Lake Travis Cavalier Classic TFA
2025 — Lake Travis, TX/US
LD Judge Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi, I'm Antonio
antoarguelles47@gmail.com
Clear Lake '23 | UT Austin '27
I debated all four years of high school but only competed on the national circuit my senior year. I TOC qualled in LD primarily reading Ks on the aff and neg and TFA qualled 3 times in LD.
Debate should be a safe space, I won't tolerate misgendering, asking people about their identity, or any argument that says things like racism or sexism are good.
Please stop asking me for 30 speaks, just debate better. I tend to be generous with speaks anyway.
Online debate: Camera off is fine, just please be ready to start the round at the designated time - you have plenty of time to get set up because you don't have to walk to a room. Sending analytics would also be appreciated.
TLDR: I'd like to be tab, I think dogmatism is bad and always found it annoying how unwilling judges would be to even listen to certain arguments. With that being said, I'm much better at evaluating Ks, policy, and T-framework than I am at judging tricks, phil, and theory. Speaks are based on strategy and efficiency.
Cheat sheet if you're too lazy to read (based on how comfortable I feel evaluating the argument):
K-affs - 1
K v anything - 1
Policy - 2
T - 2
Theory - 3
Phil - 4/5
Tricks - 3
Note: Although I read the K in hs, I won't be more inclined to vote for you just because you read a K in front of me. For people on the TFW or policy side of these debates: debate as you normally would, I'm happy to vote on a good extinction outweighs 2ar or procedural fairness first 2nr against a K or K-aff.
Long version:
Tech > truth but I'm not going to do the work for you. A conceded argument isn't inherently a winning argument, if your opponent concedes that the sky is green you still need to explain why that wins you the round.
I flow on my laptop but I'm not fantastic at keeping up with anything above roughly an 8/10 in terms of speed. Generally, as long as you're clear and slow down a little on analytics I should be able to keep up.
I tend to agree with disclosure theory.
More thoughts (updated based on what I've judged and questions I've been asked):
I won't vote on arguments that have to do with your opponent's clothing or appearance.
Spamming perms in the 1ar with no explanation and then blowing one up in the 2ar is not a legitimate strategy. I won't vote on a perm if there's no 1ar warrant for why it works.
I default DTD, competing interps, and yes rvis on theory.
I dislike lazy TVAs that don't at all resolve the aff's impacts - strategically just doesn't make sense.
Fairness first is great, big fan of fairness.
CX probably doesn't check
If you're debating someone with considerably less experience than you I don't care what the 1NC is, but if the 2NR is split I'll be very annoyed. Just explain why you're winning and sit down early for great speaks.
I like a good line by line more than a big overview.
Default presumption and permissibility negate.
Norming > in round abuse.
∨∨∨ If PF skip to the bottom of the page ∨∨∨
Shortcuts
1 - Policy/K
2 - Trad
3 - Phil
4 - Theory/T
Strike - Tricks
Tech > Truth
Fairness = Education
Spreading = Bad, Speed = Good
I prefer Speech Drop or NSDA File Share, but my email is larsoncrank@gmail.com
Also, promise I'm not a Neg hack my recent record is straight coincidence
----------
Background
Klein Collins '22
Texas '25 (History & Government)
I competed on the Houston circuit for 7 years in total (2015-2022). Although I competed in nearly every event, LD was always my favorite and the event that I participated in most frequently. I'm self-taught, and because of this, I mainly ran trad arguments throughout my career. However, later into high school, I focused heavily on LARP and the K. I was a 3x qual for TFA State and NSDA Academic All-American for anyone who cares about my "qualifications."
Considering my background as being self-taught, I sympathize greatly with novice debaters and those that don't have the same resources as other power house schools. If you at any time are unsure of terminology or general proceedings involved in debate, please reach out! I would be more than happy to help anyone who may be struggling or is confused. Asking questions is so important to growing as a debater, and it is something I personally never did enough of.
As of now, most of my academic experience is centered around state politics, international development, and litigation concerns. I'm well-versed in most legalistic concepts and find that these theories of power and representation interest me the most. Nonetheless, as you can probably infer from above, I have experience with almost any realm of thought you want to introduce. Depending on how complex it is though, I might be rusty, so give me a chance to think.
----------
Logistics
In regards to the shortcuts listed above, this is simply a measurement of how comfortable/familiar I am with specific styles of debate. I think as a judge I'm obligated to not allow my own biases related to debating techniques impact the RFD. I encourage all competitors to debate how they want and I will adapt as I see accordingly.
