Hi! My name's Karen Akins, and I'm excited to be judging you today.

• I prefer to see debaters stick to the given topic.
• If I can't understand what you're saying (i.e. too fast), I won't be able to understand your argument. (In other words, spread at your own peril.)
• Be respectful! Clash, but keep it civil. In my opinion, this is the greatest benefit of competitive debate--learning to craft a compelling argument while still showing civility to your opponent.
• Have fun!

Good luck!

TL;DR:

You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded.

Please do not call me "Jacob", it makes me uncomfortable when I'm addressed by name in-round

If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, and was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits for China Spring High School, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories.

Speech drop is ideal, but email chain is fine. I'd like to be included in whatever form of file sharing y'all engage in. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded (unless y'all are physically uploading to a flash drive and walking it to the other team, then prep stops when you start to walk the drive to the opponents)-- too many teams have taken advantage of their ability to "save the doc" to steal prep time.

I'm usually not looking at the doc during round, but occasionally I will based on how the round plays out. Don't count on me looking back over the doc to fill holes in my flow though, if you're not clear enough for it to end up on my paper then I'm not evaluating it. I look over evidence for questions of ethics, quality, or for resolving major points of interest in the round when I absolutely have to-- not to fill in blanks from what I couldn't catch.

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

POLICY/NFA LD:

I enjoy watching K v K, K v Policy, and Policy v Policy rounds equally.

T/Theory: I love T and hold it near and dear to my heart. If T isn't your game, you probably don't want to run it in front of me because I always have a hard time voting for Ts that are blippy and not impacted out. I enjoy T debates that have a lot of clash on the reasons to prefer, and that attempt to compare the division of ground/education of each interpretation. I enjoy when 2NRs are 5 mins of t/theory. I do not enjoy when 2NRs try to go for procedural questions and substance and spread themselves too thin.

Reasonability does not mean "You shouldn't care abt me bcuz im REASONABLY topical"-- I have no idea what this means or how to decide whether you are or aren't "reasonably topical". Reasonability is about the aff's interpretation and its place in the literature/its division of ground.

Fairness is definitely a terminal impact-- I think that there is a lot to be said about how debate could and should look, and what fairness in an event like this has to do with that. In other words-- don't panic and alter your blocks to make fairness only an internal link to some sort of education impact, I generally find these warrants to be compelling but putting way too many eggs in one (easily impact turnable) basket.

Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice. I think condo/dispo is much more justifiable in CX, but I'm more than down to listen to condo in any CX round with 2+ advocacies if you think you can win that debate. I'm a lot more likely to err aff on the conditionality question in LD (either HS or college). I have a very high threshold for voting on condo with just one advocacy in ANY event.

I refuse to vote on Theory based on personal appearance (Shoe theory, dress theory, etc.), often these arguments are a lot more violent than people intend, and never take into account individual situations that debaters may face (and I'm not gonna force debaters to put that situation on display to win a round). If you make one of these args you're just wasting speech time.

I will typically vote on disclosure theory with a few caveats: 1) I will not vote on disclosure theory in a novice or JV division; 2) I will not vote on disclosure theory if the other debater's school doesn't exist on the Wiki; 3) We are at a UIL tournament; 4) If you don't meet your own interp and are looking for a cheap win; 5) If the tournament says not to. Disclosure is awesome, and one of the best norms established in the past 20 years of debate, but it shouldn't be a crutch or a method of gatekeeping debate from novices and programs with less information or funding. If you are a college debater, why would you not be disclosing?

*Side note about disclosure* Why oh why do we think only a round report is disclosing? I am very likely to vote on a well positioned disclosure theory that calls out posting only a round report with no cites or doc attached. Disclosure is about growing the amount of information available in the community, and making the evidence we read widely available for ethical and educational purposes (that's kinda the whole point of the theory), not only does only posting a round report not do that, it actively harms the idea of what it takes to "disclose" an aff. Grumpy old man rant aside, stop it and post at least the cites. Don't be scared of a prepared opponent, if you're scared of a prepared opponent then you'll always lose to one.

My assumption is to reject the argument on every theoretical question except condo/dispo bad (although my threshold for changing this is not incredibly high in-round).

DA: Disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense.

CP: Counter plans are great. I like most CPs, and I don't really have any dispositions toward any CP except those that are artificially competitive (I've voted on PICs, Consult, Delay, International CPs, and many many more). However, I am also more than down to hear a great theory as to why their CP isn't legit.

I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (however, you can make arguments for why this should change).

K: I love K debates, and I wish more teams would go for the K in front of me. This is the argument I collapsed on the most when I was competing. I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. I probably haven't read the lit you're talking about in the K, so just assume that I haven't and make a concerted effort to explain it to me. Probably not the best judge for most Baudy (and friends), psychoanalysis, or any other high theory K-- I have read, written, and voted on them; and am willing to vote on them again, but often teams who read these args just fill their overviews and tags with paragraphs of the most esoteric wording I've ever seen, and I often get lost in both flowing and understanding the round when teams do this.

K Affs: Go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you. I enjoy good Kritikal affirmatives, and love both KvK and K v T/theory debates. Framework is definitely a viable collapse in front of me, but often teams who collapse on framework just won't resolve the offense on the flow when they go for it so I usually vote aff in these debates. If you are going for framework, make sure you're doing the work and establishing a clear link chain to the impacts on the T sheet.

