The Longhorn Classic
2022 — Austin, TX/US
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Heights High School 2020 - UT Austin 2024
TLDR (tfa state updated):
I will vote on *almost* anything and you should not be scared to read any arg / change your strat in front of me. I promise I will work hard on your decision but my knowledge in some areas is lacking (phil&tricks). My flexibility is especially true for TFA state. I think the ground is terrible so I understand the need for flexible strategies and 1NCs full of many (trashy) arguments. That being said here is a list of affs and 2nr collapses sorted by my happiness when evaluating them.
Please give me these debates: Larp, Any t/theory, t-fw, innovative K affs
I am happy in these rounds: K 2nrs (vs policy, phil, and K affs)
I will be fine: generic/overdone non t - K affs, substantive Phil Affs, NCs phil strats,
Sadness: nailbomb affs, tricks, lay (I just don't understand it)
*I am dogmatic about these and will actually not evaluate*: speaks theory, eval the debate after [speech]
Heights High School. Carnegie Vanguard KF. Challenge Early JA. Challenge Early KU.
Hi, I debated at Heights High School for 2 years in CX and 1 in LD. In my senior year I focused on nat circuit ld where I broke at a few tournaments but never bid. I did qual for other tournaments such as TFA, NSDA, and UDL Nationals in CX later that year if that influences your opinion of me. I am now an on and off coach at Heights for both CX and LD.
Debate in general
I’m as tab as possible and my route to the ballot will attempt to start from the highest to the bottom layer via the path that requires me to intervene as a judge the least. If I think a certain flow is irresolvable I'll look to the next layer/flow and if there's nothing left I'll vote on presumption. I try to not let my preferences affect my decision, but predispositions exist so true tab is impossible imo.
- Concession = true/100% strength of link (presuming it's a warranted argument- conceded claims are still just claims)
- Telling me people got wrecked on the flow > persuasive bs 2ar pandering to my sense of ethics
Good evidence and spin > good spin bad evidence > bad spin good evidence
Default comparative worlds.
I default to presuming aff in LD. In CX/Policy I give presumption to the team who deviates from the squo the least.
I flow CX. I default to CX is binding but that is debatable. This means links and violations are obtainable from CX. If you want to make extra sure I do type down the specific CX interaction that you want to cite in your speech it never hurts to throw me some quick judge instruction: "judge write that one down" or "make sure you got that" is plenty.
Yes send me the doc but no backflowing – I’ll only use it for evidence comparison (if I absolutely have to b/c you should be doing that for me) and clipping violations. There are two instances where I will intervene and engage in my own evidence comparison, 1) when either I truly believe the flows from the 2nr and 2ar are truly insufficient to resolve the debate 2) when I am specifically given instructions to read the card myself by a debater. If I am forced to go down this route you automatically accept the extra risk of me finding out that your full text is not consistent with the argument you are attempting to make which can work against you so beware. In my rfd I will try to be clear where I had to intervene and any complaints of that intervention are your own fault whether that be your poor debating and lack of clash that forced me to do so or your overconfidence in your evidence that was misplaced. To be clear, my use of the term judge intervention here refers to me deciding between two pieces of important evidence by my own interpretation of what they mean, not me magically making new arguments to vote off of. Evidence ethics challenges are a stop the round level offense and I’ll determine it based off of full text on my own so be weary of that and be right.
I’ll say clear and slow as many times as possible but when I do that means I missed something and whatever isn’t on my flow in some fashion didn’t happen. For online tournaments: record your speeches in case of wifi issues.
I’ll disclose my rfd when permitted but not speaks. Postround me all you want, it will not change my decision but it can help you determine if your strategy was actually viable or not. I think a judge voting incorrectly and subsequently giving debaters negative reinforcement for what is actually a good strategy is a shame. I will work with you the best I can to avoid such an issue from occurring by both attempting to write the best ballot personally possible and being open to admitting that I was wrong.
I’ve done this form for most of my debate career – if you want to go hardcore policy then I’m down and am good for basically everything.
Strength and specificity of link determines size and probability of impact
Nuanced comparison and weighing of impacts are more likely to win my ballot than a card dump so like please just have clash
Any type of DA or CP is legitimate if you win it’s theoretically justified
Kick the CP or justify judgekick
Zero risk of a DA is possible
Politics DA are good and all but much of my decision will be determined by recency and evidence quality.
Riders DAs and stuff similar to that are a bit more sus but still an option.
Blanket claims about probability don’t make the DA go away but it does help you weigh the aff in combination with defense on the DA proper
Impact turns are good (see K section for a stipulation to that).
[Policy/CX Spec]: 2nc case dumps must have some connection to 1nc cards. EX: 1nc card justifying no US-China war with a list of general reasons permits 2nc card dumps that uniquely highlight those general reasons: econ interdependence, MAD, power balancing, etc. Conceding a scenario/link chain and then dumping new stuff in the 2nc is not allowed. The same goes for the affirmative: case add-ons are not new advantages, only more in-depth articulations of scenarios were already described in the 1ac. The same logic applies to DAs and CPs. Policy is good because its many speeches facilitate rigorous testing over arguments. Additional cards are meant to examine the nuances of arguments and particular warrants. If you can not win using the overarching ideas presented in the first constructive speeches you need to find better prep and make more strategic strats.
I default competing interps, no rvi, and drop the debater. If a competing interps justification is made and your opponent doesn’t have an explicit counter interp you win – I need to know what model of debate you’re defending.
I evaluate theory very tab and very technically so run whatever. If you think an argument is dumb then it should be easy to beat therefore I will vote on most interps. List of theories outside of that rule and I will not vote on/enact the implication of: give double 30s theory.
Reasonability is good and all but if they have a decently developed shell/offense you’ll probably need a brightline to justify me not voting against you. Another important thing to note is that reasonability is not an auto 100% defense on theory arguments. You still have to prove your violation really didn’t amount to much for me to feel comfortable using it as defense on a shell. To simplify that thought – you still how to prove how you are the good in the “good is good enough” justification.
Disclosure theory is fine – I was on a UDL program and still disclosed but seeing other teams in the league and teammates from my own school means I am sympathetic to and acknowledge certain responses. That means it’s fair game to run but up to you to prove to me why it should or shouldn’t be a norm.
[For y’all Nebel/Leslie/wtv debaters out there] I’m just going to be real with you – I’d much prefer a collapse to a pragmatics debate rather than semantics on t. I’ve read the nebel articles, I’ve collapsed to semantics before, but I feel like as a judge semantics will exponentially increase my chance of writing a bad ballot. I feel that if both sides are debated well, I probably have to intervene somewhere with my intuition/personal comprehension of articles/cards and there’s a high chance that I’ll misunderstand some really specific grammatical point that’s been extended so let’s just avoid going for it if there’s sufficient defense on it. That being said if you think you’ll crush them on the semantics debate either by concession or because your opponent heavily mishandled/misunderstood it then by all means extend it to your last speech but I would heavily advise against putting all your eggs in that basket.
