I have been a hired judge for 15+ years and I successfully competed in High School, back in the 90's at Gregory-Portland under the legendary Charlotte Brown.

LD:

I am an old school debate judge - I value solid evidence. Old evidence is a tough sell as we are usually debating very present-day topics. In addition, I like seeing good analysis on topic. I will also base decisions on over-reaching arguments that are dropped/addressed in a round. Finally, I loathe spreading. I remind all students at the beginning of each round.

PF:

Please, don't spread! Enunciation is important - regardless of the speed. I want an opportunity to successfully flow the debate. Professionalisms is very important throughout the debate, especially during cross-fire. I value good analysis and structured arguments with recent-ish evidence. I am receptive to diverse perspectives and interesting arguments. While I am flexible on style and well-run strategies - I will accept K's but you need to be sure you can tie back to the topic. I don't think that it is fair for one side to have a prepared case on a monthly topic and you get to run the same kill-joy all year - so be advised. If you expect to win - don't drop arguments, Don't just say I win on X, X and X WITHOUT a statement to support why. Also, big fan of sign-posting and voters. So, take a deep breath, and let's have some fun!

Hello, I am Juan Cruz from Bryan High School.

I am a parent judge, but have judged on and off for about a year. I am, however, new to "progressive" styles of debating. So keep that in mind.

I prefer clear speech, some speed is ok but spreading is hard to flow and not desirable.

I understand traditional debate a lot more than progressive style debate.

I think that truth>tech but i agree that clash is important.

Email chain: david.do.6375@gmail.com and (CX only) hawkcxdebate@gmail.com

Overview

– None of this applies to PF or other formats besides Policy/CX and LD.

– Tech over truth in most cases. I won't evaluate an argument without a warrant, even if it's completely unanswered. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other wholly unethical and derogatory arguments. Additionally, I've grown tired of nonsense like T-"In means Throughout," the Death K, Fiat K, Chance K, etc. that I will not flow them or evaluate them. If you go for these arguments in the final rebuttals and your opponents don't even attempt to them throughout the whole debate, I will vote for your opponents. My main issue is that teams read these arguments simply to fill time. If your opponent's answer the argument sufficiently, neg teams would never bother to go for these arguments in the first place. I understand that neg ground on some topics can be lackluster, but I would rather listen to a Process CP that you would go for than these arguments you would never go for unless dropped.

– I prefer contextualized arguments with specific warrants over anything else. Although I generally prefer high-quality evidence, issues from lack of evidence or poor-quality evidence can be resolved with good argumentation. I do normally read cards, but I leave explanations and comparison of evidence up to debaters. I mostly read cards to give comments/advice on how to better execute/answer a particular argument.

– I’m not the best for teams reading Kritikal arguments. I didn’t read a lot of Kritikal arguments in high school, which means that I don’t understand your arguments as well as most judges. If you do want to read a kritik and pref me, then structural kritiks like capitalism, militarism, and security and identity kritiks like anti-blackness, feminism, and queer theory are fine. Post-modern kritiks are really pushing my boundaries. However, you shouldn't over-adapt. I would much prefer you read arguments you're familiar with and are able to clearly articulate over arguments I understand. I will be able to follow along with what you're saying so long as you're properly explaining key components of your argument.

– I don't often vote on 0% risk of anything. Although I have voted on 0% risk of impacts or solvency in the past, this was mostly because aff/neg teams provided insufficient responses, rather the other side being so good at beating an argument into the ground. In a debate where both sides are sufficiently responding to each other's arguments, I default to impact calculus more than anything else.

– "Soft-Left" affs have become increasingly popular and common. I don't have an issue with these affs in general, but I do have an issue with 1ACs that have a short 3-4 card advantage with 5-minute-long framing contentions that include pre-empts like "no nuclear war", "[x] DA has [y]% risk", and "[z] thumped their DAs". Teams that read these 1ACs seem to have an aversion to debate. I have read these 1ACs in the past, so I understand the strategic utility of long framing contentions. However, I much prefer listening to 1ACs that have well-developed advantage and solvency contentions. I enjoy sifting through quality evidence that came from the topic literature base rather than evidence I can find in my backfiles. Additionally, I have been increasingly finding myself persuaded by aff indicts of extinction first frameworks. High-magnitude, low-probability events have increasingly silly and comical to me. That being said, the aff must still make defensive arguments to DAs and answer the specific extinction scenarios that the neg has made.

– Unlike most judges, I flow cross-ex. This doesn't mean I consider cross-ex a speech, rather I am taking notes of cross-ex. You don't need to go into detail about what happened during cross-ex during your speech. I will understand the reference and evaluate your use of cross-ex accordingly.

– I have some knowledge over what patents, copyrights, and trademarks are. However, I am not familiar with the proposed legislations or case law related to these areas. I will have trouble understanding arguments when these policies and their relevance to the debate aren't explained. I may intervene more than I should in this circumstance, which will lead to an outcome you may not like. To avoid this, connect what the plan does (or doesn't do) to the law your evidence talks about.

