isaiah1415@gmail.com

I did policy debate at Townview Law Magnet & UTD. Minor experience in LD & World Schools. Currently work with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

Make the debate what you want it to be. I like creativity, think outside of the box, take risks, warrant everything.

Im not partial to anything, nor do I not like to see any particular arguments.

I will be listening to you, not reading your docs.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions.

Name: Vanessa Lee

Current Affiliation: Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet

Hi there! I’ll cut right to the chase - I am new to the debate game. I am the debate coach at Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet in Dallas ISD. While I’m new TFA, I’ve had such an enriching experience learning how to competently judge World Schools by participating in tournaments hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Association.

I look forward to a day of engaged and informative debates. I expect debaters to remain professional and cordial despite the passionate positions they may be asked to take. I will listen carefully to your arguments and maintain objectivity and check my personal opinions and unconscious bias regarding the topic at the door.

Style: DO NOT SPEED READ (spreading). You do not have to read at a snail's pace either. Clear communication with the intention to HEAR your opponent is, in my opinion, the best way to ensure that we’re getting the most out of World School debate.

Content: Try to to take 1-2 POIs for each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.

Strategy: Be sure not to drop arguments. Strive to analyze your case as well as your opponent’s arguments, provide fleshed-out examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side while making comparative claims about the superiority of your position.

Know that I am listening intently to the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

What's up y'all! I'm Katelyn Moss, a current freshman at Washington University in Saint Louis, double majoring in Political Science and Sociology plus a minor in African and African American Studies. I have debated in both middle and high school at the honorable Irma Lerma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School, coached by the debate legend himself, Kris Wright. (Shoutout to him) I have experience with Policy, World Schools, and LD, qualifying for the Texas Forensics Association (TFA) tournament and NSDA Nationals for World Schools specifically. For fun, I like to play Clash Royale (I need a clan to join, if you know a good one who gives you cards, trades, and does the little clan war thingies, put me on)

Most of my debate experience is in World Schools, so I primarily judge that division. Here’s what I expect from a round:

Just a few housekeeping to start,

1. Please limit your spreading. World Schools is a conversational debate. You have a whole 8 minutes, chillax. I can’t keep up with it, so I will write down what I hear.

2. You, as in EVERYONE on your team, should be asking POIs. I’ve been trained to ask them every 30-45 seconds, but I’ll settle for at least once a minute if you are in the beginner division, to me that shows how engaged you are in the debate. If one person is carrying the POI asking, that person gets a greater number of speaker points compared to the other two teammates. Nothing quicker than that please, it’ll seem like you’re pestering the opponent.

1. Also, if you know the answer to your opponent’s POI is embedded in your case and it’ll come up in the next speech, SAY IT that gives me a little glimpse of what to expect, and I want to see the answer brought up in the next speech.

2. One more thing, don’t take too many POIs, you should aim to take at least 2, no more than 3. It might seem like you’ve run out of content and you’re trying to fill up time.

3. Be confident in what you say and try to maintain eye contact with me. I like to be engaged in the conversation, so don’t keep your head down on the paper. I promise I’m not going to bite you. I stopped doing that a long time ago…

Now, on to the good stuff:

1. I want worldly examples, U.S.-centric or one-nation examples are okay, only if the topic calls for it. When it doesn’t, I expect a global approach with examples from countries all over the world

2. PLEASE I BEG YOU PLEASE SIGNPOST. Tell me what you’re about to do before you do it so I can flow easier.

3. In regarding preferences for practicality or principled arguments, it’s your job to sway me. I have no preference if Prop is practical and Opp is mainly principled, just convince me yours is better. Preferably, you should have a healthy mix of both anyway.

4. Clear and concise links…yes!

5. I need both sides to establish what the burdens for the round will be, however, let’s not make it a contention, if both of you disagree with burdens you should be proving to me how you win on both sides’ burdens. (How many times am I going to say burdens?)

6. You should be carrying down the bench for any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend and/or carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded to buy that argument.

7. There’s a difference between a countermodel and a counterfactual. They are not interchangeable.

I take points off for:

1. Ad Hominem attacks, attacking someone’s character instead of their argument, IMMEDIATE markdown. Having been on the receiving end of these attacks… not fun, so…don’t do it.

2. Clear laughing or making fun of the other team. → Will also result in me notifying your coach of your behavior.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk, and I am honored to judge your round.

P.S. If you have any questions, comments, and/or suggestions email me at k.a.moss@wustl.edu

Please add me on the email chain: hosegueda@dallasisd.org

Hello! I am the debate coach at North Lake Early College High School in Dallas, Texas.

I do not have any preference for arguments. Tell me explicitly why I as a judge should vote for you.

Clarity is important to me. I am generally flowing what you are saying and not what is on the speech doc in front of me.

