District 10 5A CX Debate
2025 — Hallsville, TX/US
CX Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideCX(Policy) Debate
I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.
T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(24-25), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.
DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.
CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.
K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.
ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.
Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.
Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.
Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...
(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)
I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.
Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.
LD Debate
I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.
Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!
Congress
When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.
I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.
1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.
2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches
3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber
I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.
Extemp
The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?
My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!
Interp
These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!
I’m a tab judge so I’ll listen to anything as long as you argue and defend it well, however I value stocks the most in a round.
(whitehouse'22; UTT'26 - IEs 4yrs, debate 7 yrs- collegiate debater)
she/her ; (lay-lah-knee)
pref speech drop.
policy
policy debate was my main event in high school, i've been in your shoes before! trust me, i will try my best not to screw you over.
i would describe myself as a true tab judge. this means, run whatever you'd like! the room is yours !! DO NOT BE AFRAID OF CLASH. above all, be polite to your opponents. (more on this at the bottom.)
speech- first and foremost, debate is a communication event. i can usually keep up with spreading, however, if it becomes unintelligible i will either clear you or just stop flowing lol. speaks will be awarded to those who enunciate and have little verbal clutter. organization is key. i will be very strict on this.
t- i love a good T debate! great opportunity to demonstrate strategic skills and utilize theory args. articulate violation/standards/voters clearly. i default predictability.
k/fw- i am a huge fan of theory args. i believe they make debate extremely interesting and will listen intently. that being said, BE FAMILIAR WITH THE K LITERATURE. if you decide to run a cap/psychoanalysis/[insert niche critical theorist here] k, understand what you are reading and be able to coherently articulate the reason to vote on it. if you're going to use buzzwords - define them & tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest. i love k-aff's and run them all the time in collegiate debate-- feel free to run whatever!
disads/cp's- these are obviously fine. da's (and k's) should serve as obvious net benefits to your cp. PLEASE IMPACT CALC. impact framing is key. structural violence v. nuclear war doesn't matter if i am not told which is worse. i will default to my own interp if this is not done (it should be).
theory- i feel very comfortable with theory args, just make sure you warrant out why it should be evaluated in the debate. this means clear interps, violations, voters, etc etc. i am not going to do the work for you on why education and fairness is important- that's your job.
misc- hate redundancy, do not repeat yourself over and over. signpost clearly. open cx is fine if the host allows it. i don't care where you sit. last speeches >>>> these will make or break the round for me. do NOT allow your energy to drop, even if you feel as though you're losing! keep me interested! debate is supposed to be"fun". allow your passion to spill over in your speeches. GET ON THAT SOAP BOX!! (this applies to all events.)
ld
i've been judging a lot of ld lately, and i like to think i can hang with anything. i debated ld a few times in high school (and won each time). however, i am still in no way familiar with alllll of the ld jargon. remember, i am first and foremost a policy debater / interp'r.
okay with whatever. love clash! don't be rude. keep me interested.
thoroughly explain your values and criterion. it will take a lot to persuade me on broad values (such as life or justice) without just and clearly articulated criterion/warrants.
IE's
three things: passion. energy. clarity.
this is your chance to express yourself! show me who you are, why you're here! do not just read the script, give me emotion! pazazz! dramatics! & being louder does not mean better.
extemp- try your hardest to reduce verbal clutter. this is a communication event, just talk to me! each move you physically make should have a purpose; no swaying! breathe, you got this!
general judging
i will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. be respectful? not that difficult. we are here to offer a safe and diverse place for intellectual discourse and healthy conversation. i truly admire the culture speech and debate has fostered, so uphold that. be open minded and considerate of those around you. any disrespect or unnecessary aggression will automatically lose you the round.
any further questions/clarification, feel free to contact me anytime! :)
I will value whatever I am told to value.
However I will default to T above all else, then Impacts.
No 'new in the 2'.
Make sure to signpost.
email:
-- add me to the file share -- please send speeches --
CX/Policy:
Games Judge
-
Debate is a game; use whatever ON OR OFF positions that allow you and your opponents to LEARN and have *FUN*.
-
No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote ---- Tech>Truth
-
If all else fails and at the end of the debate everything cancels out I vote on presumption - presumption falls neg but if the negative runs a counter advocacy (CP,K) --- presumption flips (keep that in mind negative teams)
-
when in K debates depending on the literature we are discussing let's try and be truthful(for proper education on touchy structural topics) but I'm still tech when it comes to judging the round.