[For Policy/CX]: I ran theory quite frequently in nat circuit LD and I am fond of it as a viable argument in policy as well. My style of evaluating the theory is incredibly flow-dependent and specifically for T, not actually concerned with what I personally think would be an amazing model of debate. T and theory shells that are warranted are arguments and will be equally evaluated no matter how silly or illogical they seem. If the interp is truly a ridiculous idea then it should be very easy to beat. T-subs and other generics are viable options to collapse to if you have the technical prowess to do so. This additionally applies to creative counter interps. Essentially: as long as you have a card for the T interp no matter how odd it is it will be a viable route to the ballot. I also evaluate T from the mindset of LD theory which is often at odds with some policy debaters' notions. In my mind, T is not just a definitions debate. If an interpretation just states a hypothetical rule and the shell has a definition (semantical warrant) as well as reasons as to why it should be the rule in the form of other standards (pragmatics warrants), only attacking the definition does not answer the T shell. Affs should articulate why their counter interp is both definitionally more accurate in addition to it being a better model model of debate. Arguments can be made that semantics matters more than pragmatics and vice versa but my default is they are equally justifications for an interpretation. My stipulation to this is that the wording of the interpretation matters. "Interpretation: substantially means a 25% increase or more" probably is just a definition debate.
Weigh between standards and voters please and winning that your offense controls the internal link to theirs will make your and my job very easy.
I’ve read a lot of K lit but ask me before round about specific authors. Despite that, if you don’t sufficiently explain your thesis I won’t fill it in for you. Stuff I’ve done indepth reading of (also what I read in round): Baudrillard, Deleuze, Agamben, Foucault, and a ton of Marxist authors. I’m familiar with: Wilderson, Warren, Queerness, Ableism, Semiocap, Set col, Anthro, and Security. I’ve barely read it: Fem IR stuff, Heideggerian stuff, Psycho (beyond stuff used for pess).
I am likely to err aff on new 2ar args/creative reinterpretations of 1ar responses for these 1 card Ks that become 6 minute 2nrs given that the neg almost always also makes new arguments.
Less embedded clash = higher chance of winning
Read shorter overviews and do more work on the line by line please (unless it’s like some super nuanced pomo or other crazy arg in which case I’ll probably give you some leeway for the sake of me being able to evaluate the K to begin with).
Most frameworks are probably self-serving and arbitrary – try to read something that's not just impact justified. A FW is a model for how I evaluate the debate and one that randomly excludes all of the aff's offense without a good and nuanced warrant is probably not a good model.
Links drawn from lines of the 1ac or other associated speeches will almost certainly be rewarded with speaks and links of omission will almost certainly lose to a perm double bind argument
Explain your perms please if you just say the words perm “do the alt” or “perm do both” the neg probably just has to say links are DAs to the perm
Certain forms of death good might be fine but be very cautious of the way you present the implication of what that means and be considerate of your opponent and those who may be viewing the round. On the other hand, if you impact turn racism or other forms of similar violence you won’t like your speaks and it won’t end up on my flow and you’ll probably just lose the round if your opponent calls you out on it.
Non-t K affs and neg options
Go for it but please explain how to evaluate offense under your rob
K v K is fine – win your thesis/theory of power and win why that comes logically prior to their offense, controls the internal link to it, outweighs it, or mitigates it.
I am open to denying perms in a k vs k method debate
Smart counterinterps >>> spamming turns on fw
Fairness is an impact, but it can also be bad
Carded TVAs are good but not necessary
SSD and other ideological testing arguments are persuasive, but you need to win why that spillsover enough to outweigh the impacts of the aff or win sufficient defense on the 1ac that makes it an education v education debate
Performance and other K affs can lose to presumption absent sufficient articulation as to where and why our performances and actions matter
I'm opening up to this style of debate slowly but I didn't debate it much so don't blame me if I don't correctly evaluate your 1 second apriori in the impact calc section. That also meanscut down on the jargon I am willing to vote on your trick but I won't if I have no clue what it means.
If you don't extend TT and you don't explicitly articulate how the trick functions in a world where I use comparative worlds I am very likely to note vote on the arg.
No evaluate the debate after x. I'll do it after the 2ar and count all speeches up to that point.
Default comparative worlds and presumption flows aff & permissibility flows neg
I only ever read Util and Kant in debate but I will try my best to evaluate any FW if you end up with me as your judge.
I have actually read a lot of phil in college so I am increasingly open to longer and tricks light frameworks. Just cut back on the jargon.
TJFs make my life easier as a judge but, like most arguments, are up to debate for their theoretical legitimacy so you do you.
Explanation of legitimate vs illegitimate offense is a must
Tell me what comes first
Policy Debate (the event)
Much of my paradigm is geared toward LD although all of it remains true for Policy. Control F [Policy/CX] to see the specifically outlined sections already written. That being said, my paradigm was not substantively written with Policy in mind so I will add some brief info that might clear things up.
- Run as many off as you want to however I must be able to draw a line from (at minimum) a warrant in the card of the 1nc to new cards in the block. If you want to introduce new random scenarios or explanations of how the world works maybe cut a more comprehensive 1nc card instead of shifting the debate mid-round. Obviously, that doesn't apply if the new cards are in reaction to 2ac args.
- My threshold for voting on theory is comparatively low to most other policy judges. I will vote on any theory or T shell if it is won on the flow. Reasonability is a paradigm issue that has to be won in order for me to use it. That means I am perfectly comfortable voting a t/theory shell even if I don't think the aff itself is that abusive if a debater wins competing interps > reasonability
- On T debates to all you affirmative debaters: I haven't judged the topic. I have no clue what the "core of the topic" is. This, in turn, means I also have no idea if your aff is the core of the topic. So actually explain why the wording of the resolution or topic literature means you're T instead of just asserting norms/the consensus of the community that I'm unaware of. Thanks.
- I am probably equally receptive to Policy args as I am K args in Policy/CX so just run whatever you are most comfortable with. Side note: If you run a bunch of theory just because it looks like I hack for theory and you fail to cleanly give your speeches on theory it will affect your speaker points.
Independent voters probably need to link back to some framework if you want me to try and weigh them especially if there’s a K or theory flow somewhere else.
I don’t have random here’s plus or minus x speaks for doing a random thing – just debate your best and you’ll be given speaks accordingly.
If you’re at a local, I’ll probably inflate your speaks to hedge against parent judges using a 20-30 scale
If you're at a circuit tournament, I'll go by circuit norms/break averages depending on the event.
Hey, My name is Carmela!
About me: I'm currently a college policy debater, however have competed throughout high school in congress, PF, worlds, OO, and INFO.
World Schools Debate
- Love passionate speakers, great eye contact, and overall voice inflection
- I vote off of the effective weighing of arguments, crystallization, and who best solves the issue at hand.
- If I hear any classist, sexist, or racist arguments/remarks it is almost an automatic down & I will be very upset so please refrain from doing so.
- Please signpostttt, framing is crucial in worlds!
I will always track your time, however I will not stop you mid-speech if you go over time. It is expected that you time yourself effectively when in the round.
- put me on the email chain - email@example.com
- Spreading is fine not preferred, just try to be clear and concise.
- If I see no links or warranting I most likely won't vote for you. Ex. tell me how workers striking will lead to nuclear warfare... don't just throw out claims
I will always track your time, however I will not stop you mid-speech if you go over time. It is expected that you time yourself effectively when in the round. ( I don't like to be mean and say stop loudly, but if you go over time I just won't flow what you say.)
HI. You can call me Aaron. Currently a Junior at UT and I did LD at Northland Christian School in Houston, tx for 3 years and competed on the national circuit my last 2. I stuck to mostly DAs, CPs, T and Theory, but I've been exposed to just about everything at this point.