I value unique positions and interesting , but every claim should have its warrant. I believe debate is first and foremost a communication event, so I am looking to how well you can convey your position to me and everything that goes with it. I will vote on what you tell me to vote for - big on role of the ballot/judge args.

*Paradigm Updated 9/9/24 with preferences for each event.

ALL DEBATE: Welcome to my ten second tutorial, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK IMPOSSIBLY FAST. If you’re talking like you’ve had too many Dr. Peppers, we’re fine, but if you blur words together and start double breathing, I can’t understand you. It’s a disability issue. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed. I also feel you should check with your opponent before EVERY round to discuss what their threshold for speed is to make sure you are both on the same page and that the debate space will be inclusive. That’s key to keeping people in this activity. Please don’t chase out people who can only compete sometimes. Be better. Do better.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS: I will consider anything that isn't offensive, but you have to give me a reasonable explanation for why it applies in this debate. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

THEORY: I am open to any theory arguments critiquing your opponent’s rhetoric, behavior, or advocacy. I am NOT open to resolutional critiques, because in that instance you’re basically critiquing the wording committee. We have to have an agreed upon resolution to have a fair debate. It may not be your favorite resolution. It may not be my favorite resolution, either. However, it’s the resolution we’ve all walked into the round to engage with, so do me a solid and actually engage with it. For disclosure theory, show me the receipts. How is it the norm in this event, this tournament, how many times did you reach out to your opponent, etc.

WEIGHING: I don’t need you to use the words probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc. So long as you compare your argument with your opponent’s and tell me why your argument makes your world comparatively better than theirs, I’m good.

BEHAVIOR: Be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Firstly, although I have judged this event for five years or so, I am not necessarily aware of every norm in the activity. If you feel your opponent is using debate norms from other events and they aren’t in line with world norms, tell me why their position should be disregarded. Secondly, I like to see a lot of worlds comparison in either the 3^rd or Final speech. What happens if we pass the motion? What happens if we fail it? What are the implications of that action across broader populations and through time? Especially with impromptu topics, I think it’s important to figure out what the effects are of voting either way. I’m not going to want to make a decision about a subset of the motion taken in one snapshot in time. I want to look at precedents the motion might start, or how the motion may change perceptions across the globe. Think BIG. Thirdly, don’t ask incredibly long POI’s just to waste opponent time. Your POI’s should be strategic in terms of their content.

PUBLIC FORUM: Firstly, do not make arguments in cross. Ask questions of your opponent. Weaken their link chains, make them explain warrants and evidence. Please let your opponent have a reasonable amount of time to answer, and only interrupt if they are being purposefully obtuse. Take turns asking. If you have a follow-up, it should be able to be answered with one sentence, or it is a second question. Secondly, I do not believe that policy and LD norms automatically apply in PF rounds. If you would like to access another debate event’s norms, you need to give me a reasonable explanation as to why your interpretation is best. Thirdly, I like to see incentive analysis done that helps me to see why certain policies might be preferred over others. This can be from a government perspective, a societal perspective, or even individual perspectives, depending on the argument. Fourthly, you have to give me more than the argument name to count as an extension, and arguments need to be extended in every speech if they end up in Final Focus. Give me the evidence, the warrant, the way that argument outweighs the opponent’s argument – I’m flexible, but give me something to extend other than a word. Fifthly, be realistic about what you can do in a four minute constructive. You will not be able to go into massive depth with any of your arguments. Low probability, high impact arguments require a pretty strong link chain, and that’s probably not something you have time for in PF. Stick with what you can defend. Then defend it. Sixthly, be smart about evidence sharing. Have your evidence immediately accessible and shareable. Better yet, send the cards either right before or right after the speech so everyone can see them. I do not want to have to police both teams while searching and copying and pasting and refreshing emails. I also really, really do not want to see teams using evidence challenge as a way to get more time to mentally prep. PF debate should not take a lifetime. It should take less than an hour.

LD: I’m not judging much LD anymore because the activity is becoming less enjoyable for me. I’m not a tech happy judge, and I won’t vote on flow tricks. I will vote on comparative benefit in the overall aff and neg position. I would prefer you take prep time before the NC so that you are responsive to your opponent’s rhetoric and arguments. If your entire NC is cards that you don’t bother applying directly to opponent arguments, I’m probably not going to vote for you. Clash is key, and clash requires being in the moment of this particular debate with these particular people. Every debate should be different. If you’re making them all the same, you’re probably going to get the L from me every time, too.

POLICY: I judge policy only when tabrooms really, really need me to, or for UIL Texas debate where speed is not the norm. I recognize that on most circuits, speed is the norm, and I simply can’t keep up. If tab needs me to take one for the team, though, please read your taglines more slowly. I don’t understand all of the intricacies of policy debate norms, so if you want me to judge off something more obscure, explain it to me. My favorite thing in Policy to hear about is the solvency debate, so points there if you dig in deep.