Topicality

– I generally default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I err towards reasonability when there isn't a coherent case list, a persuasive link to the limits disad, or high-quality evidence defending the interpretation. Reasonability is about the aff's counter-interpretation, not the aff.

– I'm not persuaded by "plan text in a vacuum". Just inserting the resolution into your plan text isn't enough to prove that the aff is topical. You have to prove your mechanism fits under the resolution.

Framework

– Comparative impact calculus matters more than winning in-roads to the other side's offense. I am more likely to vote on "procedural fairness outweighs maximizing revolutionary education" over "switch-side debate solves the aff's offense." Winning turns and access to the other side's offense increases your chance of winning, but they aren't necessary to winning the debate. These arguments are inherently defensive and, alone, are not enough to win the debate.

– Recently, many negative teams have increasingly gone for clash and education as the impact in the 2NR. I find procedural fairness as a more persuasive impact than clash and education. Members of the debate community approach debate as if it were an academic game, which means the collapse of that game discourages further investment into the activity.

Kritiks

– Like most judges, I prefer case-specific links. Links frame the degree to which the neg gets all of their offense and K tricks on framework, the permutation, and the alternative. The more the link is about the broader structures that the aff engages in, the more likely I am to err aff on perm solvency of the links. I'm a sucker for 1AC quotes/re-highlights as proof of a link.

– Kritiks that push back on the aff's theory of the world require, at least in some part, case defense. Defense to the 1ACs impacts or solvency claims are useful to disprove the necessity of doing the aff. I'm more likely to be convinced that the aff has manufactured their threats and have engaged in militarist propaganda when you've proven the aff wrong about their scenarios. Absent sufficient case defense, extinction outweighs, and I vote aff.

– K tricks are fine. However, I won't give very high speaks if a debate is won or lost on them. I am not a fan of floating PIKs, especially if it's not clear until the 2NR.

Counterplans

– I absolutely love counterplans that come from re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC. Even if your counterplan doesn’t come from their 1AC author, the more case specific it is, the more likely I am to reward you for it.

– Presumption flows towards the least change. I consider most CPs that are not PICs as a larger change than the aff.

– I will judge kick unless told otherwise. If I believe the CP links back to its net benefit or the permutation resolves the links to the net benefit, I will evaluate the net benefit independent of the CP.

Disadvantages

– DAs that rely on poor-evidence can be easily beaten without the 2AC ever reading new evidence against it. I am much more comfortable voting aff on "your uniqueness evidence is horrible" than 1% risk of a poorly carded DA. I am also very sympathetic to the 1AR making new arguments when the block reads new evidence to defend parts the 1NC that were originally not defended.

– The Economy DA has been incredibly popular in this topic. I'm an economics major, so I will generally understand the macroeconomic factors and theories that your authors are talking about. Just because I understand them does not mean you can simply name drop the theories as a response to your opponent's link or link turn. If anything, my understanding of these links and link turns means impacting out each individual link and link turn is far more important. At the end of these debates, I will still have a hard time evaluating each link and link turn because neither side has sufficiently explained the significance of their arguments.

Theory

– Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument, except for condo. Unless there is a persuasive reason for why the reading of the argument in and of itself ruins the debate so much that the only remedy is a loss for the other team, I will not change my views on this.

– Process CPs have become increasingly popular. I generally err aff that Process CPs are bad, and severance or intrinsic permutations are therefore justified.

– I rarely vote on shotty theory arguments like ASPEC, Disclosure Theory, New Affs Bad, etc. unless they are dropped and properly impacted out.

Miscellaneous

– I will always disclose or give feedback after the round is over. Debaters will only improve if they are given proper feedback and the opportunity to ask questions about the round. I want to watch and enjoy good debates, but that can only happen when debaters improve and know how to effectively articulate their arguments.

– For UIL State, the above is not true.

– Re-highlighted evidence can be inserted, but you must explain what you've re-highlighted and why the re-highlighting proves your argument (or disproves your opponent's argument). Simply inserting the re-highlighted and stating that the re-highlighting proves your argument is not sufficient. You must make a complete argument with the re-highlighted evidence.

– I have witnessed more and more debaters marking multiple cards in every speech they give. There is nothing wrong with marking cards, but excessive marking (marking more than 3 cards in a single speech) is frustrating. I will ask a debater who marks more than 3 cards to send out a marked copy. I will also lower speaker points for such behavior.

– Please start slow before speeding up. It's difficult for me to understand the first few seconds of your speech otherwise.

LD/PF

– I flow LD and PF differently from how I flow CX debates. I flow everything on two "sheets of paper." One for all the aff contentions and another for all the neg contentions. This means signposting and consolidating the debate are extremely important. The more contentions left by the end of the debate, the messier my flows will be.