I flow by ear, but I still want access to your case. Not only does this prevent confusion if there's discrepancy during the round, but I think it's ultimately a good practice to share your case with everyone in the room.
Please give a roadmap before your speech AND signpost during your speech! This makes it so much easier for me to flow, and ensures I don't miss any figures you put out. The clearer you are with the tags, the better.
When it comes to spreading, I think the practice as a whole is entirely destructive for debate. With that being said, there is a perfectly clear line between spreading and speed needed to construct a case. I'm a proponent of speed, but if you are intentionally spreading (you know who you are) I will stop flowing and dock your speaker points. I've started flowing again on paper more frequently as opposed to using my computer, so this may be another reason to slow down at least for tags and line-by-line.
I expect to see clash over framing! You need to reference throughout the round which FW I ought to be evaluating under. I'm so tired of cases (mainly policy-based) that lack any sort of FW. PF exists for a reason! If I don't have a FW then I don't have any standard to compare evidence with which in turn makes producing a good RFD difficult. Not to mention, I will also just err to your opponent's framing if you don't present one or it has a lame off position.
I'm going to default tech before truth-testing for the simple reason that it has more objective grounds for me to vote off of. I do my very best to not allow my personal opinions/beliefs impact the RFD and evaluate only what is said during round. I need to see the warrant for every argument though. I won't vote for an unwarranted argument even if it wins in a tech debate!
I don't have a preference for fairness or education as shocking as that might sound. I know most judges tend to prefer fairness, but I think both are beneficial to debate. It is your job as a competitor to prove to me what I should think in this situation. Nonetheless, my threshold to vote on a theory shell is pretty high to begin with. There needs to be a clear story of abuse that overrides whichever standard you choose to defend (or both).
I think speaker points are stupid. Moreover, don't take what I give you to heart because I really don't put much thought into it. I use them more as a gauge to the level of preparedness and passion I see from competitors.
I don't keep time. Time yourselves!
I don't flow CX. However, when it comes to flex prep I don't really have any opinions. As long as both competitors are cool with it, do whatever you want.
----------
Trad
As mentioned above, I was an extremely traditional debater for the majority of my career. Although it is a simple strategy, I think it can be just as effective as any of the more "progressive" styles. Case debate is something I’m fully capable of evaluating. This is a random thought, but as I became more experienced with the other forms of debate, I developed somewhat of an awkwardness to the word "contention."
Tell me when something is non-unique! I found that in my time as a debater there were so many occasions, some I even missed in round, when identifying when something was non-unique could have easily just ended the debate. With that being said, make unique arguments that can’t just be manipulated to support any position!
I love impact turns. Even though trad stuff is considered simplistic, an amazing strategy to shoot for is when you can prove to me that your case/world/whatever solves better.
Trad args can fairly beat the other debate styles on this paradigm no matter how intricate they may seem!
----------
Policy
If you read above regarding my thoughts on trad debate, you would've seen that I don't particularly like the word "contention." Moreover, I'm much more receptive (and think that it sounds better overall) when policy phrases are used such as "ADV" or "DA."
I love DAs. Make sure you have a clear link chain for whatever conclusive impact you are trying to get me to see! Too often debaters write useless tags that claim the card they are reading says one thing (when in reality it is not as impactful/strong as they make it out to seem). Call your opponent out if you see them doing this! It's not always a bad idea to read beyond what is highlighted/underlined/bolded. I want to see line-by-line how X leads to Y and Y leads to Z in a realistic manner. ADVs are cool too, but I figured that was implied from my stance on DAs.
CPs are extremely intuitive and strategic for a Neg that can easily circumvent most Aff cases. However, I will accept (and strongly encourage) Aff arguments of abuse based on Neg interps that are too abstract/broad with little to no in-text plan. I don’t have a ton to say about PICs though because honestly I don’t see them ran that much.
----------
K
I'm familiar with the basic ones, but it is in your best interest to assume that I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain your theory and model of debate thoroughly! This is especially true if you’re an Aff wanting to run a K simply because I have much more experience with the Neg K.
Clear Link -> Clear Impact -> Clear Alternative
K needs to be fairly specific when you link it to your opponent’s model of debate, but I think there is leg room for certain positions.
