Hi! My name is Fatima, but I prefer to go by Tima.

I currently am a college student and have been involved with debate and DUDA for almost a decade now.

I have won numerous awards with DUDA as well as in the speech & debate college circuit.

My biggest accomplishment was qualifying for an international tournament in Berlin, Germany #DebateTakesYouPlaces

Although I am a fan of spreading, please only do it if you know you can be understood. There is a such thing as going overboard. Be considerate of your opponents, you want them to understand so there may be a debate. Additionally, if i do not hear it or understand it, it wont be flowed.

I personally like it when you speak aside from reading a lot of evidence. Anyone can read evidence but not everyone can look away from their laptops and make their points.

Argument wise:

Topicality: First, read a full shell but also do not just read it. I want you to be able to explain the T outside of whats written, elaborate it, convince me to prefer it or vote on it.

K’s: I love kritiks! As long as you’re not just reading evidence but actually discuss specifics to the debate. The alt you provide matters a lot! When running Kritiks its important you don’t just read evidence but take a step back and explain the philosophy/thesis, impact, and role of the ballot.

CPs: not really a fan but I’m not a hater either. I’m meh about cps. Please make sure its a competitive cp and not one that changes a minor detail.

Impact Analysis: I vote heavy on this, don’t just read evidence or say your opponent causes an impact and leave it at that. Elaborate and emphasize it, use it to tell me the role of judge/ballot. Especially if a CP is involved. Tell me WHY your impact is detrimental or how it outweighs your opponents.

Speaker points/ performance: I am not too fond of a rude debate. Especially if your opponents are not being rude. If you are going to be aggressive make it about evidence or arguments not about your opponent. I value team-work. CX- should not get aggressive, it should be to ask questions to clear things up or build up your own arguments, not a debate (funny I know). If it is your partners turn to speak, please let them take control, and wait to be tapped in to help. PLEASE give a roadmap and flow.

Additional but important:

Once the debate starts, unless there is a clarification needed or question about time, I will not speak. I do not like to influence the debate. Prior to the round starting, ask me for any of your needs beforehand.

I know debate is high-tech now. Please get a speech drop going before the debate starts. Also, only give evidence you’ll be reading and make sure to give all the evidence you’re reading.

Add me to email chains using falonso@dallasisd.org

Feel free to email me

With all that, please enter and introduce yourselves, Good luck and have fun!!!! #DebateChangesLives

blakeandrews55@gmail.com for email chain or questions

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Former Head Coach McNeil HS

Worked at some camps in the past like MGC, UTNIF, U of H for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while, but am currently not coaching just judging.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you.

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good( what arguments does the negative have access to). I am fine with voting on framework / T USFG and probably have a 50-50 voting record with K affs.

- For K's in general be good at explaining your thesis/ theory of power. Have a clear picture of what the world of the alternative looks like and don't forget to engage with the 1ac. You should be pulling lines from the aff to prove links etc.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

8. I will down you with the lowest possible speaks for being sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

9. I will not evaluate give me 30 speaks arguments or evaluate the round after X speech args. I will evaluate the debate once the last speech is given.

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

Ari Arceo (he/him)

arceoari@gmail.com

Northwestern 28'

Law Magnet 24'

Top Level

1---I evaluate debates through technical concessions and arguments on the flow. However, I care about the quality of evidence, arguments, and author citations. Dropped arguments are true, but laundry list impact scenarios on tenuous internal links can be dismissed with little effort.

2---I dislike it when people are rude, mean, vindictive, racist, sexist, etc. Debate should not feel genuinely antagonistic or actually harmful to people

3---I don't know a lot about the IP topic, and I have never been a great flower. Err on overexplaining and signposting arguments.

4---I prefer more judge instruction than less. If you want to control my ballot, you should try to forcefully persuade me into a position where I have no choice but to vote for you.

5---I prefer debaters be incredibly clear in both speech and text. You can spread 300 WPM but you need to be clear and signpost. Number your arguments if you can. Your speech docs should be a Word document, and they should be formatted in a coherent manner.

6---For context, I flow straight down in an excel doc on my computer. I have your speech doc open to make sure I don't miss any arguments, but I am primarily flowing your speech. If you have something on your doc, but I didn't hear it, I'll defer to my flow, so make sure you clearly signpost arguments.

7---For IE, please look at the bottom of the paradigm.

Preferences

The following are preferences I have towards certain arguments. In the end, all of these biases can be overturned with technical debating, but it's best to admit where I am coming from.