Add me to chain please: firstname.lastname@example.org
- BE CLEAR. I haven't judged in about a year so if it's early in the tournament let me get warmed up. Go a little slower on tags, card names, and especially blocks of analytics.
- If you're going to blitz through analytics please send them. If you don't, I'll probably miss some which hurts you.
- Please do framework interaction.
- Collapse and your speaks will be happier
- The less I have to wait before the round begins the happier I will be
tech>truth (but won't vote off an argument that is incomprehensible---probably won't be an issue)
2/3 - Ks (don't expect that I know the lit tho, explain)
3 - phil (I'm fine w the more common stuff like kant, hobbes, etc., but anything more nuanced pls explainnnn) Likely if you really know what you're talking about, I'll be able to catch on.
4 - tricks (I can probably evaluate them ok just never read tricks in high school so explain well)
*If any questions feel free to ask me before rd or email/facebook message me.*
- 29-30 : makes the strategic decision when collapsing, good explanation, writes out the path to the ballot (I think you should break)
- 28-28.9 : either makes the strategic decision or has good explanation and the one you didn't do isn't horrendous (you're on the bubble to break)
- 27-28 : don't make strategic decisions and explain poorly
- 26 : defend something racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
Local (I'm pretty lenient I think)
- I'll likely give speaks by the 0.5
- 29-30 : speak clearly, sound knowledgeable about the topic, and make good arguments
- 28-29 : don't do one of the above
- 27-28: don't do two of the above
- +1 to speaks if you don't use all your prep time (by like a decent amount)
I am new to judging this event and therefore value a clear delivery. No spreading, please.
General: Send cases to email@example.com.Trained through NSDA and NFHS. Will disclose through writing immediately after the round.
Generally speaking, things I like to see:
-VCV explicitly stated and aligned to arguments and evidence throughout the case.
-a classical approach to debate that values depth of argument over speed and spread.
-Negative has the burden of rejoinder. No rejoinder, no win.
-CX that challenges to the links between definition and framework, evidence and impact, and VCV and framework.
-Clearly stated impact calculus (probability/substantiality, magnitude, severity, timeframe).
-direct and sustained clash that leads to clarification of positions.
-Voters being mentioned early and often.
-Players agreeing on fiat if we are not focusing on real world.
Things that I think weaken or sink a case:
-Poor definition work from generalized sources or definitions that play little role in case development.
-Citing specific data as 'common knowledge'.
-Hodgepodge cases: your definitions come from Blackwell's Law, your C1 cards come from 1980's Russian Nuclear scientist, your C2 cards come from The New Yorker, your c3 cards come from an experimental geological research journal and your framework is util and justice. Stick to a lane and work from that lane- legal, scientific, popular theory, something consistent holds more weight that trying to link disciplines that require multiple degrees before you can read the industry material with any level of comprehension. In other words, good cases require continuity of understanding and depth of knowledge.
-Jargon-heavy kritiks that lack definition work and teams that don't challenge these kritiks.
-Deconstructive kritiks, particularly in their anti-colonialist form, have their place in debate as red flags in our collective conscience, but they do not constitute a counterplan. You must provide an alternative.
-Kritiks are inherently philosophically loaded positions. If your K shifts the debate from policy to values you must define and defend your values. Kritiks require strong linking and framework not just a cut card of implications.
Case sharing and good sportsmanship:
-If your team asks to see a case, you provide the case first.
-You provide the case you are running, not cards that 'you might run'. Unethical.
-There is no rule that says you MUST provide a case to an opposing team. You can provide a framework if you wish, either on-clock or off-clock.
-Agreeing to share cases then sharing your case moments before you compete? Bad taste.
-Frustration and anger are expected but don't let it turn to sarcasm or passive aggressive remarks. How you react to a poor competitor reflects your confidence in your case and abilities.
Generally I prefer analysis and sourcing to style and delivery. Clearly structured is more important than having exactly three points. State your question and take a side. Bonus points for setting context and complexity through historical references and present/future impacts
I favor clear characterization and the elements of plot. Creating building tension, owning the stage, and balancing verbal/nonverbal elements of drama is important to me. Filling the entire clock is less important than the art of storytelling, but generally I don't rank sub 5 minute piece well.
Technically experienced, I have a public forum background & generally prefer big picture weighing. Clear communication is important to how I view a round.
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated for Niles West 4 years, now debate at UTD, go for what you want, ill try to adapt.
LD exception - If an argument can be described a a 'trick', please dont read it in front of me. Likewise, if your theory argument is based on something you opponent didn't do, it is probably unpersuasive to me.
Go for what you want to go for, if you got a K aff, make sure you can beat framework, if you go for a process cp, make sure you can beat theory, etc, etc, I will try my hardest to adapt and judge the round as objectively as possible.
I love line-by-line. The more you engage with your opponent's arguments, the more likely you are to win and the higher your speaks will be.
I won't vote on things that happened out of round or in other debates.
You can insert rehighlightings of the other team's evidence, text of a card only needs to be read once for it to be evaluated.
No racism/sexism/etc, be nice. Don't do that thing where you delete tags or read new affs on paper or stuff like that to make your speech harder to read.
I've become more willing to comb through evidence over the years, but it's mostly out of curiosity since debaters seem to be getting better at spinning ev, obviously I have my limits, but the debate includes the debate over the evidence.
I think conditionality is good, it seems to be necessary in this day and age when topics are very broad. I've become more neg biased recently but maybe it's just my disillusion with one unwarranted sentence of condo bad somehow becoming an entire 2ar. Condo in general seems to have gotten significantly more shallow. There probably is some point at which condo becomes bad, but I can't truthfully see myself voting for condo bad absent some egregious neg strategy or technical error.
Since it has come up more than once, my stance on judge kick is that I will presume judge kick if nothing has been said on theory, if the aff wants to win no judge kick, then you must at least make the arg in the 1ar.
You get infinite condo against new or undisclosed affs.
I personally don't particularly like process cps, this is a sliding scale, as consult ICJ or a commission cp seems less competitive than something like a states cp on face, but it seems like people are either unwilling or unable to actually invest time in theory in the 1ar anyways, so it often doesn't matter. I think fiating multiple actors (think both USFG and the states, not the states cp, or fiating compliance with another actor whom you fiat) is probably cheating, but I can be convinced otherwise. I tend to lean neg on theory questions despite all that
I like Ks the more specific the link analysis is. I tend to think of Ks as one or multiple thesis statements that, if won, should theoretically disprove the aff. This means the more you pull warrants from cards, explain the aff in the terms of your K, etc, the more likely it is that you beat the perm since that explanation makes links a lot more salient. That's a lot more persuasive than big aff/neg framework pushes to me
FW/T vs K affs. Since this is the only portion of a paradigm that matters for most pref sheets, yes I will vote on framework, yes I will vote against it. These debates seem to come down to impact comparison, as usually it seems hard to win either topical affs are necessary to prevent the entire collapse of this activity, versus framework is genocide, which makes winning as much of your impact quite important. Fairness impact seem to make intrinsic sense to me if debate is a game, but im not sure why that is a catch-all win if the aff wins debate rounds have impacts.
On a side note, I hate long overviews. Overviews should be for args that either: a. Are significantly more important and necessary for your argument to work, or b. Don't make sense when on the line-by-line (eg, meta-framing for how I should evaluate a debate). If you can do it on the flow, do it on the flow.
