History

Overall my competitive background is unimpressive. I mostly did Public Forum and Domestic Extemp for my 3 years of competition. I am however very well versed in Lincoln Douglass, and Congress. I was a finalist in the Senate at State after an unfortunate year. I attended James Madison High School. I have been judging mostly LD since I graduated high school in 2015 and I’ve figured out what I do and don’t like in round. I have graduated from UTSA with a major in Criminal Justice, Double Minoring in Legal Studies and Political Science. I am currently attending UNT College of Law. If you are reading this, please ask me how law school is going! It would be nice to see if anyone reads this.

Value Debate

I do not require a value debate in round. If a framework is established I will default to it until it is contested. Framework is the lens of which I view the round. When I make a decision, it is based off a very mathematical calculus. When no framework is established, or two frameworks are negated, I default to a utilitarian calculus. If you and your opponent have the same framework, or the framework doesn't greatly affect the offense in the round, do not feel obligated to keep debating it. Hearing two people bicker about the definition of moral, even though nobody is arguing a nuanced case around a specific definition, is maddening.

Theory

I for the life of me, could not tell you what a proper theory structure looks like. Tell me what happened and why I should care, and I will buy the argument. I do not enjoy theory debate, and I believe that it should be used solely to check abuse.

Kritik

Link to the resolution or I will probably not vote you up. Imma repeat that to make sure it is perfectly clear, LINK TO THE RESOLUTION OR I WILL PROBABLY NOT VOTE YOU UP. Otherwise I do enjoy seeing things like antiblackness, queer theory, Fem, etc. as long as there is a clear link. I do not enjoy seeing cases that can literally be run on any topic without any real research. I am a big fan of permutations to crappy K’s. If you insist on not linking you better have a damn good reason, and provide a clear Role of the Ballot.

Disads and Counterplans

I enjoy both disads and counterplans, when run correctly. I do find it odd though, most of these could very well be called contentions. I'm sure there is some old technical reason that separates them, but its mystery to me. Remember that any plan you produced can't simply be fiated into existence, that is to say, it must be possible at the very least. Of course with persuasion the idea of plausibility can shifted one way or another, but that is on you.

Speed

I am pretty decent with speed, but keep in mind if you are spreading and have time left at the end of your speech or end up repeating the same thing ten times, your speaker points aren’t going too look nice. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it is simply a tool to get more arguments out in a given time.

Update January 2020

Considering it's been 2 years since I've updated this, I figured I'd add this little tid bit at the end. Amazingly my preferences haven't changed much, I do find myself enjoying progressive debate more and more as the years go on, but I think it's important that every judge have an open mind when going into a round. I strongly encourage you to run whatever version of debate you believe gives you the best chance to win the round. If you have any questions please come find me before or after the round.

Update 2023

It seems like 2 and a half years seems to be the pattern on how often I feel obligated to update this little forum. I am now a third year law student and unfortunately have not been able to judge debate nearly as often as a like, so if I look slightly lost or confused in your round, it may not be your fault, I am just rusty. What I enjoy seeing in rounds has not changed. I may ask you to slow down more than I used to in my prime, but I promise to do my best to keep up with what you need.

As of this year I am currently competing in Moot Court, and will be competing in Mock Trial, on behalf of the University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law.

I have competed in high school speech events, Congress, LD and PF experience, as well as some coaching and judging experience. I am currently an active Toastmaster where I achieved my Distinguished Toastmaster educational award.

Things about my style:
- I need to be able to follow your case (i.e. Roadmaps are important, signposting with spreading)
- Don’t just pick a case for the sake of confusing your opponent, it needs to be pretty much topical
- Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you
- Viewing your opponent’s case doesn’t substitute for flowing
- Don’t take your cards out of context, if the idea behind the card doesn’t support your case, then it’s probably not a good idea to use it, even if you can make a sentence work for you (while I won’t necessarily pick this out myself, if your opponent points it out, I will know and remember)
- Extending arguments require you to give a reason with evidence/warrants (i.e. "non-unique" by itself isn't good enough)
- Be polite (i.e. if you know that you are winning don't destroy your opponent, offensive language should add value if used)
- I weigh arguments against each other, so keep track of important points that your opponent has presented a valid argument that counters it
- I don't take CX into account (other than to give you pointers for next time) unless you bring it up in your speeches
- I would rather see a few well-covered points than a bunch of poorly covered points
- I'm big picture (key points matter more than defending and defeating every point/contention)
- I like voters, they weigh heavily on my decision, and they should be your major arguments (you should pick your still standing, strong points)
- I’m not a big fan of theoretical debates, I prefer debates with substantiated arguments.