I am a 2N that principally disagrees with common negative strategies, but practically engages in such strategies.

Case: I tend to be a big fan of core of the topic affirmatives with strong internal links and solvency claims. I am cognitively biased to thinking that all extinction impacts (including on DA's) won't happen. I will vote on no impact. Good case debating in front of me looks like warranting out impact scenarios and creating sufficient risk in my mind.

T: I like predictability, and I prefer it over limits and the such. Framing T debates through predictable ground will probably get you further then most other T arguments.

Theory: Please disclose your 1AC on the wiki. Other than that, I tend to default aff on most other theory arguments.

Ks: Please try to contextualize the links and impacts to affirmatives. I am more amenable to K's that attack through controlling the framework of the debate, and less so for K's that act as counterplans.

K Aff's: Due to my inexperience running K-Aff's, I am more likely to vote in favor of presumption arguments. I would prefer K-Aff's properly articulate in the 1AC/1AC CX what exactly I am voting for. I will vote for K-Aff's on framework if they can contextualize their DA's to the negative model in a cohesive way that makes me vote aff. I will vote for negatives on framework if they can convince me that the DA's to their model are spurious (SSD, TVA's, No Link)and that fair predictable debate is worth preserving. Evenly debated, I tend to lean neg on framework.

Counterplans: I am a sucker for advantage CPs and agent CPs that intelligently zero the risk of case and maximize the comparative link of the DA. I tend to be aff on process CP competition, but often find myself leaning neg due to affirmatives blowing them off. I sit on the fence in terms of condo, but default neg.

DAs: I prefer DA's with solid link structures. The magnitude of links often shape how I think about the uniqueness and impact level of DA's, and prefer teams articulate this in a reasonable matter.Zero risk of a link is possible.

Impact Weighing: I default to util and existential risk first. Please tell me if I should think otherwise.

LD

If I am sitting in the back of an LD round, all of the above applies. The only difference is that I am not as well versed in the subject matter that LD debaters are used to, and I cannot guarantee a sufficient level of patience, willingness, or ability to evaluate tricks, massive blocks of texts about metaethics, and massive blocks about skepticism and the such.

I have an substantial cognitive bias against tricks in the sense that most of the time, I do not understand them and are repulsed by them. I can vote for them if dropped in multiple speeches, but I wouldn't be comfortable running it in front of me.

Individual Events/Speech

You should treat me as functionally a parent judge. I see good speech structure, I feel charisma, I like jokes. I don't know any speech conventions, and I will follow whatever ballot instructions I am given.

My experience in speech is doing policy debate, local UIL extemp rounds, and competing in Mock Trial. Make of that what you will.

Put me on the email chain: dustyn.beutelspacher@gmail.com

*For high school - please add greenhilldocscx@gmail.com

Affiliations: Debated at Niles West in high school, UTD in college. Now coach for UTD and Greenhill school

TL;DR:

Go for what you want to go for, if you got a K aff, make sure you can beat framework, if you go for a process cp, make sure you can beat theory, etc, etc, I will try my hardest to adapt and judge the round as objectively as possible.

I love line-by-line. The more you engage with your opponent's arguments, the more likely you are to win and the higher your speaks will be.

1 good card > 10 bad cards.

I won't vote on things that happened out of round or in other debates.

You can insert rehighlightings of the other team's evidence, text of a card only needs to be read once for it to be evaluated.

No racism/sexism/etc, be nice. Don't do that thing where you delete tags or read new affs on paper or stuff like that to make your speech harder to read.

I don’t mind when people call me judge.

Longer:

I've become more willing to comb through evidence over the years, but it's mostly out of curiosity since debaters seem to be getting better at spinning ev, obviously I have my limits, but the debate includes the debate over the evidence.

I think conditionality is good, it seems to be necessary in this day and age when topics are very broad. I've become more neg biased recently but maybe it's just my disillusion with one unwarranted sentence of condo bad somehow becoming an entire 2ar. Condo in general seems to have gotten significantly more shallow. There probably is some point at which condo becomes bad, but I can't truthfully see myself voting for condo bad absent some egregious neg strategy or technical error.

Since it has come up more than once, my stance on judge kick is that I will presume judge kick if nothing has been said on theory, if the aff wants to win no judge kick, then you must at least make the arg in the 1ar.