– I am largely unfamiliar with LD and PF specific terms and norms. I will do my best to respect both traditional norms and changes to them. This also means I am unable and unwilling to listen to theory debates about those norms. If I am forced to listen to such debates, speaker points will be very low.

email: vadajanak@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/hers

About me-

Coach at Hendrickson High School in Austin

TLDR:

No Spreading; especially analytics. I’m old now

First, do what you're good at! I would much rather judge a round that you are comfortable having than judge one where you are trying to match my paradigm word for word.

Given that you:

1) explain the claim, warrant, and impact to your arguments. You will have a better chance of me correctly evaluating your arguments the way you want me to.

2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario, K jargon, or weird philosophies. Help me out, so that I can help you out

3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and/or performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.

4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.

-Please note: there is a clear distinction between persuasion and passion and being rude. I do not take kindly to rudeness, and it will show in your speaks.

5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “When what they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]". If you tell me how to vote, why I should vote that way, and why it matters for the round, it will be an easier ballot for you.

6) It has also been a while since I have judged policy in person so please read slower (faster than convo speed but slow enough that you're not gasping for air every 4 seconds), at least on analytics. If you want to sample a speed for me before the round, just ask and I will let you know if that is too fast.

The real one:

1st: policy

2nd: WSD

Policy:

I was most comfortable doing a blend of traditional and progressive CX in high school. I ran PTX DA's, T, and Cap K the most out of every argument on the Neg. I ran soft left policy affs on the China, Education, and Arm Sales topics, but I ran a K Aff on immigration.

Affs:

You can run either a plan, K Aff, or a performative aff. I am more familiar and understanding of plan text aff's, but I really appreciate the literature and concepts behind the K aff's I have seen. Given that, I will probably need those types of aff's to be explained more in the later speeches and probably read at a slower speed.

DA's:

DisAds are probably my favorite cup of tea. My go to has always be the politics DA. I am familiar with probably every DA there is. Case specific links are always preferred. Don't just read 4 generic DA's unless that's all you have. However, if it is pretty generic, it will take less work for the aff to tell me no link. Also explain the internal link! The more you tell me about how we really get from the plan text to nuke war the better time we will both have. And please please please do real impact calculus and evaluation. Don't just say "The DA outweighs the case." Tell me why.

T:

I am a firm believer in the idea that a well ran T can be voted on in the 2NR. Given that, if you go for T, it should be the ONLY thing in the 2NR, and it should be easily explained and have voters.

CP's:

Tell me how the CP works, why its mutually exclusive, and specifically how it actually solves the aff and prevents the DA. And if you're going to put 8 different planks, tell me how each of those is important. If the Aff doesn't perm the CP or give me a good reason why it doesn't solve, I'll more than likely vote for it. If it is not specified by either team, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K's:

Like I said above, not my cup of tea, but I would like them to be. I'm familiar with Cap and Neolib, so anything out of that area will need to be explained. Please use case/resolution specific links. You can read your "state action links" cards, but the aff has a pretty good footing to tell me why that's a bad link. UNLESS, state action is unique to your K and you explain to me how this isn't the same thing you read every round. Typically, the impact to the K and the Aff are drastically different so please tell me how to evaluate your systematic oppression impact to their nuke war. I hold K's to their alt's. Unless the Neg tells me why, how, and when the alt happens/who can engage with the alt/how the ballot plays a role in facilitating the alt, the Aff pretty much has free reign to tell me that the Alt doesn't solve.

Theory:

If your opponents have given you a real reason to run theory please do! I strongly believe in debaters having discussions with each other about how one of their actions was bad for debate. I also will vote off of Condo bad, especially if you read more than 5 off :)

WSD:

This was by far my favorite event to compete in in high school. I think that it offers the most real world skills and provides the most real education

I started competing in WSD in 2016. The event has drastically changed since then, but I believe how it was 2016-2018 was the best version of it. In 2020, I was 2nd top speaker at TFA state and 12th top speaker at NSDA Nationals to give you some perspective.

I'll evaluate the round in the three ways the ballot allows me to: style, content, and strategy. I will take into consideration the "flow", but just because you "lose the debate" in a technical sense does not mean you automatically lose. Nor if you win the technical parts does it guarantee that you will win the ballot.

Style:

Persuasion, tone, speed, and attitude in the round are things I will consider for your style points. Use your ethos, pathos, logos. This is WSD so do not spread. I also will dock your style points if you're rude or disrespectful to your opponents or to me. Also, don't just read off your paper for the entire first and second speeches. This event has lots of extemporaneous elements to it.

Content:

The first speech is super important to make sure that you can get full content points in the whole round. If the meat of your case isn't good, then you're going to have a rough time in the other speeches. If you're not defining words in the motion, explaining how your model works (if there is one) or giving synthesized examples in the different points, then you're going to have a hard time getting points here. Believe it or not, it is easy to tell when words are coming out of your mouth but nothing is really being said, you know? Just be logical and thoughtful with your words.