A lot of judges say to be "in the direction of the topic"-- I think this is vague and arbitrary. You will probably have an easier time on the framework sheet with me if you are able to explain how your advocacy affirms the topic in some way or form, and you should still be arguing that we should change from the status quo (even if you're running pess), however I am also a fan of "debate about debate" Ks and I don't feel that the aff should be bound to being "in the direction of the topic" if they can win args about why the topic (or debate) is bad/exclusionary. That being said, if you can't win that debate then you'll probably lose the round.

If you're not reading evidence that is at least somewhat in the lit for this year's topic I'm probably more likely to buy into impact chains on fwk/t-usfg (i.e. If you're debating on the college AI topic and none of your ev is about AI, predictability and limits become a lot easier to win on the neg. Same goes for the current HS CX trademarks, patents, and copyrights topic/LD topic of the month).

Case Debate: I love good case debate, it's really a lost art now. If you're a good case debater, you should rely on that with me in the back of the room-- it will help you and your speaks out a ton.

Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's L 20s across the board). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics.

-.5 speaks every time you say "Game over"-- idk how this became the standard grandstand of debaters, but it's the worst and you're better than having to rely on this to make it sound like you're winning.

This is true of all levels of debate, but it's something the NFA LDers looking over this need to pay closer attention to. Please chill out. There is absolutely no need to be as rude as I've seen the past couple of years in this event. Snide remarks in CX, unnecessary comebacks to questions, and general lack of respect for opponents is probably my LEAST favorite thing to watch in debate. I'd rather watch someone read a 7-8 minute NC of only friv theory or 26 off a-z spec and be nice than someone execute the best strategy I've ever seen while being an ass. In CX, ask the question get an answer and move on-- there is no need to say something snarky after you get a bad answer (I promise I heard it too).

(The average speaks I've given in the fall '24 semester are approximately 27.68)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

You probably won't see my face a ton in debates. I am typically a "nose in the flow" type of judge and don't really look away from the papers on my desk to make sure that I don't miss anything. If I am making facial expressions, or if you see my hands in the air/on my head it is because you have said something incredibly confusing, egregious, or I have absolutely no clue where to write down what you are saying (or some combination of the three).

Prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker points docked

How I evaluate things: Procedurals/theory first, Pre-fiat arguments second, Post-fiat arguments third

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round.

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

When I was competing I primarily collapsed on system/reps ks and T in NRs, and ran soft left/topical K affs with a bit of trad policy affs sprinkled in. I never ran a planless affirmative but have coached/judged/debated quite a few.

My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, Michael Donaldson, Tony Wyatt, John Anderson, and Josh Miller-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge.

"The past tense of flow is flew" -- Tony

High School LD:

I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have coached students to break at TOC Bid tournaments, to the top 64 of NSDA nats, to qual for TFA state, and to a UIL State Championship in this event. I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument, I promise I have just as much game in trad rounds. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.

Trad: I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot.

If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.

Phil: I thoroughly enjoy good phil debate (especially on topics that don't use the word "ought"), although I'm not very deep into phil. I've read *some* of Locke and like the super old classical stuff only insofar as their relation to communication or political theory (and at a very surface level understanding). You will have to hold my hand a lot in phil cases, I took one logic class in college and barely passed-- please don't spout off a nuanced and abstract syllogism at card speed and expect me to get it first try. That's not to say don't run it or that I won't evaluate it, I just need a bit more explanation than some other judges.

I am not a fan of cases that are 5 minutes of abstract framing, half of which aren't carded, spewed out as quickly as possible and then two cards that are like "oh yeah, and one minor link to the rez". 1) these cases are incredibly hard to flow (too much flowery language, confusing concepts, lack of cards, and spreading through taglines/analytics), and 2) they rarely make a full argument which means the other side doesn't have an incredibly high threshold to meet in terms of answering these cases. That being said, if you're doing the work to explain your case, how the contentions back up the framework, and explaining what my ballot does and what it says when I vote for you you will probably do just fine with this style.

Tricks: Tricks is bad debate, and I have a hard time justifying a vote on most tricks even if they're straight dropped. I wouldn't recommend running this style of debate with me in the back of the room-- even if you win on tricks with me, your speaks are probably getting tanked (expect a 26.5).

World Schools:

I competed in collegiate NPDA style Parliamentary debate, so I have relative familiarity with the event and how it works, although I am very unfamiliar with the norms in this style of debate. I operate off of an offense/defense paradigm, so I appreciate a lot of interaction between arguments. Please focus on your warrants, and the logic behind your arguments-- just because this is a non-evidentiary form of debate (or at the very least, the evidence standards are not as rigorous as other events) doesn't mean we shouldn't have complete arguments with a claim, data, and warrant. There are a lot of WSD rounds where students will get to the third or fourth speeches and will be saying "We said 'x', they dropped that" and then that's all they say on the argument-- don't do this, it will not get you very far with me. When extending arguments tell me why it's important that they dropped it, and/or how the argument impacts the round as a whole. I usually find myself deciding these rounds based off of the framework, so good comparison between the competing burdens and resolutional analysis will probably help you. If you have any specific questions before round just be sure to ask!