While judging I have found that I actually enjoy K debate much more than I originally thought. Although, if you’re going to run a K but structure it like a trad/policy case to avoid the nuances of the debate, just save us all some time and run the K how it’s supposed to be ran.
Familiar: Cap, Set Colonial, Fem, Heg, Nietz, & Afro-Pess
---------
T
I will vote for a topical argument if there is genuinely warrant for needing to discuss ambiguities in the resolution/definitions/Aff interps. I think this is especially strategic against things like Ks or frivolous Theory that is extremely far-fetched and/or has very little (if anything) to do with the resolution at hand.
Moreover, I expect to see debate related to the resolution. If your opponent has neglected their obligation to perform this task, call them out! The extent to what constitutes “debate related to the resolution” I leave up to the competitors.
----------
Phil
Phil args are good when debaters actually know what they are talking about and not just rambling on about complex theory they can’t even explain themselves. You need to be able to easily contextualize your debate world. This isn’t for my understanding, but simply for the fact that if you can’t explain it in simple terms you probably don’t understand it that well.
I'm familiar with popular writings, but as mentioned in my opinion on Ks, assume I know nothing about what you are talking about. Explain everything there is to know about your model of debate in a timely manner! Somewhat related, but I would advise you to be extremely careful reading Marxism in front of me.
Empirics > Analytics (in most cases)
Familiar: Kant, Locke, Util, Marx, Rawls, Hobbes, Skepticism, & Determinism
----------
Theory
I have very mixed feelings on theory. Part of me finds it very stupid and just an attempt to talk oneself out of debating against good strategies. The other part of me sees its complexity and admires it as a unique form of debate. If this is your choice of debate, ensure that you have given me a proper rundown on what it is you are trying to get me to vote on. Whether it be an issue regarding fairness, education, or technicality, I need more than just a short excerpt read at the speed of lightning during one of your rebuttals.
I can firmly say that there is an extremely low chance that I will actually "drop the debater" unless something egregious has occurred. "Drop the argument" makes so much more sense than dropping the debater entirely. "Preventing future abuse" and handing them a singular L isn't going to stop them from just running the same case in another round.
STOP SAYING DTD!
I will NOT vote off Disclosure Theory. Not only will I not flow the argument, but I find it very classist and distasteful. I won’t auto-down you, but your speaker points will certainly take a hit. As someone who debated for a small program with few resources dedicated to this activity I sympathize with those that are not adequately included in the loop and/or involved with collective wikis.
Meme Theories are always appreciated though.
----------
Tricks
I probably won't vote off this, but you can try it if you really want to.
----------
PF
All of my preferences for logistics and the ROB are the same for PF as they are for LD, so it wouldn't hurt for your team to read through them (obviously some things don't matter as much like FW).
My biggest issue with PF debates is oftentimes they don't discuss the individual impact(s) of their plan enough. Since I don't have a FW to compare the evidence presented, I need for teams to clearly outline why their plan is ultimately better than your opponent's.
Because I am so used to LD, I like to think of these rounds in the terms of cost-benefit analysis or a loose construction of util calc. The team that proves to me the plan with the most pros and the least amount of cons is most likely going to get the W.
Hello! I am Christy Cruz from Travis Bryan High School.
I am a parent/Lay judge and I usually judge in the novice divisions, but in case I have to judge varsity I prefer a traditional format and no spreading. Please make your arguments digestible as if you were explaining them to your own parents.
Email is jamescraiglong@gmail.com
History/Current Position: I competed 2011-2014 for Evanston Township High School (Chicago suburbs) on the national circuit in PF attending tournaments such as Harvard, Glenbrooks, Dowling, West Des Moines Valley, Mini-apple, and Blake. I reached the final round of Dowling and Blake and made it to the round of 32 at NSDA nationals. I currently am a social studies teacher and debate coach at Boerne-Champion High School in Boerne, Texas.
Policy -I never really judge this but would probably judge it like LD/PF
LD:
1 - Traditional but flow oriented debaters
1 - Stock Policy/Larp
3 - the theories mentioned below, common K’s
4 - frivolous theory, phil, complex K’s
5/strike - tricks
You should consider me a traditional flow judge.
I am traditional, not in the sense that I dislike progressive debate or have a problem with it - I’m just not a good judge for it because of my lack of knowledge and experience with it. I am more comfortable judging a larp/policy debate or more simplistic and classic/stock philosophy. I also can’t understand spreading. I won’t vote you down for spreading but if you are spreading, I need a doc for everything you spread. If you are running phil or a K or high level theory that requires you to spread or has a bunch of jargon- I’m not a good judge for it. If you are spreading to run simpler policy arguments - that’s okay though I prefer depth over breadth.
