowley High School 6 rounds None

Robert Perry North Crowley High School 6 rounds

Josh Roberts Greenhill School 6 rounds None

John Sasso Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

John Scoggin Loyola High School 1 rounds

Kelly Scoggins ESD 6 rounds None

Aabid Shivji Colleyville Heritage High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 7, 2015 at 5:03 AM CDT

Name: Aabid Shivji
Affiliation: Colleyville Heritage High School, Colleyville, TX

The number one thing before all else is that I see framework as the most vital layer of the debate. The number two thing is my threshold for extensions. I require a claim, warrant, and impact reiterated, otherwise I don't think the argument was actually extended. Other than that, see below.
I judge LD, PF, and CX, so this paradigm is in 3 parts. Go to your event to see that paradigm.

LD
Speaking
Go as fast as you want, but I have a pretty high threshold for clarity. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll indicate verbally with either a "Clear!" or a "Slow down." I'll dock speak if I have to prompt you more than once. Everybody starts at a 30, and each speaking error or obvious strategic misstep will take you down from that. Saying something offensive will hurt your speaks significantly. Also, if you're going through a list of analytic arguments, slow down or give me pen/typing time so that I don't miss any of them, on the off chance that you decide to extend one of them later.
Framework
I don't think framework is a voting issue. If you win that your role of the ballot/judge/debate space is true, that doesn't mean you win the round unless you win offense under that interpretation of the ballot/judge/debate space as well. Similarly, winning that your standard is good won't win the round for you either unless you're winning offense back to it. I like to see burden structures worked into this layer of the debate, but I don't require a specific form/structure of "framework" as long as debaters tell me what types of impacts matter and how I weigh those impacts. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates.
"Voters"
You need to do the weighing for me in round. If I have to do work for someone to win the debate, both of you have done something wrong.Therefore, impact calculus is essential, but don't try to do that against oppression impacts. Saying things like "productivity outweighs gender violence" will do nothing but kill your speaks.
Argument preference
I don't really care if you run a plan, traditional case, kritik, or anything else, but just do it well. Make sure all of your arguments have all of their parts, even if they aren't necessarily labeled. That being said, I tend to enjoy good kritikal debates better than other debates.
The K (aff/neg)
If you read that last part of the paradigm, you're probably asking "what counts as a good kritikal debate?" If you're going to read the K in front of me, take some time at the end of your written speech file to slow down and explain what the K says to everybody in the room. Not enough kritikal debaters make a point of making sure that the judge and their opponent actually understand the argument that they just read. Be willing to explain, and I'll be a lot happier. Also, don't assume I've read the lit that you read because I probably haven't.
Theory/Topicality
I don't require shell format for these arguments, but I do require that you tell me how somebody is being abusive/nontopical, and what the effects of that abuse or infringement of topicality are. If you have to use these arguments strategically, I guess I can be okay with that, but I'd prefer T or theory to stay out of the debate because I find that these debates usually get super messy and are often extremely hard to resolve. Don't set yourself up for a bad decision

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!

PF
Framework
This isn't a voting issue. If you win that your interpretation for how we should debate the topic is correct, that doesn't mean you win the debate, you have to win arguments linking back that prove you meet your interpretation. I like seeing burden structures in this layer of the debate, but again, winning your burden structure is correct means nothing if the other team meets your burden. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates.
Evidence comparison
I find these debates are usually quite good. However, sometimes these debates take over other discussions about the topic. Evidence comparison is a good strategy, but don't forget to make defensive arguments and turns.
Impact calculus
Don't try to outweigh oppression arguments, your speaks will be docked, and I won't vote on the argument.

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!