-
speed = idc , just make sure you're intelligible if i dont have the doc, also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow, you'll get my vote if your argumentation is superior.
POLICY/LD
do what you want I can hang.
BUT- if short paradigms scare you ---
I started doing debate in middle school with LD debate (I also did the occasional congress and PF round but was not a fan). In high school pretty much did LD with the occasional congress or policy round. I was a tech LD debater but I also did local UIL tournaments now and again so I was in both worlds. Now I do NPDA in college and if you do not know what that is it is essentially techy policy without cards and I am sort of a K hack (framegames good what can I say).
Now that we have my experience out of the way I can tell you I do everything in my power to be a blank slate as a judge. However obviously every judge has an internal bias. You might be thinking "oh he says he is a k hack let's run the K" this is a bad idea. Run what works. Not what you think I like. Obviously judge adaptation is important but the truest role of the judge/ballot in my opinion is to adapt to you - the debater. It is your round - your time to speak - do with it as you please I promise I am okay with ANYTHING (except for BLANTANT racism, sexism, homophobia... you get it). Some judges do not like the pic, the K, the K aff, the IVI, the RVI, or get bored with the standard topical debate, or some judges are the opposite and really like them. These judges that own this and tell you they will for sure not vote for you or probably will not vote for you because of this are probably not the greatest judges. I do my best to not have a natural inclination for anything I can not stress enough I have seen too many people scared to say what they want to say or do what they want to do and I absolute hate that this event is being tarnished by those types of judges. Who are we as judges to tell you not to run or to run something when the only reason debate exists is because of you!!! The debater/student ALWAYS comes before the judge/coach/parent/teacher/whatever and too many grown adults forget that.
Little note for my trad LD kids: the only thing you need to know is that a value criterion is how you achieve your value. I feel like a lot of you are not taught this so I will explain it really quickly. If my value is morality and my VC is util then what I am saying is that morality is the thing that matters most and just that util is the way to achieve that. If your values are different you only need a value debate. If your values are the same then you only need a value criterion debate. If everything is the same I doubt we will need a framework debate... just gotta prove who is better for y'alls framework.
Speaker points: Bring me something I like to eat/drink guaranteed 29 speaker points... bring me something I have never tried and end up liking guaranteed 30 (no consequence in trying) <---- this is actually something I am suggested not to say per NSDA judge paradigm guidelines point 2 but hey I am the judge. Other than that the RFD is for the winner/loser (ie debate skills)... but your points is for the performer (ie performance skills like volume, tone, persuasion, confidence). You can be winning on the flow but if you are not confident it is a low point win.
My stance on the rules --- in an event where things like the K aff exist and we say there is a possibility where we can vote on this I am inclined to believe that hypothetically if argued correctly any rule can be broken. However there are 2 exceptions:
- No BLATANT discrimination. If you openly say something so egregious (and it has to be pretty bad) in the 1AC or 1NC I will tell you to stop and give you a chance to check yourself. In all other instances or if you decide not to take my advice I will let the round go on but there is not a shot you are winning.
- Do not go over time- tournament has to run on time sorry bucko.
And because I have run into this issue before examples of blatant discrimination are included but not limited to: saying a slur outside of reclaiming it, just saying discrimination of social groups is good (this is such an uphill battle even if it can be argued just don't), impact turning the genocide of a racial, gender, or other type of social group. However you can impact turn the genocide of economic/political extremists (or moderates I suppose... but like why?).
Examples that I do not consider blatant and I will give reasons why:
- defending us heg, capitalism, or even Jeffersonian politics. Come on y'all these are (at least somewhat) valid arguments I should not have to explain this one.
- Defending a discriminatory author for something unrelated to that discrimination. I think we should be able to separate the art from the artist sometimes --- does not mean I will not vote on author indicts just means I will not auto waive the ballot for this.
- non black debaters running afropess (Or any pess literature ran by debaters that are not related to said literature). Reasoning: Although I am not a black debater I have talked to many black debaters who not only ran these arguments but who are a million times smarter than me that have given me plenty of great reasons of why other debaters that are not black should do it. Although the inverse is also true of black debaters coming out saying they should not run it I feel like it is not my choice to decide one way or the other so I am a blank slate if you disagree tell me I would love to have the conversation and be given a chance to be educated.
Lastly Capitol T TRUTH is this: Anthony Rodriguez (me) is the greatest judge to ever walk the planet.