Strategy:

This is the most undermined point area in WSD in my opinion. It might be the lowest about of possible points, but most people rarely get them. If you set up your different points in a strategic way, ask POI's that you'll use in your next speech, and organize the debate to tell me not just why your opponents are losing, but also, reasons that you're winning, the points are yours to have. I appreciate organization and I believe that the way you set up your speech is a strategy of itself, so keep that in mind too.

POI's:

Please please please ask/state POI's!!!!!!!!!! Far too often do people not ask enough. A good POI will help get you points in style, content, and strategy. Even more so, ask POI's when your opponents are on a roll because you don't want to let them talk for 8 mins uninterrupted. BUT. Please note, there is a very clear difference in a good "aha! gotcha" POI and a rude uncalled for POI.

Also! you don't have to take every POI you get asked, but if you ignore every single one I will think you do not know what you are talking about or that you are not paying attention.

he/they

add me to the email chain:patmah729@gmail.com. Please include the tournament, division, round, and flight in the email subject line
Please set up the filesharing before the round. Rounds should start on time. There is especially no excuse for flight 2 late starts.
Record your speeches for online debates

I debated for four years in DFW at Byron Nelson High School (2019-2023). I'm currently studying Sustainability and Geosciences at UT Austin (Not debating, just judging). I'm a K debater at heart and read the Anthro K extensively (won't hack for it though), but I engaged in every style of debate regularly aside from super traditional debate which didn't really exist on my circuit. I didn't have a coach my last two years of debate so I relied extensively on judge feedback to improve, I will do my best to give you feedback that helps you improve.

TLDR: I most enjoy technical debate executed well. I judge a lot, but most of that is at locals and is pretty stock, so give me time to warm up at circuit tournaments. I'm comfortable listening to most arguments at most speeds, but give me pen time (even if I'm laptop flowing) or it will not get to the flow; I can't type as fast as you speak and I try not to flow off the doc, but I would rather swallow my pride and look at the doc than miss something and give a bad decision. Flash dense, prewritten analytics or slow them down. Tell me what to do and I'll do it, leave the decision in my hands and you'll be disappointed.

General Paradigm

I will try to be tab

- Speed: I don't have the best hearing, so maybe around 80% of your top speed is best.
- Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible. I am very unlikely to intervene unless there's a safety issue.
- Default Comparative worlds > Truth Testing
- Default competing interps > reasonability
- Default to util if nobody says anything
Speech times, safety, and whatever tab/the tournament invite says are the only actual rules of debate. Anything else is a norm and can be changed.

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

Ks: Bad K debate makes me sad. Good K debate is what I'm here for (1)
K Affs: are good, explain things pls (1)
Larp: is fine, go for it. (2)
Phil: These debates get really murky very quickly, please be clear and explain everything like I'm an idiot or I'm going to mess something up. (3)
Theory: I actually really like these debates, but I'm not the best at flowing procedurals so be really clear, send the doc or something for me to fall back on, otherwise I'll probably mess something up. (2)
Trad: You do you, but I expect you to correctly engage with (and beat) technical arguments. If you can't do that, strike me. (4-Strike)
Trix: are for kids. I guess I'll still evaluate it, I'd just rather not. (4-Strike)

Rapid fire misc thoughts:
Disclosure is good, I think open source + RRs should be the norm.
Unless you justify it in the 1ac as some sort of underview, 1ar theory has a higher threshold for warranting and explanation because it is introduced later.
Condo is probably okay, but you still have to justify it
RVIs are good (in LD/PF)
The best rebuttals have minimal/no overview and do everything on the line-by-line.
PTX Disads are fun and I like them, but you should be reading updated, unique, interesting scenarios.
Patrick Fox: "i am unsure why debate getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop"
"I don't need this to win, but I'll extend this anyway" is incredibly frustrating to hear. This is a synonym to the equally frustrating "Even if you don't buy X, You can also vote on Y." Collapse. Don't go for everything, just because you win it doesn't mean you should go for it.
Judge kick seems like a copout at best and intervention at the worst, I'd be less grumpy doing it if its justified in the 1nc, but I'd rather you just commit to the CP.
Please don't make early morning round 1s super complicated, I'm still waking up and can't do your arguments justice without a little warmup.

I'm pretty solidly in the trial by fire camp, but there's a line between trial by fire and just throwing your weight around. Don't make it harder to be a less experienced or institutionally disadvantaged debater. Read what you want, but don't be inaccessible or intentionally obtuse. Be the support you wish you had as a novice.

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

Speaker points

My average speaks from all rounds I've judged is 28.2. I frequently rank debaters very close (within .5) of one another because I feel that you really can't showcase your skill without a strong opponent as well. I.e. If the aff debates perfectly against an opponent who drops everything in the 1nc, the aff probably won't get a 30 because there were ultimately fewer decisions that needed to be made in order to win.

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on strategy, delivery, norm setting, and round conduct. I will disclose speaks, just ask.