CX
Framework
Not a voting issue- you still have to win offense back to framing issues to prove you best achieve the way you interpret the debate. That being said, I really do enjoy these debates.
Speaking
Go as fast as you want, but I have a pretty high threshold for clarity. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll indicate verbally with either a "Clear!" or a "Slow down." I'll dock speak if I have to prompt you more than once. Everybody starts at a 30, and each speaking error or obvious strategic misstep will take you down from that. Saying something offensive will hurt your speaks significantly. Also, if you're going through a list of analytic arguments, slow down or give me pen/typing time so that I don't miss any of them, on the off chance that you decide to extend one of them later.
Argument preference
I don't care what you run, as long as you run it well. Make sure all of your arguments have all of their parts, even if they aren't necessarily labeled.
That being said, I tend to enjoy good kritikal debates better than other debates.
The K (aff/neg)
If you read that last part of the paradigm, you're probably asking "what counts as a good kritikal debate?" If you're going to read the K in front of me, take some time at the end of your written speech file to slow down and explain what the K says to everybody in the room. Not enough kritikal debaters make a point of making sure that the judge and their opponent actually understand the argument that they just read. Be willing to explain, and I'll be a lot happier. Also, don't assume I've read the lit that you read because I probably haven't.
Theory/Topicality
I don't require shell format for these arguments, but I do require that you tell me how somebody is being abusive/nontopical, and what the effects of that abuse or infringement of topicality are. If you have to use these arguments strategically, I guess I can be okay with that, but try to keep it to just one shell in the debate, because the more shells there are, the more confusing and muddled the debates become. Don't set yourself up for a bad decision.

Last thing: I'm not going to make being nice in round a paradigmatic thing, but please don't be an outright jerk. It's just disrespectful and rude. If a debater is treating you poorly, fire back, because nobody deserves that kind of treatment in round.

If you have questions about anything, I'm more than willing to answer them before the round starts. Happy preffing/striking!

Richard Shmikler Brentwood School 4 rounds

John Sims Colleyville Heritage High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM CDT

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

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Tyler Sullivan Salado High School 4 rounds None

Aly Tharp Clark HS 4 rounds None

Chris Theis Apple Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 6:34 AM PDT

Affiliation: Marlborough (CA), Apple Valley (MN)

Past: Peninsula (CA), Lexington (MA)

Email: ctheis09@gmail.com — but I prefer to use speechdrop.net

Big Picture

I like substantive and engaging debates focused on the topic's core controversies. While I greatly appreciate creative strategy, I prefer deeply warranted arguments backed by solid evidence to absurd arguments made for purely tactical reasons.

I find the tech or truth construction to be reductive — both matter. I will try to evaluate claims through a more-or-less Bayesian lens. This means my knowledge of the world establishes a baseline for the plausibility of claims, and those priors are updated by the arguments made in a debate. This doesn’t mean I’ll intervene based on my preexisting beliefs; instead, it will take much more to win that 2+2=5 than to prove that grass is green.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" — Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" — Christopher Hitchens

Default Paradigm

I default to viewing resolutions as normative statements that divide ground, but I’m open to arguments in favor of alternative paradigms. In general, I believe the affirmative should defend a topical policy action that's a shift from the status quo. The negative burden is generally to defend the desirability of the status quo or competitive advocacy.

Affirmatives should advocate a clearly delineated plan or advocacy, which can be the resolution itself. The aff's advocacy text is the basis for negative competition and links, and as such, it must contain any information the aff feels is relevant to those discussions. Affs cannot refuse to specify or answer questions regarding elements of their advocacy and then later make permutations or no-link arguments that depend on those elements. "Normal means" claims can be an exception but require evidence that the feature in question is assumed. Proof that some possible version of the aff could include such a feature is insufficient. Refusal to answer direct questions about a particular element of the advocacy will likely take "normal means" claims off the table.

I prefer policy/stock arguments, but I’m certainly open to critical or philosophical positions and vote for them often.

If you refer to your arguments as “tricks,” it’s a good sign that I’m not the best judge for you. Debaters should, whenever possible, advance the best arguments at their disposal. Calling your argument a "trick" implies its value lies in surprise or deception, not quality.

Note: an odd topic construction could alter these priors, but I'll do my best to make that known here if that's the case.