I am flow in the sense that I see what has been mostly cleanly extended throughout the round either by the opponent dropping or failing to adequately respond and then I will weigh whatever arguments have been extended so make sure to explain why the arguments you are bringing to the final speech matter more than your opponents (don't just rely on saying their argument has been refuted, it's better to also say that even if their argument flows through - you still win. Ideally do this weighing using terms like probability, magnitude, or timeframe (but add warrants to it).
These are my current thoughts on features of progressive debate but ultimately beware of running them given my lack of experience/knowledge.
Theory - I think disclosure (including on the wiki) and will vote on this at circuit tournaments (not a fan at local ones) but the more specific you get about the disclosure requirements the less I buy it. I’m sympathetic to condo if they are running like 4+ off-case arguments (I don’t count fw as an off).
K- fine with classic/not super complex jargon/heavy K’s
Phil - I haven’t judged this too much and have voted on it before but the more complex the more the risk - assume I know NOTHING!!!!
PF: I do not think theory or K's or things of that nature belong in PF debate and I will not accept spreading in PF. PF was designed to be a lay alternative to LD and Policy. Otherwise I vote the same as I do for LD.
I prioritize logical, evidence-based arguments that are well-supported and clearly presented. While evidence and reasoning are critical, I also value ethical considerations when they are directly tied to the context of the policy or issue being debated. Ethical appeals should be grounded in logic and evidence to carry weight. Arguments that lack a clear connection between these elements will be less persuasive in my evaluation.
As a mother of students who compete in theatre and speaking events, I bring a unique perspective to the role of a debate judge. Alongside my professional IT expertise, I also appreciate leading-edge ideas and innovation. In this paradigm, I aim to combine my experiences as a parent and my appreciation for innovation to provide a fair and insightful judgment.
Fairness and Impartiality
During debates, fairness and impartiality are crucial aspects of judging. I will ensure that each competitor receives equal opportunities and consideration. Regardless of school affiliation, every individual deserves a fair chance to showcase their skills and ideas.
Open-Mindedness and Innovation
Being an IT professional, I value open-mindedness and innovation highly. I encourage debaters to think outside the box, present creative arguments, and introduce innovative perspectives. These qualities can make a debate more engaging and thought-provoking for both the participants and the audience.
Analytical Approach
To provide constructive feedback and accurate evaluations, I will adopt an analytical approach while judging. I will carefully assess the logical coherence of arguments, the organization of ideas, the clarity of communication, and the overall persuasiveness and style of each speaker. This methodical evaluation will ensure that deserving individuals receive recognition for their efforts.
In conclusion, my role as a debate judge combines my experience as a mother of students involved in theatre and speaking events with my passion for innovation as an IT professional. I am committed to fairness, open-mindedness, analytical evaluations, respectful interactions, effective communication, and continuous education.
akhileshpissay@utexas.edu
I debated for Westwood for 4 years and debated on the national circuit a decent amount. I don’t really have much topic knowledge. If you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll say slow and clear like 3 times and then stop flowing if it happens again.
UPDATE FOR UT ---
If you are debating a novice or someone obviously much less experienced, please try to make the round educational. I know you could just out-spread them with a couple of theory shells but obviously that just kills engagement and is a large factor in why people leave debate. Not only will I reward you with good speaks, but just be a good person.
Read what you want in front of me (granted it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc) and I'll do my best to understand it. But based on my experience, I am most comfortable with policy, theory, T, some philosophy, some Ks (cap, antiblackness, set col, psychoanalysis). Regardless, I still want a good explanation of your argument in speeches and lots of impacting and judge instruction.
Tricks and friv theory are fine, but don't be super blippy and please please please weigh so debates are resolvable. I'll try my best to evaluate it but I was never a tricks debater.
Things I like (good speaks):
-
impact turns
-
weighing
-
collapsing
-
good overviews
-
being funny
-
efficiency
-
good line by lines
Things I don't like (bad speaks):
-
being mean
-
stealing prep
-
if you're debating a novice please don't blitz through everything and make the debate un-educational for them
-
not signposting and jumping around the flow
-
clipping cards
-
being dodgy and sketchy in cross ex
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before round.
Also make sure to have fun