Speaks scale:

29.7-30.0 - Perfect debate, very difficult round
29.4-29.6 - Very good debate, difficult round
29.0-29.3 - Very good debate, average round
28.5-28.9 - Good debate, average round
28.0-28.4 - Average debate, average round
27.5-27.9 - Made several mistakes, average round
27.0-27.4 - Made several mistakes, below average round
26.0-26.9 - Very very messy round, made several mistakes, or said/did something objectionable
25.4-25.9 - Said/did something objectionable repeatedly
25.0-25.3 - Was incredibly rude, violent, or objectionable. Created a hostile environment.

Things that will boost your speaks:

Sending analytics in the doc
Collapsing early
Innovating and reading something unique and interesting that I haven't seen before
Being nice to novices

Things that will tank your speaks:

Misgendering someone (It's an auto loss if you do it twice. Be better)
Disorganized speeches
Not sending a doc
Powertagging
Paraphrasing
Making me intervene
Stealing prep
Showing up late to the round
Docbotting

LD:

Before all else, I'm a progressive LD judge because that's what I did as a debater. Everything above is mostly applicable to LD, more so than any other event.

Traditional framework debate: Framework is not a voter, it's just the lens I use to evaluate the round. Contextualize how your case best achieves the winning framework of the round. Ideally, you should do some weighing under both frameworks if the debate is at all uncertain. Anything less is gambling with my ballot.

Value debate is meaningless except in very narrow, very uncommon situations and I would rather you concede a value of morality/justice and then do the framework debate on the criterions.

CX:

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

Policy debaters especially need to slow down their analytics, theory, and tags. If you're making arguments you care about getting onto the flow, you have to give me time to get them onto the flow, I'm not a stenographer.

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

PF:

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

I'm so tired of wasting time waiting for cards. Only way to get a 30 in pf is if you send a speechdoc with non-paraphrased evidence (policy style cards) like how every other event does it. If you choose not to send evidence initially and we end up wasting time for you to find it and send it, I will be docking speaks heavily.

I will probably never vote for an argument that calls me to reject someone solely for engaging in progressive/policy oriented debate.

"accordingly," "Luckily," "we see this in" and other adverbs or transitional phrases are NOT TAGLINES. your taglines ought to include the claim the card is making. If your cards are missing taglines, you can gamble with whether I'm going to flow what you want me to. This will heavily impact speaks.

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

read paraphrasing theory

this is currently a work in progress. if you have a specific question not answered here ask me before the round starts

I debated in HS for four years in both LD and CX from 2015 - 2019

LD:

general ranking of how comfortable I am judging certain positions

1 - Policy (LARP)

2 - the K

3 - dense philosophy framework

4 - theory/tricks. I'm probably not the judge to read frivolous theory in front of. This is not a flow you can just spread through.

I think case disclosure is good for debate. I won’t vote on disclosure theory at local tournaments.

Spreading/General Admin: I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. I expect cameras to stay on during an online debate. (If the debate is over and you are waiting for my RFD then turning off the camera is fine).

Road Maps: It should just be the name of the flow/argument (DA, CP, K, framing) in the order you will be addressing them. (Do not go aff then neg when the neg has three off -> instead go aff then neg in the order they read them.)

Rebuttals: I prefer debaters who go down the flow and engage in the line by line. Make sure to signpost and interact with the opponent's arguments (ex: go to where they say x). Don't just read/dump your blocks on the flow and expect me to do the work of applying them for you. Make sure to explain the impact of your responses in the first rebuttal speech. I've noticed a trend where this isn't done until the 2AR at that point it's too late.

Strategy: Debate should be educational if you are hitting novice/nonprogressive debaters and you decided to outspread them or do more than what is necessary to win a ballot to burden them. I will give you lower speaks.

email: daisyobregon10@gmail.com

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years (2015-2019). I did mostly LD, but have some experience in PF, Policy, and even Congress. I debated TFA, UIL, NSDA, and TOC circuits. I ran a lot of queer theory, ableism, and LatCrit.

Put me on the email chain blake.a.ochoa@gmail.com

For PF

You can run whatever you want but don't think that because I'm an LD judge I will hack for theory or other progressive arguments. If anything it is a strong uphill battle because you will have so little time to flesh out a shell. If you think genuine abuse occurred you are better off just saying that on case than trying to read a full shell.
I need the summary and final focus to write my ballot for me. Tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs. If you don't do these things then I will have to try to figure it out myself and you are less likely to like my conclusion than if you just tell me how stuff breaks down.
You can go moderately fast but if you are just trying to go fast to scare/keep your opponent from engaging you won't get good speaks.
Refer to the speaker point scale and procedural things below, most of it still applies to PF.

Be nice and have fun!

Short Version

I will vote on anything as long as I get a clear explanation of it, but frivolous theory/tricks will be a steep uphill battle for you. I did mostly K debate, but I am well experienced in LARP, Theory, and traditional stuff as well. I won’t hack for you just because you read a K. Impact everything to a framing mechanism. I like to have a very clear explanation of what argument operates on what layer of the debate. If you go over 350 wpm you run the risk of me missing arguments. I’ll say slow/clear/fast/loud twice before it affects your speaks. I give speaks based on strategy, but being polite is a side constraint. Be nice and have fun!