I have some judging experience but I would suggest treating me as a lay judge. That means going for complex theory arguments is a risky move if not very well communicated.
I would like to be added to the email chain: email@example.com
Some things to consider during round:
1. I prefer logical arguments overall. Whoever has a more persuasive, fluent, and substantial argument has a higher chance of winning, though nothing is guaranteed.
2. Being aggressive is fine, just as long as you are not offensive in any nature
3. I am ok with speed but it's been a while so I suggest starting off a little slower before ramping it up. I will yell slow if you're going too fast and if I have to yell 3 or more times you're getting 27.5 speaks max. I also don't like cramming in extreme amounts of arguments; quality over quantity always.
4. Theory is fine, but do not depend on it for the whole argument. As mentioned before, I still prefer substance over anything else. I wouldn't suggest complex philosophies because, as I said, my experience is limited so try to refrain. If you do decide to go with any complex debate rhetoric, make sure to explain them fully or I might not understand and will ignore the argument during my decision.
Finally, just have fun with the debate. This is in my opinion one of the most enjoyable educational extracurriculars and so I want the debate to be fun and well-spirited.
Cypress Bay 2020
I've been with Champion Briefs since the 2020-2021 season
I'd like to be on the chain :) firstname.lastname@example.org
Public forum stuff is near the bottom
Super duper short pre-round version: If you read Ks, I should be a high pref. If you read tricks and/or phil, I should be a low pref or strike. I'm more familiar with the pomo side of Ks. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I say probably a lot. I generally don't flow author names, and I wasn't the best at flowing while I was competing. So... slow down on extensions a lil bit?
You can debate, really, however you want to debate. However, help me help you, and don't paraphrase your evidence. Reading essay style cases can also be hard to follow, so do with that information whatever you will.
If that didn't help, you have questions, and you don't want to read my rambling, just shoot me an email. If it's before a tournament, I can't promise as to how quickly I'll answer, but at tournaments I have my email open 24/7.
Small 2023 update: I'm pretty okay with listening to phil/tricks positions, I think. However, you must be aware that this is not a branch of theory I think about often, or a form of debate that I coach or did while I was in high skill. Phil v K debate is probably an uphill battle to win. You also must slow down when reading the big/abstract positions, and you should explain implications tome. If you read phil/tricks, I want you to explain it to me like I'm your younger sibling -I will not understand the phil buzzwords and jargon. ALSO, unrelated: 1AC theory makes me feel icky. You get infinite prep, you shouldn't have to read theory in your 1AC. Just debate. I believe in you.
- Some of the judges/coaches who particularly influenced me and my debate style during my career include: Daniel Shatzkin, Alex Landrum, Aleksandar Shipetich, Allison Harper, Sawyer Emerson, Mitchell Buehler, Bailey Rung, Rob Fernandez
- Defaults: Role of Debate > Judge > Ballot; comparative worlds first; competing interps; drop the debater; presume negative; reps/pre-fiat > literally everything else
- Background + my thoughts on the (negative) K: My career started at the Samford Debate Institute in the policy lab where I learned how to disad/counterplan/case debate. At my first tournament of the year, I turned around and read a death good aff and haven't turned back from the K since. In my senior year alone, I read: Anthro, Baudrillard (a few variations of this one), Dark Deleuze, Abolition, and Security. I don't think kritiks are really ever cheating unless they create a perfcon. I'm far more familiar with the post-modernism/high theory side of K debate over the identitarian side, though I have read a considerable amount of literature on both sides. Other Ks that I haven't read in round, but know the literature well enough include: Psychoanalysis, Afropessimism, Wake Work, settler colonialism, and queer pessimism, among others. You'll get +0.1 speaks if you use correct human/nonhuman animal rhetoric. Please don't read a K you don't understand just because I like Ks :)
- The (affirmative) K: I read these from pretty much day 1. There was only one instance in which I didn't (looking at you, UK), and that was a bit of a mess. Similar to the negative section, try not to read confusing (but fun) K affs just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to someone butcher a Deleuze aff than a hard right policy aff. I primarily read Fiction theory my senior year, and I love it more than anything, so you get brownie points if you also read these :)
- - - FW v K affs: It is often a true argument, and I will definitely vote on it. I think that TVAs are overhyped and to win on one, it should definitely solve at least 80% of the aff. That said, I think that affirmative debaters often just don't know how to beat back framework with their aff. You should leverage case v fw. You read six minutes of dense theory. You should use it.
- - - K v K affs: I think these are really cool. I don't really know if I know some of the identity lit well enough to judge something like afropess v afropess, but if you can explain the nuances well enough, then by all means go for it. The Baudrillard v Baudrillard debate was one of my favorites to be a part of in high school.
- - - Counterplans v K affs: I think these are often underutilized by debaters, myself included. The glitter bomb cp is legitimate. No questions asked.
- - - Plan affs - I like these. I think they're cool and very fun. Not really my style but that doesn't mean I hate them or won't vote on them. I think if you're gonna go for the policy option, you should just read a hard right plan with like a space-col advantage. I feel like the competitive advantage that soft-left policy affs traditionally got access to in HS Policy debate is kind of moot in LD because of the prevalence of both K debate as well as phil debate.
- - - Case debate: This is where the good stuff is. Also a great place to flex and/or show some personality and not be a robot. In my own words, "This inherency is awful 5head, cut a better card."
- - - CP/DA v Case: please don't say ceepee or deeaye, stop trying to be edgy and cool. Same thing goes for "arg" instead of argument. Just say the word pls. But yes these are cool. I like these. I didn't read these but I liked these a lot.
- - - Impact turns v Case: As long as it's not oppression/bigotry good, go for it. ffs i read death good lol
- - - T/th v Case: If there's an abuse, there's an abuse. If not wearing shoes is abusive to you, then we have different concepts of abuse. Do with that what you will. If you have to ask, "Is x shell frivolous?" The answer is probably yes. I probably don't think that T is really ever an RVI. The only feasible justification for an RVI on T that I can possible imagine is if you cross applied abuse from other shells. But eh who knows?
- - - K v Case: Yes please :) This was my favorite debate to have. I feel like there are the most potential layers to interact on. There's the case page itself, framing, the K, and anything else you might throw in there. "K bad judge help" isn't a legit argument. If the 1NC is one off, you shouldn't concede the entirety of the 1AC. I made this mistake a few times; it's not the move. Clash of civs is goated and I will not argue with you on this.
1. If I laugh I promise it's not at you
2. I enjoy it when two debaters clearly get along
3. Please don't be mean to younger debaters
4. R e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r
5. Do your own thing and do it well
6. Don't be afraid to ask questions
7. I have much less patience for frivolous arguments the farther we get into the tournament.
8. If you have any questions about the things that I read in particular, feel free to email me.
- Those Chart things because I think they're cool and fun
Condo ---------X------------------------------------Not Condo
Bowdreearrd X-------------------------------------------- Balldrilard
Ampharos X---------------------------------------------Literally any other Pokemon
A2/AT ------------------------------------------X-- A healthy, inconsistent mix in every file
A2 --------X------------------------------------ AT
Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file
Extending warrants ----------X---------------------------------- Extending authors
Jokes in the speech -----X--------------------------------------- Hello it's me, debate robot #6
I am a big meanie -------------------------------------------X- I am not a big meanie
Getting the shakes before a drop X-------------------------------------------- I don't understand this reference, grow up
Starship Troopers ----------X---------------------------------- Dune
The alt is rejection ------------------------------------------X-- Part of the alt might necessitate rejecting the aff
Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense
Please don't dodge questions in cross
I have a lot of feelings about this event. A lot of them boil down to, "If you want me to judge this round like a tech judge, you should probably follow the norms of technical debate." This means that I'll pull the trigger very easily on theoretical arguments that justify things that are "normal" in other forms of debate. Id est, disclosure and paraphrasing bad. It's possible to win disclosure bad or paraphrasing good in front of me, but it will for sure be an uphill battle.
