Please add me to the email chain: baxteremily22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for four years at Caddo Mills High School and am on the LD team at UNT. I'm familiar with policy and critical arguments, so run whatever you're comfortable with. I will vote on anything, so I'd be best considered a tab judge if you're doing the work and telling me why they matter.

Tech>Truth. I'll only vote on the dropped argument if you explain to me why the drop is significant.

Depth>Breadth. Self-explanatory - if you are running more than 6 off, there probably isn't much warranting going on. Evidence quality is also important, and comparing evidence is super useful in making decisions, but I won't do the work for you.

Affirmatives. I prefer plantexts, but I'll listen to anything, just be able to explain later on in T and FW debates why your method of education is best for debate. I'll listen to performance affs, too.

Counterplans/Disads. I'll easily vote on them. If AFF has impact framing and you don't, I will likely vote aff. I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the cases.

Kritiks. Just reading all of the blocks you've written for your K won't help you win the round. Do engage with the other team's arguments and actually contextualize your link to whatever they've read. Generic links can make it really easy for me to vote aff. I love specific links to the aff, and will heavily vote on them. I know some lit but don't assume I know what your kritik is about. Please explain and paint a story for me. That said, I expect there to be framework, a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making.

Theory/Topicality.I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. I will listen to Topicality arguments, and think when theyre are done right, I will vote on them. Please impact out your standards and voters! I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory/topicality, that tells me that it's a time suck, and I will not vote on it.

Speaks. Just don't be rude. If you say something offensive/homophobic/racist/etc, that will not be tolerated, and that will be reflected in your speaker points and possibly your ballot. I'm completely fine with speed just put me on the email chain and signpost.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Email Chain: noahcorb101@gmail.com

Former CX debater. I'll listen to (almost) anything (which includes well-run and warranted arguments as to why I shouldn't listen to something). I have a philosophy degree, so I'm quite into theory (which includes T) when it's developed and run well, and I *love* a good K-prior debate. Please make sure you don't shadow extend- I value warrants more than taglines. This is my first year back in the circuit after a multi-year absence, so it would probably behoove you to focus on depth over breadth in your spreading and/or neg strats.

For K and theory debate in particular, please do notsimply read down your 2A/2N blocks without regard for telling me where on the flow you want me to be putting things and what is addressing what part of the debate/the opponents. I prefer competing interpretations evaluations on a typical flow, but I believe that in most cases this is a framework either team can win.

Otherwise, good luck, and if you have additional questions feel free to ask!

Note for LD: As you can probably tell from my CX background/paradigms, I'm going to pay a lot of attention to who is winning the framework debate: i.e. who is better using it to amplify their 1A/N offense relative to the opponents'. This flow serves partially as a (meta-extended) form of impact weighing for me, so the more work you do for me there, the more likely it is that I'll frame the round the way your case wants me to. Just keep that in mind for me given my background is mostly CX.

I am Dyspolity@gmail.com on email chains.

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

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

Who I am:

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

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

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

Likes:

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

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

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

Dislikes:

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

Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?

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

Circuit level speed.

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

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

One More Concern:

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

Policy Debate:

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

LD Debate:

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

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

PF Debate:

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

Congress:

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