- if your opponent can’t instantly bring up the source, if doesn’t automatically discount it, especially in CX. If they don’t bring it up later.

I like a good debate and am generally very nice with speaker points to both sides when I see one.

Congress:

- Ask questions during questioning. (When there’s extended questioning periods, I take that into consideration because of the limited number of questioners. At least try to get questioning time.)

- At least look like you're paying attention.

- Be prepared to give a speech. (In some states, you only count for numbers if you give a speech and it's beneficial for you. After all, you're in the event for a reason.)

- The longer the breaks are that you take the less time you have to speak. (5 minutes is enough time for the judges to do what they need to do, and you can always ask for a "point of personal privilege" to use the restroom or come back late.)

- State support for your points (at least some of them)

Speech Events (IEs & Extemp):

- The grace period (available in some states) is there for a reason, so that you don't automatically get last place for going over. You really shouldn't be using the majority of it.

- You should know your prepared speech's time and not need time signals. (Non-prepared events, such as Extemp and Impromptu, are exempt. I will give up to a 5 down with a 30 second warning to time, not including grace.)

- I'd rather see 1 or 2 well covered points than 3 points that lack coverage.

Email: jhedrick10@gmail.com (mailto:jhedrick10@gmail.com)

Parent judge with no debate experience, please speak as clearly as possible and give clear sign posting if you want arguments to be flowed. Will mainly be voting on clash. For theory or K’s make sure to clearly contextualize to the res or avoid altogether. Giving clear voters and being organized will go a long way.

dmarshall36@gmail.com

'24-'25 high school policy and NFA LD: I don't know what your plan text does. These topics are huge, I have no background in these areas, and I don't coach/didn't do a camp last summer. just be aware, these 1ac's are harder for me to keep up with than previous topics.

weird pet peeve. please don't tell me that time starts on your first word before your speech or cross-ex. i saw this in novice a few years ago and now varsity teams are doing it. judges know how timing works :)

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.


i hate "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 many extra speaks 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."

I am fairly new to the world of judging speech and debate. I have experience teaching elementary and middle school Korean students in an after-school EFL academy. In addition to evaluating essay writing, memorized speeches, and presentations in standard EFL classes of varying levels, I also taught higher level students in subjects including literature and test prep. I also have a long history as a trainer in various fields, which included assessment, feedback, and improvement plans for my trainees. As far as educational background, I have a masters in Library and Information Services, a masters in East Asian Studies, and a bachelors in Literature.

In my judging, I will be looking for a well-supported argument with evidence to support your view or a clear strong characterization of your story. I want you to persuade me and convey your point, which means I also want to be talked to in a way that's easy to understand. I prefer a conversational pace, and if you include any jargon make sure to explain it. Be sure to utilize your non-verbal communication skills, but don't force anything that would feel unnatural. I will be taking notes while you speak, though I'll also want to see that you are engaging with the audience as you go through your piece. Make sure you are answering the question or speaking to the prompt you've been given and that you follow any rules or guidance provided.

Above all, do your best and have fun!

Please keep in mind, that I am new to judging

LD

Please talk slowly, so absolutely no spreading. I cannot understand your arguments if you speak too fast. I also do not know that much about advanced LD topics such as Kritik, so please do not use them in your cases. This is important: I also look at cross when deciding who won. Also explain your points fully. Be respectful, especially during cross. If you successfully refuted your opponent's framework, and told that, high chance it will be your win. If your opponent dropped an argument, please mention it. Also if opponent violated a rule or something, please also mention that.

IE

Please be interacting and speak slowly.

Any pronouns

Grapevine '24 ; UTA '28

I did LD and PF off and on for 5 years (also Big Questions a couple of times)

Add me to the email chain: aadipatil05@gmail.com

25 speaks to both if I ever have to judge a Plano Clark 24' Quarters Plano West AR vs. Jasper ZM round again.