To finish it off, this activity should be something all of us enjoy. If you’re miserable during the round, we probably will be, too. Find a way to make each debate interesting, unique, challenging. Stretch your world, and make your opponents and judges think in new ways. Being in debate should inspire you. If it doesn’t, there’s probably a better activity for you, and I hope you can find that joy elsewhere. We’re all spending a day or weekend together, so let’s all try to make it pleasant.

Email Chain: linhpham1998@gmail.com

or Speech Drop: https://speechdrop.net/

I competed primarily in CX debate in high school at Irma Rangel YWLS, competing in local, TFA, and UIL. I have some experience in PF & Informative/Persuasive. I have continuously worked with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance since 2016.

I tend to analyze the debate as a stock issues/ policy-making judge, but not exclusively. Feel free to take creative approaches as I am still open-minded. Although I have my paradigms, you should still do YOU and do what YOU think is best.

Kritiks/ K-Affs are not my favorite but if you run it, keep it straightforward. The same goes for T/FW. I love a good DA and CP debate. You can call me old-fashioned and boring.

Keeping the debate structured and clean is the way to my heart. (ie.. signposting and road mapping) If you even have to question it, clarity is ALWAYS a must. Line-by-lines tend to correlate with good clashes... Good clash = good debate. Make it clear what the net benefits are and do some impact calculations... Essentially, I appreciate debaters giving me their RFDs- I think it provides great self-reflection/analysis and makes things clear for me as your judge.

*Goes without being said, but keep your times and each other accountable. I do my best but I tend to be forgetful. :/

Feel free to approach me and ask me anything else.

Be nice and cordial. Condescending language/behavior will not be tolerated. Respect the debate and each other.

Cannot wait to see what you got and learn a bunch from you guys!!!

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

✨Hey hey hey! ✨

My name is Aimee Stachowiak, and I am currently attending the University of Chicago. I debated for Greenhill in World Schools Debate my entire high school career. Notably, my teammates and I have won NSDA, NDCA twice, TFA state, Harvard Westlake, Blake twice, as well as multiple other tournaments.

✨Things I will consider ✨

In debate, both teams are going to have arguments that they are going to almost certainly win. The point of the debate then is to tell me why your argument is so important and impactful that it will win you the round. Explain why your argument is better than your opponents best argument.

Make sure your arguments have diverse links and that those links make sense. The more links you have, the stronger your argument is meaning it will be harder to take down. Do not make jumps in your argumentation, or assume that I will understand the implicit link.

Give me realistic impacts. Tell me why I should care about the argument you just presented, why this argument is so critical it can be the reason I vote for you.

Point out contradictions, give me multiple reasons why an argument doesn't stand, attack the warrant, attack the impact, turn the argument against your opponents, take your opponents at their highest ground -- all of these things make the debate more interesting.

There is a difference between extending an argument and repeating an argument. When you take an argument down the bench, develop it by illustrating the impact to me, start to weigh it against other arguments, etc.

Please do your research. This can help you find interesting new subs, good statistics, and more. Stay up to date with the news -- impromptu motions can be based around current topics of discussion. However, don't just quote examples. Explain the incentives of actors, why this example applies to your argument, what this example proves, etc.

Please ask and take pois -- I was guilty of not asking that many but honestly it is fun and what makes the debate so engaging.

At the end of the debate, narrow it down to the 1-2 most crucial points. I essentially want your reply to be the RFD I would give at the end of the round. A lot of weighing should be in this speech. Tell me why you are winning. I cannot vote for you just because you say your opponents are worse.

Finally, please be considerate and courteous to your teammates, opponents, and any spectators.

✨Thank you! Good luck! ✨

Hi! I’m Natalie Stachowiak, and I attend the University of Chicago. I debated for Greenhill School in the World Schools Debate division starting in middle school and throughout high school. I was also a member of the USA development team for two years and was ranked first nationally for WSD. Regardless of all that, though, I firmly believe that WSD should be accessible to watch or engage with, so please thoroughly explain everything.

Content:

First thing’s first, I will always value content over presentation. I believe that style is incredibly important, but style without substance is just a waste of time.

Always be explicit. Even if your opponent says something very obviously false, I will evaluate it in the round as if it were true. I’m not going to tie any loose threads for you. If your opponent says the sky is green, tell me it’s blue. If your opponent brought up a ton of new information in the opp block, point it out.

In terms of arguments, I enjoy principled arguments, as I find they bring a different lens on the round. I also think third substantives are vastly underutilized. I believe that they have the opportunity to shift a debate, but second speakers tend to only give it a minute or less. I understand that some motions make it difficult to have a third sub, but if you can include them, that argument could be the reason you win the round.