Topicality

Generally, affirmatives should be topical. I have and will vote for non-topical positions, but the burden is on the aff to justify why the topicality constraint shouldn't apply to them.

Topicality is a question of whether the features of the plan/advocacy itself being a good idea proves the resolution. This means I will look unfavorably on a position that is effects topical, extra-topical, or related to the topic but doesn't in and of itself prove the resolution.

In topicality debates, both semantics and pragmatic justifications are essential. However, interpretations must be "semantically eligible" before I evaluate pragmatic advantages. Pragmatic advantages are relevant in deciding between plausible interpretations of the words in the resolution; pragmatics can't make those words mean something they don't. I will err aff if topicality is a close call.

Theory Defaults

Affs nearly always must disclose 30 min before start time, and both debaters should disclose which AC they will read before elim flips.

Affirmatives should usually be topical.

Plans are good, but they need to be consistent with the wording of the topic.

Extra T is probably bad

Severance is bad

Intrinsicness is usually bad, but I'm open to intrinsic perms in response to process cps

Conditionality is OK

PICs are OK

Alt agent fiat is probably bad

Competing interpretations>reasonability, usually

Probably no RVIs

Almost certainly no RVIs on Topicality

I don't like arguments that place artificial constraints on paradigm issues based on the speech in which they are presented.

No inserting evidence. Re-highlights should be read aloud.

Kritiks

I am open to Ks and vote on them frequently. That said, I’m not intimately familiar with every critical literature base. So, clear explanation, framing, and argument interaction are essential. Likewise, the more material your impacts and alternative are, the better. Again, the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof. It will take more to convince me of the strongest claims of psychoanalysis than that capitalism results in exploitation.

Establishing clear links that generate offense is necessary. Too often, Ks try to turn fundamentally defensive claims into offense via jargon and obfuscation. A claim that the aff can’t or doesn't solve some impact is not necessarily a claim the aff is a bad idea.

It's essential that I understand the alternative and how it resolves the harms of the Kritik. I won't vote for an advocacy that I can't confidently articulate.

Arguments I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

Skep.

A strategy that purposely attempts to wash the debate to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Any argument that asks me to evaluate the debate after a speech that isn't the 2AR.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Mis-disclosing/disclosure games. (There is an emerging practice of hiding/adding theory arguments or tricks to the AC without including them in the doc that's disclosed pre-round and/or the doc sent out in the debate. This is intentional deception and will result in an automatic loss).

Clipping. (There is an emerging practice of including long descriptive tags in the docs sent out during debates but only reading truncated versions. I consider this clipping. By sending those analytics you're representing, they were read in the round.)

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible.

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc.) is a good thing. This must be an argument THAT THE DEBATER AGREES implies horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something terrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason not to accept your framework, but it will not be a reason to drop you on its own.

Public Forum

I only judge PF a few times a year, mostly at camp. Arguments are arguments regardless of the format, so most of my typical paradigm applies. The big caveat is that I strongly prefer teams read actual cards instead of paraphrasing evidence. I understand that there are differences of opinion, so I won't discount paraphrasing entirely, but I'll have a lower bar for indicts. Also, I'm not reading ten full articles at the end of the debate, so I'd appreciate it if you could prepare the paraphrased portions in advance.

Adam Torson Marlborough School 4 rounds None

Halli Tripe Winston Churchill HS 6 rounds

sydney van berg The Kinkaid School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 7, 2015 at 7:09 AM CDT

The Kinkaid School (2014)
University of Texas – Austin (2011)
Mercedes High School (2007)

I probably approach debate with a little more interest in how you are communicating ideas to me than simply the ideas you are communicating. I tend to place a stronger emphasis on persuasion, clarity and depth of analysis than debate “strategery,” i.e. reading as many cards as possible as quickly as possible without much analysis beyond that. This isn’t to say I’ve never voted quantity over quality, but it doesn’t happen often.