I'm okay with speed.
I'm good with technical arguments.
Please don't read Ks or other "tech" arguments just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to them read poorly. That said, if you know the arguments, then feel free to read them.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them, I promise I'm not as mean as this paradigm likely makes me out to be.
Update Blue Key 2022
you're definitely going to have to do a lot to convince me that phil is worth voting on. it's not an argument that i spent or currently spend time thinking about. Probably leave the weird stuff at home, but you're even going to have to slow down and explain kantian arguments to me.
See update at the top:much of this is still true.
also; theory. Totally cool with topicality/framework, but theory debates get messy really easily for me. Please explain why your model of debate is actually net-better than the alternative.
Winston Churchill ‘22
Email chain: email@example.com
Cana is pronounced kay-nuh.
If we don’t know each other personally, you don’t have to make small talk with me. This will save us both time.
Don’t say death good. Don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist etc. I don’t care about things that happened outside of the debate and have no interest in adjudicating those issues.
LD Stuff for St Marks:
I haven't judged LD this year but all of the policy stuff should apply just as much. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, feel free to ask me.
Do what you do best- if you present a clear narrative and impact it out well, I should have no problem voting for you.
Tech>>Truth. Dropped arguments are only as important as you make them to be. You still have to impact them out and explain how they implicate the debate if you want them to matter.
I usually default competing interpretations.
Evidence quality matters- cards should have an intent to define and be contextual to the topic.
Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff. The size of the link to the limits da is important if you are going for this- if the link is small there is a higher chance I conclude the counter-interp is reasonable.
Comparative impact calculus is often underutilized here- good impact calc is far more persuasive than just asserting that nuclear war is bad.
Turns case analysis and case solves the DA analysis are important, especially if the 2NR goes for a DA without a CP.
Neg teams try to get away with murder here and aff teams usually let them- smart arguments on both sides about enforcement, implementation, and evidence comparison matter.
I think aff solvency deficits need impacts to them, i.e., they need to be attached to some portion of the 1AC that is meaningful.
Neg– I am not super familiar with many lit bases besides Cap and Set col, so just assume you will have to over explain in these debates. The aff probably gets to weigh the plan and you should read specific links to it. Aff teams should pick the best strategy for their 1AC, whether that is a big case OW push or a link turn/perm approach.
Aff–These should have some sort of connection to the topic. I am usually on the FW side of these debates and will have a hard time voting for you if you haven’t proved why your model is good for debate. That being said, do impact comparison and the debate can go either way. K v K debates can be really interesting, but if you make them messy and complicated I won't be happy to be in the back. Love Cap vs K affs.
These debates are best when each team is actually engaging the other- don’t just read blocks back and forth. They don’t have to be boring unless you make them that way.
If you go for condo because you are afraid to go for substance you are my least favorite person, don't be a coward.
Hey! I’m Simon (I go by Amber) - firstname.lastname@example.org
Add me on speech docs & email chains :/
For state please read through the bolded stuff. Please.
A little about me:
I did Public Forum in High school from 2018-2022 for [REDACTED], qualifying to TOC, State, and Nationals three times each and clearing at all three sometime or another while winning a few national tournaments along the way.
Before we continue: I recommend you read through the bolded stuff or there is an immensely high likelihood that neither of us will enjoy the outcome of this round :/
I’m very tech, but I’m also not afraid of debaters who are willing to experiment with the flow.
Go literally as fast as you want. I can only handle about 350 wpm without faltering or missing stuff tho without a speech doc (which you should send).
A few misc things that people always get confused about in front of me: Quality > Quantity (Don’t make me get out more than 5 sheets pls), I LOVE TURNS + I’ll boost your speaks if you go for them, Counterinterps > RVIs, I have a low bar for perm acceptance but a high bar in extending them, Sticky defense is fake, and DA dumping is lame + loses speaks.
I won’t do any work for you – and I refuse to intervene with a few exceptions listed below. This also means I will not change my standards for extensions and frontlines in the case that the round gets flooded by a 10 sheet dam break.
I’m very pessimistic about the way PF is going – which is straight into a dumpster fire for norms. Thus, those of you who read progressive arguments will have a speaks floor of 28.5 (unless its bigoted in nature). Keep in mind I give a 26-ish on average.
I will evaluate literally anything progressive that occurs in front of me.
I pref first unless told otherwise.
Prefs/Strikes Info: [Scaled 1-Best -> 5-Worst]
Ask questions if you need to, but for PF I’m confident I can eval just about anything.
Always send speech docs.
Non-T Ks : 1 – This is what I read in high-school. I’m pretty up to date abt most non-T lit and I’m good at evaluating it. Be clear and you’ll be fine. On a side note do not read an Identity K if you don’t identify with the group - If you do that I bump this down to a 4. For interesting Non-T Ks, i.e., not basic identity Lit, go for it I love these but send speech docs. Also, pls don’t invalidate people’s identities when responding to or reading these – I’ll obliterate your speaks and won't eval. When responding please also tailor your basic identity K responses to the K itself or my bar for responses can literally be "they read off backfiles - kick the responses bc they generalize and marginalize identity".
Reps Ks: 1 - If it’s warranted this may be above a one. Even if it’s like a reps K against debating economics I’m chilling with it though. Keep it simple and don’t try to overcomplicate it. Please make sure not just to win the rep itself but why reps are a voting issue.
Topical Ks: 2 - Most topical links are pretty boring to me but so long as you have a coherent alt and rotb you’ll be fine. If it’s a weird alt explain it and you’ll be okay - I feel like most topical Ks end up being really badly warranted – especially in terms of how the alt solves – so just make sure the alt is well warranted.
Theory: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling and I’ll probably have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 3. (I consider anything related to dates or other stuff like that friv). I read both warranted and friv theory in high school and I def have biases towards or against certain kinds of theory. If something related to personal violence occurs – you do not have to read a shell and an IVI will be just fine (Trust me I won’t slight you for it being an IVI). BTW I DEFAULT K>Theory - so weigh in the opposite direction if you need to.
IVIs: 2 - If its warranted you’re chilling, and I’ll have a low bar for frontlines and extensions. If its friv this is more of a 4. If its abt personal violence, it’s above a 1. If someone reads an IVI pertaining to plagiarism or something of the sort, I’d really prefer it to be a shell and it gets bumped down to a 4.
Phil: 3 (Better be coherent and clear) - Please explain it correctly. PLEASE. Just bc you win the phil side doesn’t mean you win the application side. These debates get very muddled so explain your author right. Know that I’ve probably read at least some of their lit unless you’re reading someone obscure.
Soft-Left (Specialized Frameworks for Substance Debate [i.e. fem framing or neolib etc…]): 3 - These annoy me. Why not read a K? If you drop the framing then I default that the arg is strictly substantive. Also, most soft-left args get convoluted bc people can’t properly explain the warrants behind advocating for their framework – please explain it properly.