NSDA Congress
Only thing you need to know is I judge congress as a speech/performance until given a reason to otherwise. I am all for being the judge that allows the K to make a Segway into congress debate although it probably will not happen lol (that does not mean try something wacky just for the sake of something wacky).
For how I treat the POs for rankings:
I believe the PO can either do a bad job or just their job. No such thing as an exceptional PO only an average (one that does everything right) or bad one. So with this if anyone gives an astounding speech they will be ranked higher than the PO however if this does not exist in the room assuming the PO did their job they (the PO) will be ranked the highest. If everyone (including the PO) does a bad job then the PO will be ranked the lowest.
ie:
1st - Great speaker, 2nd - PO, 3rd - Okay speaker, 4th- bad speaker.
Or
1st- Po, 2nd - okay speaker, 3rd - bad speaker
Or
1st- Great/ok speaker, 2nd- bad speaker, 3rd- bad PO
You get it.
Ask questions if you need them as this is the only thing I find relevant for understanding my rankings that I thought to include. I did not main congress in school but I did it occasionally as a hobby to fight debate burnout. Trust me though when I say I am qualified to judge y'all I am not some parent judge.
I've done competitive debate for 7 years and currently do NPDA style of debate with UTTyler. I did 4 years of policy in High School 2018-2022. I will say my view of debate has changed a lot since debating policy in high school, so if you have any specific questions revolving my paradigm feel free to ask questions before the round. Other than that I'm pretty tab, just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or just outright derogatory to your opponents.
Policy - General Notes, please tell me how I'm voting in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me why I'm voting that way. I like to see ya'll pull your best piece of offense and collapse to that in these speeches, I think we've become to comfortable going for multiple positions, but if you think a simple Advantage outweighs the DA/CP then go for it, or if you're the neg and think Theory is the best out then I want to see you go for it for 5 mins. I think you should always being pulling your best peice of offense and telling me why it comes first, why it outweighs, and why the other potential win conditions by your opponents fall short. Also, I'm fine with speed, I just think that you should be willing to sign post- and I don't think you should be spreading all the time, I think it's beneficial when getting the initial arguments down, but If you're going to spread through cards and not even engage in the clash of the warrants I don't think spreading is doing you any favors. It's ok to slow down and make common sense arguments, and I don't see enough of them in policy so please just make them.
- Topicality/Theory - Idefault to topicality/theory being apriori even if not articulated, I think this comes from the view that topicality is a procedural. However, if you can articulate to me why topicality/theory are not a voting issue then I can buy that too. I will vote on a risk of abuse if it's articulated well by the negative, however, the aff can also win that potential abuse is not a voter in the round. I think a lot of times, especially in high-school policy, we aren't terminalizing impacts on topicality. (What I mean by this, high-schoolers often group fairness/education as a standard when I think they are more of the impact of topicality - i.e., if we can't test the aff then we don't know why the aff is true, or If we can't engage in clash that means we don't get the educational benefits of weighing and portable skills because we can't access the aff solvency method). Theory is a friend, if you think the other team is being abusive I don't mind hearing your articulation, but my threshold for voting on 2NC/1NR theory is higher then 2AC theory if there is no direct proven abuse.
- Framework - Often times I don't see framework debates in high-school policy, so I feel like I should clarify how I will evaluate the round if there is no articulation of my duty as a judge. I feel as though debate is a game and I default tech>truth (i.e., I will vote for an impact that is terminalized with a clear articulation of either magnitude/timeframe/probability over the risk of an impact that is not sufficiently weighed, however true it may be). But just because this is how I default doesn't mean I don't want to hear your framing shells, If I'm told to evaluate utilitarian impacts over structural impacts or vice versa, I will evaluate that level of the debate before I go through the rest of the sheets.
- K's - Ok so I only every ran Cap and Set Col in high school, however, being in college my partner (Leilani Hurtado) and I have read a wide variety of K's. So I will say I'm pretty comfortable with them, however, that doesn't mean I will know the literature you're pulling from, so explanations are always good. I also think that alternatives should be labeled clearly when running k's, I think the framework of the K should make implications about either how I evaluate debate or how I evaluate the topic and the alternative should be the best way to resolve your mpx.
- Everything Else - I'm cool with anything, if you have any questions about how I evaluate certain arguments, my default answer is I'm going to be cool with anything, just make sure you're collapsing to a piece of offense and not going for pure defense, otherwise I'm mostly to outweigh a risk of an mpx vs. that mpx being improbable.
email:
-- add me to the file share -- please send speeches --
CX/Policy:
No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments.