Speed

I did circuit debate, so I have a decent understanding of speed, that being said slow down on important texts, analytics, and dense T/Theory analysis. If you flash me evidence I don’t care how fast you read the evidence as long as you aren’t clipping. I probably cap out around 350-400 wpm, so I might miss things over that. If you make a winning argument at that speed and I miss it, that’s your fault, not mine.

K

Note: I’m ok with 1AR K’s, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

This was my favorite kind of argument to read in high school, but for that reason it is wise to ensure you are familiar with any K lit before you read it in front of me. I will judge based on how you articulate the argument, but I might look frustrated when you say incorrect things. I have a MUCH better understanding of identity K’s than high theory stuff, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N. I feel iffy about PIKs in general, if you want to read a PIK in front of me make it clear why perm doesn’t solve in the NC. To vote on K’s I need a clear link, impact to a framing mechanism, and a thorough explanation of the alt. If you wind up kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA, I will hold the link explanation to a higher standard.

T/Theory

Note: I’m ok with 1AR theory, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

I have a strong understanding of how T/Theory functions, but I didn’t read it much, so if you are going for nuanced/ specific offense make your analysis twice as clear as you normally would. I will definitely vote if I see clear abuse, but frivolous theory will likely get an eye roll and higher expectations of what your analysis has to accomplish. I think in-round abuse outweighs potential abuse. If you go for norm-setting arguments it will be harder or you to win the theory flow (You need to win why you winning this particular round will set a norm). I will always look to paradigm issues before I analyze what happened on the T/Theory flow proper, so don’t waste your time going for a shell if you are gonna concede drop the argument. I DO NOT like a 1AR collapse to RVIs. If this is your best option in a round, go for it but I will be bored and sad.

Tricks

I have a complicated relationship with tricks. I guess I would vote for them if they are conceded, but you won’t get very high speaks because I don’t think that there is much educational value to debates that come down to “They conceded the B subpoint of the second justification of the 5th presumption spike.” That’s gross.

Basically if you want me to vote for tricks that are piffy and serve no purpose other than to confuse your opponent, I’m not down. If you supplement tricks with something more in depth go for it.

The only scenario in which I will drop you for tricks is if your opponent has a disability that is explained and you STILL go for tricks after that explanation is made.

DA

If I am going to vote on a DA with no advocacy associated I need a strong explanation of a solid link and an impact to a framing mechanism with reasons why it outweighs. I don’t think there is much else to say here.

CP

I like interesting counterplan debates, meaning that the more nuanced/fleshed out your CP the better. I think it is important that the CP text itself makes sense and isn’t a paragraph long. PICs are ok but please make them distinct enough from the affirmative to keep the debate interesting (like actor changes are fine but delay/consult Cps make me sad). I need a net benefit, solvency advocate, and an extended CP text to vote on it. A conceded perm is damning so don’t concede perms please.

Phil

My understanding of philosophical frameworks is pretty average. I have a good grasp on Kant, Hobbes, Butler, and other common stuff, but if you are going beyond the normal stuff, that’s fine but PLEASE explain it clearly. Regurgitating buzzwords will make me go “>:( .” As long as I can use your framework as an impact filter, you’re good. I do, however have an ethical problem with tricky framework for the sake of being tricky for the same reason I think Tricks debates aren’t educational. To clarify, if you can’t explain the framework to a fifth grader in the time of cx, it’s too tricky. Also, if your framework justifies morally reprehensible things and you defend those things, I won’t vote for you and your speaks will suffer.

Value/Criterion

Although I did a lot of circuit debate, I still really appreciate a good value/criterion traditional debate. Framework analysis is much more important in traditional debates, but I don’t think reading a counter framework is necessary. However, I want every impact to be contextualized in terms of some criterion/standard. If you don’t articulate why your impact outweighs your opponent, I will have to intervene and then no one will be happy.

Speaks

30-29 Seriously impressed

29-28 Pretty good, you should break

27-28 Some glaring strategy issues

27-25 Your strat was DOA or you said something overtly problematic or mean

25-0 You were so rude/ problematic that it made the debate feel unsafe

• If you make me think about the debate space/society in a different/enlightening way I will slightly inflate your speaks

Procedural Things

Here are my defaults, the lower on the list they are the less time it needs to change my mind

• Role of the ballot is the highest layer of framework
• Case can be cross applied to T/Theory
• No RVIs
• Reasonability
• Drop the argument

I do NOT have a default for layering offs (K before T, etc) so you NEED to do this analysis in front of me

I am generally tech/truth unless you are just lying (like saying that global warming isn’t real)

I will be disappointed/drop speaks if you do this

• Not clearly answering cx questions (especially status of advocacies and what layer comes first)
• Are occasionally rude (sass is ok, but teasing is not)
• Not giving content warnings before possibly triggering arguments are made

I will drop you if you do this

• Say or do anything explicitly exclusionary
• Act egregiously rude or blatantly mean towards your opponent (if you don’t know if what you do is ‘egregious’ or not it probably is)

If there is an email chain I would like to be on it. alexpulcinedebate@gmail.com he/him. I don't check this email when I'm not at debate.

