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.

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:

laynegmorris05@gmail.com

-- 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 important 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.

amrod2027@gmail.com

If I am your judge and you are reading this ask me about my thoughts on disclosing after the round. I will not post them here because of some circuits rules on disclosure.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

TLDR;I would say I'm a tab judge, but I really prioritize offense & defense in a round. Cool with speed but share a doc, that makes flowing easier and allows me to evaluate the warrants of your arguments. I'm cool with any argument just don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic... etc. I will vote you down on those actions alone.

Pronouns - He/They

Policy - I did 4 years of policy in high school. I used to run a little bit of everything, but since I've been in college I've learned a lot more about the K and run it pretty much every round. I'm down for whatever type of debate ya'll want me to judge, but please please please give me some sort of framing so I have an idea of how to weigh the round, especially in high school debate. I would like to intervene as least as possible so maybe throw a framing contention into your case in front of me as long as you understand it.

K-Aff's- You can run this in front of me, just make sure you have a well-explained alternative. I'm not the most familiar with all literature out there but do have a keen sense for Queer Futurity and Fem Epistemology K's. Just because I'm unfamiliar doesn't mean you shouldn't run it in front of me, but going super fast in these rounds could be harmful so go at your own risk. I run Cap K's a lot in college as well so I'm familiar with a lot of Marxist literature if that's something you're trying to run in front of me.

K's - probably the same things as above. Negative K's just need a clear link to the affirmative and should be as specific as possible, generally think underspecified links in the 1NC are probably bad for debate.

Topicality/Theory - Love this kind of argument, just make sure that as the negative you are reading standards and voters in the 1NC, I don't care if you expand the number of standards in the Block just make sure you are responsive to affirmative standards (and Vise Versa for the Affirmative Team). As the aff on this argument, make sure your interpretation is textually competitive with the negative interpretation (or vice versa if it's a procedural ran by the aff).

CP's - I would say these are cool. Make sure they are competitive though whether it be textually or through net benefits. Be ready to respond to theory, and I do have a rather low threshold for severance and intrinsic perm theory, as long as there is proven abuse.

DA's - Cool just have a good uniqueness lol. Politics DA's are probably my favorite, and most real world so I would like to hear them. Cool with anything else just make the internal link story make sense so you have a clear path and a high probability of the Impact.

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, default stock. Run whatever you want (not K Aff), please be kind.

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: Idc, just share the document. 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.

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

T: T is fine. If you extend your T past the constructives, PLEASE remember to extend standards and voters.

Theory: I will vote on theory, but it needs all the necessary parts or I will not flow it. This is always a fun argument, it just needs to be done properly. Please impact why your theory matters in the debate space.

DA: I love good disad debates. The neg needs to prove why they win all four parts of the DA. Please do not forget to extend accordingly. A good way to win this is to weigh your impacts. Remember to warrant out your cards and explain why they outweigh your opponents.
CP: CPs must have a net benefit and solvency. Tell me why the CP solves better than the Aff. I will vote on CP theory if not clashed with. Specific CP is yaaaaay!!
K: This is not my favorite type of argument, but that does not mean I will not vote on it. If you do not understand your K and the jargon in it, please do not run it; they do not have any educational merit and you are wasting everyone's time. Otherwise, I think K's can be fun. Your K needs to have all the parts for me to flow it though. The bottom line is it needs to be explained well. I value a good analysis line by line on the link, impact, and all. Tell me why your Alt solves. If your K has a lot of jargon, you need to explain it. I will also vote on language K's if a team uses harmful or derogatory language.

FW: 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.