Speaks/Notes:

I start at 28 and go up from there.

25s for homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.

Spreading is ok (as long as the docs are sent), if I can't understand you I will say "clear". If I have to say clear more than twice your arguments aren't going on the flow.

Cross is not flowed unless it is mentioned in a speech.

PF:

I like progressive debate in most contexts, however, I find that the format of PF doesn't always allow for in-depth discussion of progressive issues. You can run whatever you want(yes including K's), but please don't do your case an injustice by shoving it into a place it doesn't belong. I tend to lean more traditional in this event, as I feel as though it was made with the premise of being accessible. For those reasons, I prefer that competitors don't spread, however, spreading will not be a factor in deciding who won as long as it isn't part of an argument.

FW--

I think FW can and should be more explored in PF. Weighing is one of the most important aspects of a PF debate and the ability to decide how that happens with FW I oftentimes overlooked and undervalued. I don't mind a typical nuclear war extinction util debate, however, creativity is always appreciated.

EV--

Don't paraphrase. If you do, you better have that card ready, because if the other team doesn't ask for it, I will. If you can't find a card, you will lose speaks and whatever that ev was part of will be struck from the record. I've been in too many rounds where teams make up information to tolerate that as a judge.

If you manage to do and keep up with an email chain or speech drop I will boost speaks.

LD:

You can run anything, but be chill with the theory (theory is fine and good, but use your best judgment)

Condo is good.

Weighing and Framing is really important to me as I think it's often lost in the technicality of LD debate. Tell me what arguments, what impacts, and what flows are important and why.

Ks--

K's are cool, I read some in my high school career, but I'm not familiar with all the literature on every topic. I mostly ran Cap K, Set Col, Orientalism, and Disability.

Alts are pretty important, especially if your opponent tries to link in. I would like a thorough explanation of what the alt does, however, if your framework says you win and you're winning framework, its all good ig.

Specific links are preferred, but if a generic link isn't answered and is extended through the 2nr, I'll vote on it

Aff gets to weigh the plan, but I also really like good reps links and framework debates

K affs--

I love K affs, especially when they're creative and awesome, however, please do the bare minimum of linking to the topic or at least the debate.

You need to have a solid explanation of your solvency. I am skeptical of solvencies that are exclusively based on your delivery of your speech. I prefer other solvencies, however, it's not as though I won't vote for an aforementioned solvency.

I find historical examples very persuasive and effective in communicating the advantages and disadvantages of FW and or solvency (i.e. Util bad b/c tyranny of the majority).

T--

I think T has become more of a force in recent years than it ever has been and I don't necessarily hate that. I do enjoy the back-and-forth that comes with T and the genuine discussion of the value that Debate provides, however, I don't want to watch a debate where the resolution is seldom mentioned past the 1NC. I prefer args about education, skill-building, etc. over procedural args, however, I do like to see procedure as a prerequisite to those greater ideals.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. I am now the head coach at Grapevine High School. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Update for 2024-2025 Policy topic: I did a bit of coaching on the evergreening LD topic a few years ago so I might recognize some buzzwords but I probably don't remember what they mean.

Update for Sep/Oct LD topic: My professional experience is in financial advice. Do with that what you will.

Former debate coach for American School Fez. I competed in Policy debate at W.B. Ray High School from 2015-2018. I competed in Policy debate at UT-Austin in 2019. Currently an Assistant Financial Advisor with Ameriprise.

Put me on the email chain: stearcd247@gmail.com

I do not coach anyone currently so please do not assume I have any knowledge about what's happening in the literature or at camps.

TL:DR

I am down for whatever you want to do. I am probably just as good for PoMo goo vs PoMo goo as I am for stock issues.

Please don't throw things at me or your opponents or light things on fire.

I would like to intervene as little as possible, so please explicitly tell me how to weigh the round.

Arguments that run towards clash are always better in front of me than arguments that try to skirt around your opponent.

Judge instruction is paramount.

I believe that each debate round is a story. The better story at the end of the debate wins. This means I will attempt to view the round holistically instead of looking at just the last two speeches.