You’ll find that I will follow, flow and like your debates better if these things occur:
- You are organized and signpost well.
- You slow down on tag lines and, at the very least, pretend to care about the arguments you are reading
- You don’t rush through one-line hyper-technical arguments like theory
- You frame the debate clearly, by telling me what arguments matter and why
- You are responsible with your arguments and kind to your opponents

I like debates the best when there is a clear explanation of what it is I’m supposed to do. Tell me what to do. Tell me how to vote. Tell me why you want me to vote that way. Absent those kinds of instructions, I’m likely to defer to however it is I defer in any given debate round, and this could frustrate you. So, tell me how you want me to view and understand things. I’m not telling you to read framework, but I am telling you to frame the debate. Do that kind of meta-analysis that explains how arguments interact and how they should lead up to a decision in your favor and you’ll make me as happy as a clam. As a result, you’ll rarely hear me complain about an overview in the 2NR/2AR.

I despise debates without clash because I’m ultimately left debating the issues myself and that annoys me greatly.

While I’m likely to prefer a good “K” round over a good “policy” round, I would prefer a good “policy” round over a generic/bad/confusing “K” round. At the end of the day, I want you to be smart, avoid cheap shots and make good arguments. 99% of the rounds I debated involved “K” arguments, so I tend to approach debate with that kind of background.

I imagine this philosophy may leave something to be desired, so you should feel free to ask atsydney.vanberg@gmail.com and I’ll adjust my philosophy as need be.

Charles Walts The Hockaday School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:45 AM CDT

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

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

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

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

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

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Ruishi Wang Westwood High School 6 rounds None

Jonathan Wei Westlake High School 6 rounds

Zack Wesley The Hockaday School 6 rounds None

Scott Wheeler Peninsula High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:03 AM PDT

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Walter Willis The Woodlands High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 12:27 AM CDT

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

Snapshot: If TOC speed is a large element of your approach to debate, I am not your preference. But I do possess a high level of understanding of how all forms of debate function in the competitive space. I love judging at NSDA nationals. Principally this is because the schools who compete the most robust circuits have to slow down and I get to be a meaningful participant in the debates. I am not fast enough to judge the TOC circuit and even my home circuit, TFA can have me out over my skis trying to follow. But here, my experience has been that the very best schools adapt to the format by slowing their roll and this allows me to viscerally enjoy the beauty and rigor of their advocacy. Do not confuse my pace limitations with cognitive limits.

I am living with COPD. I may have Oxygen hooked up in the back of the room while judging. You may see me laboring to breath at times, particularly if I am walking too and from rounds. Do not be overly concerned.

Who I am:

Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools, but I also coached some fine teams at Denton Guyer and most recently in Athens, Texas. Currently I no longer coach directly. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments. Along the way I enjoyed coaching PF, Congress and World's and was adept at giving kids an edge regardless of the debate event they chose.

I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.

Likes:

Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.

Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is almost never one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.

Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.

Dislikes:

Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.

Circuit level speed.

I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.

Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you are functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.

One More Concern:

There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.

Policy Debate:

I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.

LD Debate:

Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.

I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.

PF Debate:

I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.

Congress:

1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. 3)I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. 4)If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. 5) Your language choices should reflect scholarship. 6) All debate is about the resolution of substantive issues central to some controversy, as such clash is critical.

Kris Wright Law Magnet High School

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 6:24 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I coach debate at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI in LD, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan. Again, Neg's are free to argue that they are entitled to that ground regardless of whether the AFF defends a plan or other hyperspecific advocacy.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Anthony Yim Dulles High School 6 rounds

Lawrence Zhou Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 5:26 AM CDT

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: taipeiamericanpolicy at gmail.com

If I'm judging you at an online tournament, it's probably nighttime for me in Taiwan. Pref accordingly.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together, even better.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

NSDA Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

For the NSDA, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the NSDA Evidence Guide. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

My ideal debate is one in which each team reads one contention with well-developed evidence.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time. I'll also cap your speaks at 28.5.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.

Login to Tabroom

The Heart of Texas Invitational at St Marks

2014 — TX/US

LD Paradigm List

Judges