Counter-Plans/[Technically Plans]: 3 - Go for it. I love counter-plans but I’ve seen so many fail. Please debate these correctly and extend the whole structure & implicate how it interacts with the whole flow. This technically extends to plans too but be careful in how you break PF Plan rules bc I’m highly unlikely to vote on it unless you warrant it super well.
Perms: 3 - Please explain the perm vs. alt debate & please explain why I should eval the perm in the rotb. If you can’t or don’t, then don’t read the perm. I also have a super-high bar for extensions on Perms – i.e. don’t just read the tag. Generally, not an amazing idea - I’d much prefer a line-by-line or Counter rotb/K than your reading 3 or 4 perms and hoping the debate gets muddled.
RVIs: 3 - Please don’t just dump these. I’ll be annoyed but I’ll evaluate it. Also, my bar for responses is very very low and you have to weigh RVI > Shell.
Trix: 4 - Same as RVIs. Also, if they're funny and you go for them, I'll give you a 30. Multiple layers that are unrelated also make my head hurt so please don’t.
Word PICs: 4 - I feel like most word PICs are unwarranted and friv, which is why this is down here. For words that most definitely deserve to have the other team drop - this is a 1 – I’m not going to give any examples but yk which words. That being said please omit the word itself when you read the word PIC unless you are permitted to say it, If I have speech docs, I’ll know what you’re referring to.
New Forms of Debate: 4 - If it's good, I will give you 30s. If it’s bad, I’ll be confused. Explain it well, Explain the structure well, and gl.
Topicality: 4 - I really (REALLY) hate T, but you can read it. Just don't be forcing on debating substance itself and instead explain the implications of the shell for norms instead of being all gung-ho about defending "the public in PF".
Pure Substance: 5 (I mean its normal debate - not that fun but I can judge it just fine)
A specific note on Fem Ks - Don’t read Terf lit. I’ll give you bottom speaks and if your opponents point out how its Terf lit my ballot writes itself. If I catch you reading statistics that specify debaters who are only of "the female sex" I will straight up drop the whole K on a perf-con - Ik this is intervention I do not care:) I DARE YOU TO READ STATS THAT ASSIGN GENDERS BASED ON NAMES.
Here are the cases I’ll intervene in the round:
You must read content warnings – for my and your opponent’s sakes. [I won’t down you for not doing it (unless the ops. read a shell) but I promise that I won’t pay attention to the technicalities of the argument and I’ll drop your speaks]
You must use the pronouns your opponent’s specify.
You must use the name your opponent’s specify.
(If you don't know - just ask. I'm not going to care abt responses like "I didn't know" if they read an IVI or a shell)
Don’t be a bigot.
Don’t put someone else’s safety in jeopardy.
If any of these occur, I won’t hesitate to vote on them.
Post-round me if you want.
I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense (though it should have appropriately support for the moral framework in LD as well). Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.
hi !! i'm lilly - I debated for Northland Christian from 2019-2022. I qualled to the TOC my senior year, got 2nd speaker/made it to octos, and bid/broke at a few tournaments.
EMAIL CHAIN: email@example.com
Tech > Truth
Fairness > Education
1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory
T/Theory > K
No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD
(obviously my opinion on these can be swayed if u make the arg - these are j defaults)
HOT FLAMING Ls
Racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/anything else that makes the debate space unsafe
1 - T/Theory
1 - LARP
2/3 - Trix
3 - Phil
4 - Ks
What I mostly debated and am most comfortable with
Pls explain semantics
Friv theory is good but the threshold for responses is lowered
Good for all types of positions + enjoy cheaty counterplans
weighhhhh oh my godddd
In depth scenario analysis in rebuttals/a display of understanding of plan nuances will make your speaks happy
debated heg good v bad debates way too often and now kind of enjoy IR debates
are for kids but i will evaluate
threshold for responses is pretty low tbh
your speaks prob won't be fantastic
I don't spend that much time thinking about this
pretty good understanding of: util, kant, hobbes, prag, ilaw
anything else please please warrant and explain
good for k affs but also pretty receptive to t-fw
the argument i spent the least amount of time with in debate
alt explanations/analysis are extremely important
willing to vote on anything but the burden is on you to explain your literature
30 - breaking @TOC
29 - late elims of any given nat circuit tournament
28 - you'll prob make it to a bubble round
27 - well youre def here and you def said words
26 - you said something shitty/just had really bad strat/incomprehensive after warned
25 - racist/sexist/we had a problem in the round
if u include a haiku ill boost ur speaks by .3 :)
Updated 9/20/23 for Pre-WKU
Hi everyone! I’m Holden (They/He)
Jack C. Hays '20, The University of North Texas ’23, and '25 (Go Mean Green)
If you are a senior and gradauting this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you. If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!
*Note for the WKU RR and tournament* Done a good amount of topic research. Don't assume my argumentative history overdetermines how I vote. 1AR's need to read more offense and go for impact turns/internal link turns. Spark is whack but also probably a core generic on this topic. K links should be more than "nuke reps bad" and answers to the K should be more than "thinking about nuclear war is good." Most of the "tricky" counterplans people run don't compete and you should think about if whatever strategy you're about to run is actually cohesive or if it is throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Policy and NFA-LD are at the Bottom
The short version:
I prefer to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" as possible, this means that I don't have an issue with the style of debate that you decide to partake in, and try to be as least dogmatic as possible. That being said, I am a human being with human feelings, and have realized that I prefer debates be centered around substance (a DA/CP combo, K, or NC) rather than have the debate devolve into nothing but theory (despite what my judging history might suggest). This is not to say that theory is not viable (barring some exceptions that are mentioned below), but rather that I always appreciate the substance level of a debate and the research that goes into that moreso than a hyper technical theory debate. Despite that, I have voted for just about every argument under the sun. Bad arguments do indeed exist, and I dislike those bad argument, but the onus is on you for being able to call out and explain why those arguments are bad.
Respect your opponents pronouns or else. I have no tolerance for individuals not taking the time to respect people's personhood. You get one chance, with your speaks being docked that one time. If you do it again after that, then my ballot is gone even if there is no argument made. With that in mind, I am also extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells.
If a round gets to the point where it is no longer healthy or safe for the debate to keep going, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know. I try my best to be cognizant but I am imperfect and may miss something, it is my job as an educator to make sure that a round and debate is as safe and accessible is possible so I take these situations very seriously.
Yes speed, but clarity is important as well
For your pref sheets:
Clash debates (k v k, k v phil, k v policy, policy v phil, etc.) – 1
K – 1
Policy – 1
Phil – 1
T/Theory – 1
Tricks – 4
Trad – 5/Strike
I’m serious about these rankings, I value execution over content. I am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.
In terms of ideology, I’m a lot like Patrick Fox just less grumpy, so you can pref me pretty closely with how you pref him.
Some individuals who have shaped how I debate/have coached me: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, and Shawn Moore (if you know who this is then you are way too old to be debating in front of me)
Some of my former students who share the majority of my opinions/you might pref me similar to: William Walker, Anastasia Keeler, Sean Wallace, and Graham Johnstone.
Some of my friends who I agree about debate with heavily include: Dylan Jones, Luna Schultz, Elliot Cook, Avery Wilson, Joseph Wofford, and Zachary Jones.
Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate.
I flow on my laptop, I would put me at a 8-8.5/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics a little please
The long version:
Who the hell is this dude who I/my coach preffed?