If you need to contact me for whatever reason (including if you want docs from rounds I've judged) email me at apulcine23 AT gmail.com. Please do not put this email on the chain.

tldr: Do you what you do best. I mostly read policy arguments in high school. If you are a K team spend the time to explain the lit that you almost definitely know more than me about. Be nice and make the debate accessible. If you have questions, ask them. For LD, most everything applies, just for phil rounds hold my hand and trix are probably a no for me. All the stuff below is personal preference and be overcome by good debating. Default to offense defense.

Speaks: I generally adjust how I give speaks depending on the tournament. To get good speaks in front of me I want good line by line, impact weighing, and judge instruction. I also try to reward strategy in speaks but not as heavily as earlier listed things. Being rude, overly aggressive, discriminatory, or just overall hateful is a pretty good way to end up with bad speaks. Something I want to make sure to emphasize isPLEASE MAKE THE DEBATE ACCESSIBLE. No, I am not asking you to jeopardize the round. I am just asking that you reconsider your plan to absolutely demolish your novice opponent in an attempt to look like a good debater. If you decide against this, you won't lose the ballot but you will lose speaks and make me sad.

If you can win using just the needed speech time (you probably don't need all your speech time to win a dropped disad vs team that dropped the aff after 1ac) speaks will be better, but if you end up losing or undercovering stuff speaks will go down.

Style/Speed: Make sure to sign post well so I can stay organized. Fine with speed. SLOW DOWN on analytics! Please please please please please read prewritten blocks slower than you would read a card.

Logistics: Flash or email isn't prep just don't take forever. If you want to delete analytics from the speech doc please do so before ending prep.

T: Can either be pretty interesting or really really boring. Not saying don’t read T, just saying that a meaningful standards debate and proof of in round abuse will go a long way. T is a voter and RVIs are probably not the best idea in front of me.

Theory: probably reject the argument unless condo, but you tell me. I don’t like the 3 second ASPEC blips or ASPEC hidden in the word doc in tiny text with no verbatim heading. Gimme pen

DA: I don’t need really specific links, just contextualize it to the aff. I think that disad turns the aff is convincing as well as a good impact calc. Feel free to read politics or generics but specific disads are always neat. Using aff evidence, cx, and strategic choice of other off to get links for a disad is impressive and can be good strategy.

CP: Same thing as DA’s, generic is fine, specifics are cool. Make sure your cp text is specific and says the part of the aff that cp does. Something like "Have the executive do the aff" or " Do the aff and ..." is not good practice, just take the 15 seconds to type it out. I wouldn't say that cps must have a solvency advocate but it's a debate to be had that I probably favor the aff in. Don't let this discourage you from reading an analytical cp against new affs or in general, just wanted to state my bias in the issue. Reading 5 cps with no solvency advocate = :( . Affs should be able to explain what each perm would look like. Tell me if you want 2nr judge kick.

K: They can be fun with good debating and understanding of the argument. I am not going to know as much about the K literature as you do, debate accordingly. Specific links can be convincing but contextualization of any link to the aff is a must. I think long K overviews don't help my understanding as much as you would think / as much as they might for other judges. I would much rather a shorter overview and more explanation in the line by line.

K Aff: I didn't read planless affs in hs, I'm going to have much less experience in these debates than you do. I don't judge these debates too often (probably due to the tournaments I judge at and people reading my paradigm), so come into the round knowing that. For the most part, same thing as K section, do some work explaining the thesis but feel free to read them. I feel like affs should win their model and be able to tell me what voting aff does.

Case: read it and impact turns can be fun if you really flesh them out in the block/2nr.

LD:

for larp / k everything above applies.

trad - Feel free to have a more traditional round but just understand that I rely heavily on offense / defense in my understanding of debate so you will need to do work in that respect.

Phil - I'm not totally against it, I just rarely judge these types of debates so you will need to hold my hand. I will most likely have little to zero prior knowledge on your phil lit. I also have trouble voting for phil debaters that don't answer / only answer with phil args vs policy arguments. If you want my ballot reading phil stuff, break it down and impact it out like policy / larp. If it is the end of the round and I still don't really know what you do / what we are talking about, youre probably not getting my ballot.

Trix - probably not your guy, if you decide to read trix anyways explain acronyms, give me extra pen time, and generally walk me through your args like you would a T. If the argument isn't contested, not much I can do about that as judge. Don't be surprised if the round doesn't go as you expected if I'm judging a fully fleshed out trix round.

