Prefs Shortcut:

Phil - 1

Larp - 1

FW/T - 1

Kritiks - 1

Theory - 2

K-Affs - 3

Tricks/Unnecessary Theory - Strike

Introduction

Debated for Princeton High School on NSDA/TFA/UIL. I did Policy, LD, plus multiple speaking events. I ran a lot of Larp and phil, dabbled in k's but did not run them often.

Any Pronouns, Reference me in any way you want, i will default they/them for you unless you say otherwise

Email Chain plz : hdkcangell@gmail.com

Real Paradigm

Run whatever you want, i will listen to anything and will judge off what you tell me to, there are some exceptions and clarity required for this though:

If you're going to spread be aware that my hearing is bad and i will rely on your document. If you spread without sending the doc i will laugh at you, and if you get theory run on you because of this, i will default.

Be logical and reasonable with theory, observations, etc. The meta debate is very important but treat it with grace, it's not your path to a free ballot.

I never got really into kritical debate, but i love it nonetheless, so read it if you like but treat me like a child.

No tricks, especially if you cannot explain them in a way that matters, and you don't want to be the one to fail to change my mind on this.

I consider disclosure frivolous without real, factual evidence of violations

Overall

I will start at 29 speaks and go up or down from there

Don't be the reason that i add something to my paradigm

Ask me specific questions if you wish, and email me if you have questions as well.

Hi i'm Austin, I use to be a competitor in UIL. I did poetry, extemp, theater, and CX debate.

When im judging im looking for good clear speaking voice if I can't understand you I cant judge you.

The biggest thing to me in a debate is good clash, treat me as if I know nothing about what you are talking about, if you don't tell me I can't flow it. you can run just about anything with me as long as it makes sense within the debate. but try to hit the big 4 of a debate case solvency, harms, inherncy and topicality.

email- vivianlelong@gmail.com

she/her

do NOT be racist, transphobic, homophobic, bigoted, etc.

Competitive history: 4 years at Princeton High School (split time w/ LD and policy). 4-time national qualifier in policy, congress, and extemp. 4-time TFA qualifier in policy, LD (doubles), and extemp (qtrs). UIL state qualifier in policy. Competed primarily in TFA/Nat circuit, but I have experience in UIL circuit too. Policy was my main event, and I think this will be applicable if I’m judging you in LD too.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing.

TLDR: The best way to explain my evaluation of debate is offense-defense. I don’t think you should pref me high if you are a primarily K team, albeit I will listen to a K debate, I just have a very high threshold for voting for it without a non-jargon explanation (this is applicable to any arg, but for K’s it is especially relevant). I read a lot of soft-left affs. Aside from K debate, I’m comfortable listening to anything and I usually don’t have a predisposition for any arg. I love a clean line-by-line. I’m tech over truth and I try my best to not judge intervene. I am most comfortable judging CX debate.

Evidence: I do read the evidence in the round, so try not to falsify the warrants of your arguments, but I still think it is up to the debaters to call out bad evidence.

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold on abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case. I believe DA starts at the uniqueness, but I have voted for a non-unique DA sadly.

Counterplans: I don’t judgekick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more. Presumption flips aff if you read a CP.

Kritiks: I’m not familiar with/don’t remember all of your authors albeit I do know most of the criticism associate with the lit of these K’s, but it is still up to you to have a sufficient explanation. I mostly read gender and cap in high school, but this also requires your explanation to be better since I understand this lit the best. This is an argument where I would much rather you have a link that is specific to the aff because it makes it easier to convince me to vote for you. Generic links are fine too but make sure they are to the aff and not the status quo, but this is still up to the other team to make that argument. Explain your alt please. I will vote on a linear disad.

LD specific: I love a good framework debate and often find it to be the crux of winning arguments/rounds, I’m also generally lenient to the 1AR but that doesn’t mean you should be lazy with your theory shells. Progressive args and speed are fine.

PF specific: if you have me as a PF judge, see above.

Extemp specific: if you happen to have me as a judge more than once, I don’t care if you use the same attention-getter. I don’t have a pref for performance versus fact-telling, but I would like to see both and some sort of weaving of points to a coherent explanation.

dmarshall36@gmail.com

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."


i love debate.


tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.


whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.


keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.


ihate"perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get a 30 and 29.9 by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.


im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.


im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.


i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.


please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.


High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.


PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.


im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.


here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"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. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...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."