Hi, I'm Holden! I did policy and LD in high school, I wasn't too involved in the national circuit but at the bid tournaments I did attend I did pretty ok. I recently graduated from the University of North Texas with degrees in philosophy and psychology. In college, I competed in NFA-LD, which is essentially just one person policy debate. I had some moderate success, I qualified to and made it to octas of the national tournaments two years in a row, and got gavels and broke at nearly every tournament I attended my senior year. Now, I am a graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I am pursuing a masters in communications and will be a graduate assistant for the debate team. I also judge and coach national circuit high school LD, where I have judged 500+ debates since 2020. In addition, I have coached students to several bids, bid rounds, speaker awards, and late elims of just about every national tournament (including elims and top speaker of the TOC).
Nowadays, most of my research is on the kritikal side of the argumentive spectrum. However, I also do research for policy style arguments on every topic I coach on, and have a secret love for cutting politics updates. With that in mind, I have cut arguments of every style and have coached students to go for arguments in all styles of debate. This includes kritikal, policy, theory heavy, tricks, and phil positions.
Please refer to me as Holden, or judge (I prefer Holden, but if you vibe with judge then by all means).I hate anything more formal than that (Mr. Bukowsky, Sir, etc.) because it makes me very uncomfortable.
Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). For LD I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Athenian EY, Barrington AC, Cypress Woods MM, Heritage WT, Jordan FJ, Jordan KV, Jordan VS, University Irvine RH, and Vestavia Hills EP.
I have been previously affiliated with: East Chapel Hill AX, Los Altos BF, and Unionville IQ.
What does Holden think of debate?
Debate is a game with educational implications. I love this activity very much, and take my role in it very seriously. I think it is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I am not very ideological in a way that translates to how I evaluate the debate (barring some exceptions) because it's not my place to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. That means please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability, and I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible (granted that violent or warrantless arguments are exceptions). As such, I consider there to be two concrete rules of debate - 1. I must choose a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preferences I may have should not matter if you make the argument for me, if I have to default to something then that means that you did not do your job.
What does Holden like?
I like good debates. If you execute your arguments well, then I will be impressed.
I like debates that require little intervention, make my job easy for me please I hate thinking.
I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.
I like when email chains are sent out at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.
I like good case debate, this includes a deep love for impact turns.
I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this means labeling arguments (for example, giving arguments names, or doing organization like "1, 2, 3, a point, b point, c point, etc.), I can't vote for you if I don't know what the heck the complete argument is so making sure I can understand you is key
I like debaters that collapse in their final speeches, it makes nice room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.
I like it when I am given some kind of framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, impact calc, fairness v education, a meta ethic, I don't care. Just give me something to determine what the highest layer/impact should be.
To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."
What does Holden dislike?
I dislike anything that is the opposite of above.
I dislike when people make problematic arguments.
I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.
I dislike unclear spreading.
I dislike messy debates with little work done to resolve them.
I dislike when people go "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."
I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, I don't care just tell me that you're taking it.
I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2023 and y'all have been using technology for how long??). If you think email chains aren't your vibe then please use a speech drop to save all of us the headache.
I dislike when people are exclusionary to novices, I am very much in the trial by fire camp but you shouldn't throw someone into a volcano. Yes, you can spread, run disads, counterplan, k's, and even phil as long as your explanations are accessible and in good faith. But theory and tricks is a no go and you WILL get your speaks tanked.
I dislike t - bare plurals.
How has Holden voted?
Across all of my time as a judge, I have judged exactly 578 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.08% of the time.
My average speaks for the 2023-2024 season have been 28.4, across my entire time judging they are at 28.505
I have been apart of 148 panels, of those I have sat exactly 17 times (Harvard was rough).
What will Holden never vote on?
Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.)
Arguments that say oppression is good.
Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.
Contrary to my reputation, I actually quite enjoy and have a good amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do quite a bit of research for policy arguments, and do topic research on that side of ground very often. I love a good disad and case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give is one on a disad and circumvention, I think it's great and really rewards good research quality
Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, I think most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about this and love when people make these arguments
Impact turn debates are some of my favorite, give me more of them please and thank you
I reward good evidence, if you cite a piece of evidence as part of your warrant for a argument and it's not good/underwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that it often acts as a tiebreaker
I really appreciate judge instruction, how should I frame a piece of evidence, what comes first, I think that telling me what to do and how to decide debates makes your life and my job much easier
I enjoy really well researched process counterplans. Absolutely makes me smile when the evidence is topic specific, and has great solvency advocates.
Yes judgekick, but make an argument for it please
Explain what the permutation looks like, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you
For affs, having well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts is much preferred than the shot gun 7 impact strategy
Explanation of the DA turning case matters a lot to me, explain it please
Say it with me everyoneHolden does not hack for theK.In fact, I think I’ve become more grouchy about k debate lately. Call me old, but I think that often times critical teams get too lost in the sauce, don’t do enough argumentative interaction, and lose the debate because they can’t keep up technically.
This is where most of my research and thoughts are these days. I will most likely be good for whatever literature base you are reading, and have a very decent amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I have most likely judged or read the literature you are going for sometime in my years in debate, so feel free to read anything, just be able to explain it.
Aff teams against the k need to go for framework and extinction outweighs more
My ideal k 1nc will have 2-3 links contextual to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.
I have found recently that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how that interacts with the affirmative and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alt does, your chances of getting my ballot go down. I find that examples from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense you're going for in relation to the alternative/the permutation, you should also explain the perm in the first responsive speech
I've found that most k teams have become rusty at debating the impact turn (heg good/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are agaisnt the k, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above)
I would very much prefer that you introduce an interesting new argument than recycle the same aff or the same 1NC you've been running for 2 years. At least update your cards every once in a while.
Don't run a k just because you think I'll like it, bad k debates make for some of the worst speaks I've given all year (for example, if you're reading argument related to Settler Colonialism and can't name the 6 settler moves to innocence)
K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC please so they can be floating
For you nerds that wanna know, the literature bases I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-pessimism, and Settler Colonialism
The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Agamben, Abolition, Cybernetics, Queer-pessimism, Disability literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar
A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. I think that certain authors make particular claims about the adoption of Afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this question are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you get to do whatever with the argument. If you are reading this critique as a non-black person, this becomes the round. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.
Yes, I think these are cool, defend something and have a counter-interp that substantively does something in relation to maybe limiting the topic? I am increasingly becoming convinced that there should be some stasis for debate, I think that having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers more persuasive and makes me happier to vote for you
Presumption is underrated, most affs don't do anything and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should make sure to utilize that.
For those negating these affs, I think that the case page is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the 2NR develops a really good piece of offense from the case page then the debate becomes much easier for you to win.I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, etc. and quite enjoy judging these debates
Innovation is appreciated, I swear I've heard the same two or three affs twenty times each. If your take on a literature base is interesting, innovative, AND is something I haven't heard this year then you will most definitely get higher speaks
Performance based arguments are also acceptable/enjoyed, in the last tournament of my career I ran one of these and experienced immense success with it. However, I find that most times when they are ran the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me more leeway in terms of leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate
Framework isn't capital T true, but it also isn't an automatic act of violence. I find myself neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I do think that the resolution should be a starting point for the debate. How you interpret that is up to you
I am of the opinion that most framework debates take place on an impact level, with the internal link to those impacts most of the time never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.