Quick Prefs:

PF:

Strike - You don't want me here

LD:

1 - K v K, Policy v Policy, Traditional

2 - Performance, Clash, T

3 - Theory

4 - Phil

Strike - Tricks

CX:

Same as LD w/o the weird stuff

Speaker Points

28.5 is default. 29 is breaking. 29.5 is speaker award. LD tends to go up by about a .2 since speaker points are just higher in the event. I will try to change based on tournament norms and competition level. If you'd like a more in-depth breakdown, read Ali Abdulla's paradigm. I will say clear twice during the whole debate, not just a particular speech. If you do not become clearer after the second time, I will stop flowing and put my head on the desk/table.

Things that will make me your speaker point fairy:

• Executing high level argumentation at a conversational pace

• Bringing cross-ex answers into speeches

• Making me laugh

General Gripes. This section is for things I've found annoying/bad about debate and have chose to impact my speaker points, but not my ballots:

• Ontology debates. If you read ontology and do not have a coherent explanation by the end of the debate, your speaks are capped at a 28.5. If you do have a coherent explanation, speaks are floored at a 29.

• Turns case on DAs. Turns case does not mean that you also read an internal link card to the aff's impacts. Turns case means that the DA turns the solvency mechanism of the aff. A good turns case is floored at a 29. A bad turns case is capped at a 29.

• Debating slow. I personally find speed to be incredibly strategic. I also find it to be incredibly grating. If you debate at a circuit level slowly, speaks are floored at a 29.2 and I will probably give you more leeway on implicit clash. No penalty for debating fast.

• If you go for self harm good, I will vote for the other debater and give you the lowest speaks possible. If the other debate asks me to stop the round, I will stop it. This does not mean you cannot read death good, just no Liggotti.

• If you use Patrick Fox as a reason policy affs are good, I will cap your speaks at a 27.

• Do not call me Chris. I don't like when anyone calls me Chris. Stearns or judge are fine. Christopher is fine if I've judged you a couple times and recognize you.

LD

I like LD theory when it's about content. I'm not especially fond of it when it's about form. That translates to content=default to competing interps and form=default to reasonability. These positions are not set in stone as every argument is winnable. That being said, I still tend to not like them as I did Policy for most of high school. Please slow down on all of these. I'm not familiar enough with judging these debates to catch the intricacies of your arguments at the same speed I can hear your read cards about hegemony and capitalism.

T RVIs probably need to be all 3 minutes of the 2AR and dropped by the neg. Theory RVIs need to be all 3 minutes of the 2AR. The greater the number of theory/T shells, the more likely I am to buy an RVI.

Don't use big analytical philosophy words you never define. I will not understand them. I will most likely understand any big critical philosophy words you never define. This is not true in every instance, so please define them all to me. I'm familiar with philosophy but not the way it's talked about in LD.

Tricks have to be full arguments from the get go. LD is hard enough when there isn't any sandbagging, and down right impossible when there is. However, most of these can still be answered by a thumbs down, fart noise.

I hate disclosure theory and usually only accept it when particularly egregious. I will gladly vote on misdisclosure theory and have a very hard time imagining voting down the shell if the violation is proven. New affs bad is probably a justification for CP comp, not DTD.

If you read DAs/Plans/Ks/Performance/Things read in Policy, read below

POLICY

Affs:

You do you. I did performance, kritikal, and policy affs. I was a 2A for most of high school and and college. Please have fully explained internal link structures. I will vote neg on presumption if I have no clue what the aff does.

The worst part of any aff is always the internal link. Please have a rigorous explanation of what your aff does and how that process changes the status quo to solve your impacts.

Survival strategies are very important but I would prefer if they were tied to a method outside the ballot.

I think inherency is important and will gladly vote on it. Existential inherency is mixing burdens.

Framework/T-USfg:

Most debates that I judge center on this question. I tend to view framework as competing interpretations of what kind of debates we should be having. What does this mean for you? A) I'm probably less interested in hearing your impact turns to framework. B) The neg probably still has to answer case. C) I am very interested in the TVA. D) I am very interested in creative definitions of the words in the resolution.

I'm probably more interested in creative FW interpretations than I am in T-USfg.

I used to coach in Morocco. This means I tend to hold aff teams going for no CI + Impact turns to a higher standard than most judges. I was recently pressed on this, my reasoning is that most K literature is illegal in Morocco. This means my auto-default is that there should be some kind of stasis point for contestation outside of banned literature.