IE Paradigm:

Extemp: I'm fine if you use a notecard (unless of course it is an elim round or varsity). Please make sure that you're signposting. My debate background makes me need strong links and impacts for any claims and evidence you're presenting. I really love a good AGD that is strongly connected to your topic.

Interp: I do not have experience in interp events, but I do have a background in theatre. Your character(s) need to come alive for me, but that doesn't necessarily mean being the most loud and dramatic. If I see a clear connection between the way you're performing as the character & the message of your piece, you'll be awesome in the round!

Debate Paradigm:

I competed in LD and CX when I was in high school 2014-2017

This is my second year teaching & coaching high school debate.

I deliberate on overall presentation: arguments + delivery.

Put me in the email chain: carrie.reavis@leanderisd.org

Keep your own time. I will keep my own and simply stop flowing if you go over your speaking time. Don't go over your allotted prep time.

Theory is fine.

Be considerate and respectful to everyone in the room.

Please give me roadmaps and signposts.

I have no preference over types of arguments, but overall you should connect the dots for me. Emphasize those warrants and impacts. Tell me why you get the ballot.

Hey, I'm Atharva and I'm a junior at McNeil, you can just call me Atharva.

FOR LD:

I'm fine with email chain or Speechdrop, you can share the doc however you like or choose not ot.|| MAKE SURE IT'S SET UP BEFORE ROUND STARTS ||My email: mcneilatharva@gmail.com

You can read literally anything in front of me and I'll vote on it but since this is for novices try and stay away from advanced arguments. If the 1AC starts the debate reading something like a k aff or tricks, you can do whatever you want.

Spreading is fine, just make sure you're clear. Before round, you should ask your opponent if they're fine with it.

Please do impact weighing and give a short summary of what arguments you're winning and that means you should win the round.

FOR EXTEMP:

If you do these things, you'll be fine

1. Have proper speech "etiquette" (eye contact, no fidgeting, purposeful movements, etc)
2. Don't be boring
3. Have a well-structured speech
4. Answer the prompt

Feel free to ask any questions before round, good luck!

Johnathen_standifer@roundrockisd.org

But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward.

LD -

Prefs -

Policy/K - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

Did policy and Ld in school.

If you want me to vote on something, tell me to vote on it. I don't want to have to do the work for you, the easier you make my ballot the more likely you are to pick it up. the more you're relying on a random response in the 1ar to be flowed and evaluated by me, the less likely you are to win. I'm not that good on the flow, just being honest. Collapse into a main argument or two, if you're asking me to do the work on evaluating between multiple meta layers, tell me how to do that work and make it easy for me.

STEALING THIS LINE because I love it: Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate

Read K's and Theory, I'll evaluate anything as long as you justify why I should care about it. I'm familiar with all the stock K's, if we're running anything fun just be sure to signpost it well and give me some solid voting issues. Make sure to hammer out why the theory arguments are actually important in the round, don't just run it tell me to vote it and leave it.

I'm fine with Policy based arguments, its the phil based ones i'm less familiar with. Fine with the basics (rawls, Kant, Hobbes) When we get outside of those, I'm totally down to evaluate them, just hold my hand a little bit more.

Tricks I'm just less familiar with. not saying I won't vote for them, just that i might....miss them? try me I guess.

General:

Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school. (mostly LARPing in LD)

I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it. Don't just read a trick in the constructive and drop it and expect me to flow it. extend that stuff and make it a voting issue.

I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.

PF - Don't play the "I can share this card if you want me to, oh which card was it? Hold on let me find it..." game. you read a card? Drop it in the speech drop. every other debate event is efficient with this, let's do better if we want to be taken seriously - this is one place i'll drop some

Cool with K's and Theory in pf. Let's have some fun.

Policy:

Tab judge - Tech > Truth, speed is fine. If we are running any advanced K's give a good overview on how it relates to the round, i'm probably a little less familiar with them. share all evidence. Theory shells are fine.

Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a single bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.

MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite. If you're the 7th person to give me an argument and add nothing new....I don't care how good the speech is, my brain will be off.

Be competitive. this is a competition, not a friendly game of "What is every single person in the room's opinion on the topic"

Extemp - I'm usually rating structure and content over performance, If i'm not staring you down don't feel bad i'm writing about your speech and evaluating your argumentation. Time balance is important, don't try to inflate your speech time by having a huge 1st point and tiny second and thirds, etc. Performance aspects are important, but are usually second to content for me.

Interp - I am not what I would consider an interp coach, but I have coached multiple state/national qualifiers and a state finalist over the last couple of years. As a musician, I tend to look for variety in interp events, contrast in volume, tone, etc. blocking is...not something i'm great at feedback on? but I know it exists! cutting is always important to me. A well performed piece that doesn't make any sense isn't going to do well (I'm looking at you HI)

OO.Info - I am an English teacher on the side, so I'll be watching for general writing conventions more than performance aspects. (although I will 100% be watching for those as well) My comments are going to be more on structure and ideas for improvement. these events are interesting because it is YOUR writing and your voice, I enjoy them.