Speed : I don't care, just make sure I can understand if I don't have the doc. Signpost and clearly read tags. Also make sure if I'm on a panel to check the other judges' prefs on speed if other judges don't like it, it's probably in your best interest to talk slow. Watch me/my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I'm not following you, and the only saving grace is the speechdrop/file share.
SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...
Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. SIGNPOST THROUGHOUT THE ROUND
Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with (IE CP, K).
I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument. It lets me know you know what you just talked about.
Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING TEAM DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.
LD Debate
No one is tab but I truly do try and keep my personal biases out of my vote. I will flow the round and evaluate the best arguments. I will say that I don't have much experience for "progressive debate" so keep that in mind when developing arguments. If I can't understand it, I can't vote on it.
Speed : Know your circuit and the expectation. I don't want to hear spreading in a UIL round.
Roadmaps: I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. Aff/Neg or Neg/Aff.
Last, I WILL NOT INTERFER. This means I will not "link" arguments or evaluate drops IF THE OPPOSING SPEAKER DOES NOT TELL ME TO FLOW THEM. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way.
Congress
When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.
I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.
1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.
2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches
3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber.
Extemp
The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?
My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!
I will also add that VERBALLY SIGNPOSTING is big for me. Make the body points super clear. Also, I love when you tie your hook back into your conclusion. It makes the whole speech feel very well rounded.
Interp
I don't mind extensive blocking, nor do I mind profanity as long as it serves a dramatic purpose (basically don't cuss just to cuss). I also try to evaluate on "topicality". I need to understand in your intro how you link to the category you are reading. The more you can look up from your book the better! Don't completely ignore it, but I want to know you are familiar with your piece.
Overall, I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!
Sunnyvale HS 2024
UTA 2028 :D :D
If you have any questions about the round or need to add me to an email chain, my personal email is emaaavaughan@gmail.com
TLDR: I am tab. Run whatever you want (not K Aff), please be kind. Tech>truth, but please try to run information that is ACTUALLY truthful.
Presenting a card and saying "we win on this because it is more recent" or that you are better because you have "so and so" evidence with zero reasoning is not always a valid way to receive my vote. Your arguments are far stronger if you can provide explanation rather than only referencing cards
Speaks: I really don't care, just share the document if you have a tendency to be muddy. Slow down for tags and analytics, etc . There is zero reason for you to be reading 5,000 wpm if you are intelligible and say "um" every other word. Absolutely no one wants to hear an 8-minute spread, monotone, poorly read speech. Simply put, if you cannot spread, do not spread. Convince me of your ideas with words, do not just read the pages. Be mindful of other judges and your opponents!
LD
I definitely lean more traditional for LD but am open to other arguments. Please understand the arguments you are making in round and obviously provide explanations for them. I value clash and framework arguments. If not, I will look at the impact arguments from both sides.
CX
Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. When done well in round, I really do enjoy listening to T. Please remember to run this properly (ie extend standards and voter throughout the round).
Theory: I will vote on theory, and it can be fun, but like T, it should have standards and voters through the round. This is always a fun argument, it just needs to be done properly and actually have meaning/reasoning attached to it in round. Impact why your theory matters in the debate space.
Disadvantage: The neg needs to prove why they win all four parts of the DA. Try to keep the link-internal link-impact chain clear. Please do not forget to extend accordingly. A good way to win this is to weigh your impacts and do impact calc. Remember to warrant out your cards and explain why they outweigh your opponents.
Counter plan: I prefer CP to have a net benefit and be mutually exclusive. I will vote on CP theory if not clashed with. Make your explanations of perm, net benefit, untopical, mutually exclusive, etc clear. Neg teams, try to avoid running CP that has nothing to do with the Aff case and saying "we are running this because we should focus because it is more important than the Aff." That is not really a counter plan if all you are doing is simply solving for something else.
Kritik: I know some K literature, but do not assume I know everything or want to read all your K literature. Your K should obviously have all parts. Please keep the content and analysis of your K (specifically Alt) clear. K is no fun if you yourself do not understand its content OR if you are running K specifically because the opposing team does not know how to respond.
Framework: These are really fun ways to evaluate the round but is definitely not needed! If you choose to run FW, it needs to be reinforced throughout the round. I default util if a FW is not outlined.