I am fairly persuaded by the argument that "should" denotes action, while "ought" denotes theoretical underpinnings. Feel free to change my mind.

Maybe I'm crazy, but no one has gone for the TVA as a CP in front of me in a while. If these debates still happen in front of other judges, then this fact makes me sad.

I don't understand why the only stasis point debaters go for is USfg is federal government and Resolved: is legislative action. If the aff never even mentions intellectually property rights, maybe try going for that.

Skills/fairness are probably better than some nebulous clash impact.

T:

T debates are awesome when there is clash, but that can sometimes be more dependent on the topic than on the debaters (I'm looking at you, education topic). I went almost exclusively for T my first year in policy debate but didn't the next three years.

I usually judge this in an offense/defense paradigm but I can be persuaded by a highly developed reasonability argument. I have recently learned that my definition of these two framings might be different that other judges. To me, offense/defense = preponderance of evidence (i.e. civil litigation) while reasonability = beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. criminal litigation). This means that reasonability is not an auto aff ballot, the standards will still be weighed but the negs barrier is at 98% instead of 51%. Feel free to change my mind on this.

Someone has recently begun persuading me that reasonability should mean the reasonable man standard from contract law. This will not change how I'm viewing debates these next couple of weeks as some people may not reread my paradigm before prefs must be input. If my mind does change, I'll update my paradigm after Greenhill.

I am probably good for a debate about the terms of art in the topic. Probably bad for grammar.

DAs:

DAs are fun. Please have a counterplan or highly developed turns case. Turns case does not mean turns the impact, it means turns the solvency mechanism of the plan. Turns the impact is probably impact framing, so see below.

I do not have a stance on uniqueness controls the link or link controls uniqueness. Feel free to make an argument for either.

Politics:

Politics can either be a lot of fun, or an absolute disaster. I am not up to date on what is occurring in the political landscape unless it involves financial institutions in the US. Please take this into consideration.

I am probably more susceptible to an intrinsicness/fiat solves argument than most judges.

Rider DAs are probably a non-starter

CPs:

All CPs are justified until proven otherwise. Some CPs hold up poorly to theory arguments, others hold up well.

Advantage CPs with one aff advantage turned are great debates.

Textual competition seems silly. Functional competition and opportunity costs seem important. Feel free to change my mind.

I generally tend to think CP theory as a justification for a permutation, rather than a reason to drop the arg/debater. I can be persuaded otherwise, especially by arguments such as solvency advocate theory or object fiat bad.

Judge kick on an instinctual level is bad because I think strategic choices are one of the best things students learn in debate. Feel free to change my mind though.

Judge kick is probably an additional world in a condo debate context. Please consider this when writing your interps or have a compelling argument for why it's not.

I haven't heard someone debate CP competition in front of me in a hot minute. These debates are fun and I miss them.

I'm probably better for no neg fiat than most.

Ks:

At TOC-type tournaments, great! At NSDA-type tournaments, probably not the best idea.

This is the second most popular argument in front of me. I can probably count on one hand the number of round judged this year that did not include some form of K debate.

I read Ks back in the day. I used to read kritikal literature for fun. I have not had the time to be up to date on the lit base like I used to. If you're reading cutting edge research, please take your time in explaining it to me.

I am very familiar with Queerness, Agamben, Magical Realism, Settler Colonialism, and Cap. I am very comfortable with Afropessimism, Afrofuturism, Bifo, and Foucault. I am not very comfortable with Baudrillard just because he makes me feel uncomfortable. I can flow a Derrida, DnG, or Psychoanalysis round but please hold my hand when extending.

The link probably isn't as strong as the neg thinks, but also not as weak as the aff thinks, please clash on it.

I'm probably not good for kicking the alt and going for the links as linear DAs. This has always seemed nonstrategic to me. If you're winning your theory of power necessary for the linear DA, you're probably ahead on FW or the alt.

FWs that negate the weighing of plan action are probably more offensive than some middle ground thingy without an explanation of what those rounds look like.

Analytics:

Please for all that is good in this world, slow down. Debaters tend to go far too fast on these and if I don't catch your warrant I'm not very likely to buy your argument.