I also think weighing is incredibly important. Both sides of the debate are bound to have arguments that are true, so you have to tell me why yours matters more. I also think highest ground arguments and “even if” statements are incredibly persuasive.

Style:

In my opinion, the trend in WSD is to speak fast and to speak loud. While in some situations it may be necessary, I think that variation in speeches is always preferable. Slowing down and speaking quieter to emphasize certain aspects of your speech is very persuasive. Additionally, I think WSD uniquely allows for different styles among teams. For example, your second speaker can be speedy, and then your third speaker can slow it down. If everyone is speaking loud and fast, it’s harder to pay attention.

I also believe that debate is supposed to be fun. Of course, some motions require gravity, but if they don’t, feel free to make some jokes. Including some jokes in the round is a good way to make your experience more enjoyable but it also makes the round more interesting. Debate rounds are long, and being funny can bring some energy back. However, jokes should never be at the expense of your opponents. I will not tolerate any sort of discrimination or hate speech towards opponents.

Also, please signpost clearly. If you’re unclear about what you’re doing, it’s possible that I’ll miss an argument or response that you think is very important.

Lastly, I understand that debate rounds tend to talk about some hot-button issues, so please make sure that you are using inclusive language and respect the differing opinions of others.

If you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask me before the round. Thank you for reading, good luck with your rounds, and have fun!

I have competed in speech and debate for eight years, and have judged for six.

I prefer a style of delivery that prioritizes energy and inflection over speed. Jargon or technical language doesn't affect my decision.

I will primarily take notes based on argumentation. Key arguments are prioritized.

I value argument over style. In my opinion, the most important element of debate is explaining why your position is preferable. If you can do that effectively, you will likely get my ballot.

I consider strength of initial argumentation and strength of rebuttals most highly. Delivery will be a factor, but less so than argumentation.

The arguments I find most persuasive are the ones that give concrete reasons as to why their position is better. If you can appeal to pathos and infuse your delivery and argument with emotion, I will be most persuaded, as long as the argumentation holds strong as well.

In-round conduct should be as respectful as possible. I understand the stress of these rounds, so I offer some leeway, but try not to be disruptive.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team - Coach World Champions 2023

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I coach debate at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations; however, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI in LD, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan. Again, Neg's are free to argue that they are entitled to that ground regardless of whether the AFF defends a plan or other hyperspecific advocacy. And AFFs are free to argue that Neg should never get topical ground.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFFs making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Hi! I debated worlds for 2 years and dabbled in LD, but please beware my knowledge/experience in both are incredibly rusty at this point (I’m super old and haven’t had to use my debate brain in like 4 years oops) The last time I judged a round was also in early 2023, so I will try my best for you if you do the same for me :’) Treat me like someone who has never heard a WSD round in their life before - that means you can speak at a slightly quicker pace, but not too fast that I miss what you're saying. That also means signposting and staying nice and organized so that I can follow along with your argumentation. Refer below to the totally smart things I wrote when I was more involved in the judging realm hooray!

Worlds

A couple of things:

- If the arg is important, take the time to explain why it's important and impact it out. If you think it's one of the biggest args in the round, I probably think so too, so don't sell it short - 30 secs isn't enough to tell me why my ballot should be weighed solely off this arg. Properly warranting and impacting out your biggest arg is more valuable to me than filling the flow.

- Weighing is too important to forget! I won't necessarily believe that the princ or prac is more important for a given motion, so don't leave it for replies or the last minute of your third speech - do that work for me early on so I have a clear method of understanding your argumentation and why it's better.

- Models are always fun but not when they become the central focus of a round. A countermodel gives opp teams ground, but uniqueness is what makes them work in the first place. If there are unresolved quibbles by the 3s, drop it - you're wasting valuable time on a framing mechanism. Same thing with narratives and examples! They're nice embellishments you can add here and there, but they don't warrant arguments.

LD

For the little amount of time that I did LD, I liked LARP debates the most. I'm familiar with Ks and Theory, but still please make sure to flesh it out/explain it well for me to fully comprehend b/c I haven't interacted w progressive debate in years

A couple of things:

- Line-by-line is great! I'll evaluate the round based on what my flow looks like

- Some speed is fine but try your best to keep it at a conversational pace so that I can follow along and flow everything you want me to flow

- I fall victim to not caring as much about FW as the debate progresses, but still make sure all of your args relate back to your V/C. I should be hearing why/how you fulfill your FW when you crystalize the round for me

- During rebuttals, I shouldn't be hearing new args here - crystalize and weigh weigh weigh!! Why should I value your impact above the other teams? What arg should I be prioritizing when evaluating my flow?

If you have any other questions before/after round, feel free to contact me and/or (please) add me to your email chains: miaxia021@gmail.com

Happy debating! Be confident, trust yourself, and have fun :D