I have become a bit jaded on many process counterplans. I think they can be some of the most well researched, interesting, and topic and aff germane arguments in debate. That being said, there are also counterplans that have been recycled verbatim for the past few years, which I am personally not a fan of. I think theory/competition arguments which make this distinction would be very persuasive to me.

I like Ks the more specific the link analysis is. I tend to think of Ks as one or multiple thesis statements that, if won, should theoretically disprove the aff. This means the more you pull warrants from cards, explain the aff in the terms of your K, etc, the more likely it is that you beat the perm since that explanation makes links a lot more salient. That's a lot more persuasive than big aff/neg framework pushes to me

FW/T vs K affs. Since this is the only portion of a paradigm that matters for most pref sheets, yes I will vote on framework, yes I will vote against it. These debates seem to come down to impact comparison, as usually it seems hard to win either topical affs are necessary to prevent the entire collapse of this activity, versus framework is genocide, which makes winning as much of your impact quite important. Fairness impact seem to make intrinsic sense to me if debate is a game, but im not sure why that is a catch-all win if the aff wins debate rounds have impacts.

*If you are reading this before a debate. Stop. Set up your email chain, include me - mgregg@dallasisd.org. I would also like to sit far away, near an outlet. Thank you for respecting me and my space <3

I am currently the Analytics Coordinator and Director of Debate at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School in Dallas. I am also a teacher - AP Statistics, AP Seminar, Government, and Debate. Short version: I was deeply involved in high school and college debate (as a competitor and coach) a decade ago. I am now a teacher/administrator and work closely with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance to create curriculum, files, coach support, and more.

This is too lengthy, but better to overdo I suppose...

Background:

-High School: 3 years at Oak Park River Forest HS (IL) - 2005-2007 (TOC)

-College: 4 years at Northwestern University 2007-2011 (top-ten first round, 2 time NDT elims)

-High School coaching during college: Oak Park River Forest HS (2007-2011)

-High School coaching after college: Glenbrook North HS (IL), Niles North High School (IL) (2012-2013), Stephen F. Austin High School (2013-2014)

-High School coaching as a teacher: The Science and Engineering Magnet High School, 2014-2019, The Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet High School, 2019-present (Dallas Urban Debate Alliance)

-I've taught at the Northwestern Debate Institute, the Jayhawk Debate Institute, and the University of Texas National Institute of Forensics. Too old for that now.

Two general things:

1. I will not read along with you. I would like to be on the email chain for after the debate. Keep this in mind as you make decisions about clarity/speed.

2. I value evidence quality very very much. I will vote on no link.

(3.) If this is UIL state, I do abide by UIL rules regarding speed that interferes with communication. If I think that you're doing that, I'll say slow or something once.

While I have been actively coaching and researching the past eight years, I have not participated much in "national circuit" debate. I attend UIL state and NAUDL nationals with my students, but aside from those debates, I do not typically judge high-speed or high-tech debate. I still think that I can flow and understand advanced debates, but if I'm honest with myself I know if I were your age I would be skeptical of that claim. I will say that I try my best, really enjoy judging debates, and get it right more often than I'm wrong.

My experience has mostly been with traditional policy-making debate, but I also debated critical arguments. I tend to default to deciding whether the status quo is better than the aff or a competitive alternative presented by the negative. Pretty open to what the aff, competition, and alternative mean.

I think most people are looking for insight in how a judge resolves debates, so here's some information on that:

-Topicality: T isn't big in DUDA because we have a disclosure system that basically makes it unnecessary. I don't see many T debates, but I tend to default to competing interpretations and think that the neg needs to have pretty good interpretation evidence. Not really willing to vote for a topic that while limited, is not predictable for the aff. I recommend reading fewer interpretation cards - just read your best ones, quality not quantitiy. In the 2NR, it's really helpful if you stick to the 1AR structure/line by line, I know that can't always be done but ideal.

-Ks: I like them. I find them interesting. Much more interesting if you slow down a little, and definitely interested in how you apply your philosophy/thesis to the affirmative, resolution, and policy-making. I'd advise having an alternative (see above). Winning root cause does not mean you win. Tell me the role of the judge/ballot. I also really like arguments about how the K turns/interacts with the case. Evidence - it's fine to have really long cards, but I appreciate tags that preview what's going on, much more so than rhetorically powerful statements or analogies.

-Plans: I prefer them, but I have voted for affs with no plans many times. If you go for framework, I'd advise reading evidence on how the education offered through policy simulation on this particular topic is useful, and comparatively apply that to the education debate.