Case Defense/Turns:

This is the second least utilized part of the debate. Solvency cards are usually bad. Impact cards are always bad. Please capitalize on this. I will give you just as many speaker points if you go for a CP/DA, a K, or Dedev so please don't be worried about the argument that you choose.

CX:

This is the least utilized part of debate. Not because debaters don't try to use it (unlike the case debate) but because debaters don't know how to either A) not be rude or B) don't know how to use it in a speech. If you use CX properly then you can win the debate nearly immediately, if you use it improperly you can lose the debate immediately.

I have yet to see a debate this year where I didn't know which debater was probably going to win after the first cross. If this happens, I'll update.

I will flow cross if I think it has an impact on the round. I will probably flow cross if I think it doesn't have an impact on the round.

Every time you ask a question that shows you aren't flowing, I'm mentally deducting speaker points. Probably about .1 to .2.

Impact Framing:

All positions require it, so be good at it. If neither team does it then I'll do it myself. Trust me, you don't want that happening. I generally default to probability > magnitude > timeframe. This is in no way set in stone so feel free to change my mind. You do not need cards to change my mind on this, just a well developed argument.

Performance:

My favorite aff I ever wrote was a queer ballroom X-Men magical realism aff. Go wild but have a compelling reason why I should sign your name(s), rather than the other team's, on this ballot.

I don't think performance gives you a pass on being shitty (not answers cross, double standards on rules like speech times, forcing the other team not to spread when one of your debaters can). I can be convinced these are all good things, but it'll probably hurt your speaks.

General Thoughts

I was a 2A, if that matters.

The best way to win a round is clear judge instruction. I want to intervene as little as possible and that requires explicit instruction from the debaters. If you do not instruct me how to judge, my own bias will come into play. I don't want that, you don't want that, and your coach doesn't want that. The only person that does is your opponent.

I was a flex debater because I think debate is more fun when there is contestation on the content of an argument. I also was very very bad at framework/T-USfg. Please keep this in mind when you decide to pref me for clash rounds.

Tech over truth generally, but truth can sometimes overcome tech when you are just patently false. If you have a two minute long explanation about how Bifo is a materialist because he has material impacts, and your opponent says you're on crack, I'm probably voting for your opponent. If you spend two minutes explaining how your specific argument takes into account materialism even if Bifo the author does not, and your opponent says your on crack, I'm probably voting for you. In both scenarios you're probably not materialist, but in the second I'm far more likely to give you the ballot.

I do my best to leave my biases outside the room, but that will always be a difficult thing to do.

If you want any other information about how I think feel free to email me or read John Henry Stearns' or Ali Abdulla's paradigms. One is my brother, the other is one of my best friends growing up. Both think very similarly to me and reading their paradigms might help.

Other people who influenced me, in order of impact: Andrew Garcia, Aron Berger, Michael Antonucci, Walker Perkins, Tillman Huett, Preston Stolte, Shaneal Harun, Steven Pipkin

Mr. Stearns is mydad,Mrs. Stearns is my mom. If you call me either, I will assume you would rather be judged by one of them and adjust my judging accordingly.

I only flow warrants. If I am not actively flowing, it's probably because I don't think you have made an argument yet.

I am not a flow bot. I am human and will miss things. If you think something is important, make sure you tell me.

I would actively prefer if debaters spoke at a conversational pace. This does not mean that I can't flow your spreading, but talking normally is just a lot more comfortable.

If you read an ethics challenge and wish to stake the debate on it, I will stop the round and go to tab. If you do not stake the debate on it, I will not adjudicate it.

Subtlety is for cowards.

I voted on presumption in about half of last year's debates.

I think I suck at writing ballots. I think I'm coherent while giving the RFD. Please let me know if I'm not. If you get your ballot back and it is illegible, please email me.

I tend to give RFDs very quickly. This is because I am at all times attempting to evaluate win conditions for each debater. I will try to be as informative and constructive in my RFDs as possible.

Having Fun

I know this is a competition, but please have fun with it. I know that I did and I hope you do too.

armadaverae@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch but I'll say clear three times before I stop flowing. I haven't judged for a few month so I would not suggest intense spreading.

Please make sure Ks are clear- especially links, alts, and ROB. I'm not the best judge for performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse and spec DTD/DTA.

Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. I won't evaluate arguments without extensions.

Have your cases ready!!

If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)