Speaker points - I really value partner communication and kindness towards your opponents (like a lot a lot). I don't like to read along with you, and I tend to get grouchy when you don't attempt to flow (if your order is "overview, link debate, impact debate, new sheet, underview", rethink that). Please keep the round moving in terms of tech, use people's names/pronouns, and just generally be an enjoyable person to hang out with for two hours. Always time yourself and each other. Not into hand shakes (pre-COVID) but now I'm just not into being near anyone, but do appreciate using your legal-sized copy paper :)

Misc - Ethics challenges means we stop the debate, so make sure you can support your claim/if I were to investigate it that you would be correct. Card clipping, cross-reading, evidence fabrication/misrepresentation are all reasons you lose (the round, speaker points, my respect). Clearly mark your evidence by saying "Mark the card at" or something like that and physically mark your speech doc. Provide a marked copy to me and the competitors immediately after your speech.

Email chain: mgregg@dallasisd.org

Questions? Ask before the debate. Have fun!

Please add me to the email chain: valeriegutierrez491@gmail.com I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

I recently graduated with a BA in political science and Latin American and border studies. As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments in policy and LD.I am now the co-head coach at Irma Rangel YWLS along with Kris Wright.

TLDR:

I will evaluate any argument in the round, meaning you should take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, instead of it limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

General notes:

• Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probably won't know what you mean.

• I’m very persuaded by an overview or a story of the link chain.

• Simply saying they dropped something without explaining the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw.

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand.

Timing- if you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

In case you have questions about a specific type of argument:

WSD - Please give a roadmap or some form of signposting. You cannot ask POIs during protected time which is the first and last minute of the first three speeches. Also, no follow up questions in WS are allowed. I think often debaters lack weighing under the framework, please do this weighing and comparative work of impacts, or reasons to prefer your side of the motion.

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, (aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates in policy and LD) I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

Policy- if you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact.

Criticisms - know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me. Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, especially how it functions under a rob/fw. If you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory/ T - I am least comfortable judging a theory/T round. With that being said, if you run theory you should have a complete shell (interp, violation, standards and voters), a clear violation and abuse story. I am not compelled by frivolous theory and I usually tend to lean towards a reasonability claim if made.

My background:

I was a four-year debater at the Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas (2001-2005). I debated for Georgetown in 2005-06. Between 2016 and 2018 I was the Program Director for the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance. Now I help coach at Jesuit part time.

General preferences:

I value good warrants for arguments. A true (or persuasive) analytical argument is worth more than a bad, misapplied, misleadingly highlighted card. Indeed, it's worth more than a hundred such cards.

I value accurate, well-considered use of evidence. If none of your authors would actually make the argument you want to make them make, then your opponents will have an easy time defeating it. It is reasonable to expect that serious arguments will be grounded in (some kind of) literature.

I value debates that demonstrate that their participants actually understand the issues and arguments involved, rather than simply possessing the surface-level understanding necessary to read a card.

I value good-faith, fair competition. I dislike obvious efforts to steal prep, take illegitimate advantage of circumstances outside the debate, etc. I view transparently intentional fumbling during flashing as a form of prep theft.

Specific arguments:

I am reluctant to comment on my views on too many specific arguments (CPs, Ks, T, etc.), because I don't want to unduly influence those who debate in front of me. I try to be open to just about any argument one could reasonably expect to encounter at a national or TFA policy tournament.

With that caveat, I think I can still say a few specific things:

· I like topicality, and will vote on it. At the same time, see the above on accurate use of evidence—don't twist some non-definition into a definition, or a definition into some other, more limiting/strategic definition.

· I am very comfortable with kritiks; in fact, I think kritiks often satisfy my preferences about warranted arguments, good evidence, etc. better than more "conventional" arguments.

· I enjoy kritik-y affs, but tend to think that they should have a plan text, be topical, etc. I am likely to be skeptical of "performances," all the more so if they're not germane to the resolution.

· I appreciate thoughtful case debate, and likewise thoughtful solvency debates on counterplans.

Nonetheless, as a general rule, I try to be open to voting on any argument, so long as it's presented well and defended persuasively. I know that everyone(?) says this, so take it for what it's worth.

On fairness, since people seem to ask this a lot nowadays: Yes, fairness is a terminal impact and an intrinsic good. Valuing fairness (iusticia) is integral to my activity as a judge--more so than, say, the speech times and other debate rules.

If you think you can impact turn fairness, you're wrong. What you probably mean to say is that the other team's conception of fairness is bad, and that the judge should prefer some other conception of fairness. But saying "fairness is immoral" is akin to saying "triangles have four sides": linguistically possible, but meaningless.

That said, I'm certainly persuadable that different approaches to fairness might be valid, or that other things might be more important than fairness. But teams that argue against these lines do so at their peril. If you win "fairness bad," doesn't that imply that the judge need not give the ballot to the team that made the more persuasive argument?

On flashing, prep time, etc. I know that I'm a dinosaur, and that the norms of policy debate have left me behind. While it strikes me as silly, I'll allow a reasonable amount of time for teams to flash outside of prep. However, I don't believe the opposing team has an inalienable right to see your cards (much less your analyticals!) before the speech has even begun. So long as you flash your evidence to your opponents before your speech ends, I won't hold it against you.

Notes on speaker points: If you are gratuitously rude, cruel, or otherwise unpleasant, expect your speaker points to drop. If you are outrageously and unequivocally racist, sexist, etc., I might vote against you just on principle.

Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Former assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-2024

sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)

Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.

Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.

DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.

Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.

K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.

Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.

*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.

Hello, I've been judging policy debate since the Fall of 2020 to the present (Spring of 2025). This is my fourth year serving as head debate coach at the School for the Talented and Gifted at Townview Magnet Center.

Previously to being a High School AP World History teacher at TAG, I served as a lecturer and researcher in both the English and the Latin American and Latino Studies Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where I incorporated debate into my own college entry level courses (as a joint appointment).

As such, my approach to judging could be described as a synthesis between a policy making judge and a tabula rasa judge. When deciding a round I try to put myself into the shoes of a national legislator who must vote for the best policy offered in the debate, focusing on the AFFs plan and the NEGs ability to clash on the feasibility implementing the AFF or the NEGs ability to present a more preferable counter plan. Kritiqs are also interesting if done well and if the students are demonstrate a compelling understanding of their own theory. I like to adopt the posture of a tabula rasa judge because it is unfair for judge's to vote based on their own knowledge of the issues and/or their own politics, so I try to keep myself out of it as much as possible.

So, I leave it to the debaters to demonstrate gaps in the opponent's plans, contradictions of values, or to extend each others timelines, minimize each others magnitudes, break link chains, impact calculus, pretty much anything is up for debate; that is, unless we are in the realm of frivolous theory. For me, your rebuttals are key for giving me a path to voting for your plan, so be sure to flow the debate, and give your most strategic clashes for the most important grounds.

And. as a ground rule for debate, whatever you say under your timed speech enters the record as grounds for the debate. I do not strike out previously made claims if you lose on those grounds later on in the match.

Also, I really appreciate it when students argue in good faith about the resolution as opposed to when students choose to argue about the rules of policy debate instead. I mean, in a way, it makes sense. Students should not introduce new evidence in rebuttals and if something like that occurs, then I am flexible to hearing your claims. But if the entire hour-and-a-half round of debate is about the technicalities of policy debate then I feel like we are wasting our time / avoiding the actual topic.

Final note: debaters must use evidence ethically, quoting with integrity to the source. If your evidence gets called into question and it is clear that the evidence says the opposite of what you claim, or does not exist, then this may impact the way that particular argument is evaluated.

Please CC me into the round's email chain entitled" Tournament name, Round #, school-1 vs school-2" at:nesandoval@dallasisd.org. I always look forward to a good round. Best of luck!

Justin Yoon

justin.yoons@gmail.com

College experience: I debated for UT Dallas my freshman and sophomore years.

High School experience: Debated for LASA (Liberal Arts and Science Academy)

General stuff

Tech over truth. To evaluate an argument it can't just be an unwarranted blip, it must be developed and have an impact.

Clarity over speed: If I have to shout clear more than twice I'll stop flowing your speech

Stealing prep: Don't do it. It annoys me and I will dock your speaker points if you do.

I haven't judged on the topic yet, so don't expect me to know what all the terminology means.

Specific stuff

Disads: Yes there's such a thing as zero risk of a disad.

Counterplans: Don't expect me to kick the counterplan unless you tell me to.

Kritiks/K Affs: Explain your kritik instead of assuming I know the literature. Also please don't read a giant generic overview.

Theory: Slow down. Most arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team, unless you can prove abuse. Reading two conditional worlds is reasonable.