I have voted on straight up impact turns before, and I have also voted on fairness as an impact, I think that the onus is on you to explain and flesh your arguments in a way that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging in the specific warrants of disads to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is often little to no engagement by either side in the debate
Counter-interps are more persuasive to me, and I think are underutilized, counter-interps that are well thought out and have good explanation of what your model of debate looks like does wonders
In terms of impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills
"Fairness is good because debate is a game and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>>>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate their arguments so hack against them," if the latter is your explanation then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose
Topicality (Theory is it’s own Monster):
I love T debates, absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. I think they've gotten a bad rep over the past four or five years because of the bare plurals stuff *shudders*, but interps that are based on words/phrases of the resolution and are gone for well will make me incredibly happy
I think that the semantics of the resolution matter, but not in a "bare plurals mean no spec" way but rather a "this is what this means in the context of the topic."
My normal defaults for these debates are:
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater
- No RVI's
Reasonability is about your counter-interp not your aff, people need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory shells
Arbitrary counter-interps such as "your interp plus my aff" are cringe and you are better served going for a more substantive argument
Slow down for me a bit in these debates, I can flow pretty well but T is monster in terms of how many warrants/separate arguments you're spewing out so give me typing time please
You need to read voters, some standards are impacts on their own (precision comes to mind) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits is an independent impact sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad
Weigh your internal links please and thank you
I judge this type of debate a lot, and probably more than most judges. So you'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I just ask that you don't blitz through analytics and make good indepth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to the standards you're going for. I find that a well explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me be conceputally more persuaded by the impacts you go for
Conditionality is good if you win it's such. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges. If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go right ahead but just dismissing condo bad like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. To clarify, I think condo is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it better be robust if you plan on using abusing conditionality vehemently
Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:
- Shells about the appearance and clothing of another debaters
- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this
- Reading "no i meets"
- Arguments that say that implicate that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2ar arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)
Here are my defaults for counterplan theory:
- Counterplans with a solvency advocate, no matter what type they are = good
- PICs = good
- Process CP's = good
- Consult CP's = bad
- States CP's = good
- Actor/Agent CP's = good
- Object Fiat = bad
I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments that are based on intense arguments of logic. I need this explanation to be toned down so I can actually follow what’s going on, these make my head hurt and I did not pay enough attention in my logic class to know/understand exactly what you're talking about.
I think that my thoughts about this are "please don't if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate you can go ham"
I can judge these debates, and have coached debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not. I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again with little to no innovation. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1NC don't expect me to be happy about the debate. Carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am"
Slow down on your long underviews, yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Go at like 70% your normal speed in these situations
Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether or not I feel like evaluating them. This extends to disclosure practices.
Tricks versus identity-based affirmatives is violent, and bad. Stop it.
I love these debates! I find phil a really interesting part of debate that often goes unexplored. That being said, I prefer well developed syllogisms with pieces of evidence over analytical dumps, I find that analytical syllogisms are often spammy with extremely underdeveloped warrants.
Parts of your syllogisms should at least hint at what their impact is. I think that this becomes even more essential in later speeches where you should collapse and impact 1-2 justifications along with weighing
In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates
Hijacks are great! Just explain them well since they're often pretty complicated and I can't really understand the warrant if it's less than 10 seconds long
Please slow down a bit in these debates, they ore often very fast, technical, and blippy and I can only flow so fast
For those that are wondering, here are the literature bases I know pretty well: Locke, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Kant, Deleuze, Hume, Descartes, Nietzsche, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Spinoza
I know these literature bases somewhat: Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Moral Particularism, and Constitutionality
I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with deleuze ethical frameworks, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe a moral claim but makes a structural one which means that it doesn't make too much logical sense to force the literature to make an ethical claim.
- Comparative worlds > truth testing
- Permissibility negates > affirms
- Presumption negates > affirms
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:
1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening
2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate
This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.
Yes, I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often time find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my opinion go right ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time, it will be in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, both for your sake and mine.
I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.
Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says
For the policy kids-
I am a LD judge most of the time, but I have extensive experience in policy (did it in high school, and have judged more policy rounds in the past year). Most of my takes about debate can be summarized above.
My takes on framework are much more neutral than my competitive history suggests, this is because I have found that the impact explanations in policy make much more sense. The best way to overcome this is by doing robust impact calculus by both sides of the flow.
For framework teams, I have found that directly implicating the argument you are making in context of the affirmatives offense helps me a lot in reconciling these debates, as there are often several floating arguments that I think lack judge instruction. Generally more convinced by clash, but fairness is also an option.
For critical affirmative teams, I think having at least some counter-interp, and then robust contextualization of your offense in the context of the negative's interp helps a lot.
I'm better for policy throwdowns than I once thought, but still need a bit of hand holding. Link contextualization, turns case/turns the DA arguments are incredibly important for me, especially when I am told of how to understand that in the scheme of the rest of the debate
I love impact turns, please go for them.
Also neutral on questions such as condo, if you win it you win it, being dogmatic on these questions are bad takes.
- Sign post please
- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)
- Yes open cross
If you want a pref sheet rankings, here they are:
1 - Clash debates, k v k debates
2 - In depth DA/CP debates
For the NFA-LD kids:
Everything above applies
Don't think I'm a k hack, my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. If you are not comfortable going for the k then please don't unless you absolutely want to, don't adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar
"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then at best it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges
Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good/heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues"
Condo is bad if you win that it is bad, it is good if you win it is good
An addendum to how I dish out my speaks, any additional speaker points you get via my challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to earn/work for
Speaker points challenges (things to maintain my vtl during tournaments):
- Send a picture of your pet (not snakes please I have a phobia of them) in the doc or email chain +.3
- Bringing me a diet or zero version of coke, pepsi, or dr. pepper will result +.5 (will exceed the 29.7 threshold if my exhaustion and delirium is enough). If both debaters do it then the points go to both of y'all.
- Pepsi challenge jokes (making sense to the debate and actually related to the content) +.1
Things I will be more apt to maybe slightly inflate your speaks for:
- Being generally pleasant (not in the "hi how are you judge" kind of way but being vibey I guess)
- Making actually funny jokes
Across over 200+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.5 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy
A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges
I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below
They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -
29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament
29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims
28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least
28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool
27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on
27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on
Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it
Random Sliding Scales that I think are Fun (Stolen from Patrick Fox)
Voting for policy----X----Voting for the K
Researching/coaching policy-------X---Researching/coaching the K
Good evidence-X---------Bad evidence + spin
Will read ev without being told------X----Tell me what to read
Asking "did you read X card"-------X--- Learn to flow or run prep/CX for this
Yes RVIs-------X---No RVIs
Fairness is definitely an impact-----X-----Fairness is definitely not an impact
Alternatives/K affs should solve things or lose--X--------Alternatives/K affs can not solve things and not lose
"It's pre-fiat"--------X--Actual arguments that mean things
Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the activity)
Debate good-------X---Debate bad (the community)
Creative, alternative models of the topic + offense---X-------Impact turn everything vs framework
Yes ur Baudrillard/Kant-X---------Not ur Baudrillard/Kant
Feelings and jokes--X--------Debate robots
Mime-like expressiveness---X-------Statue-like poker face
Assume I understand the things--------X--Assume I do not understand the things
Speaker point fairy------X----Speaker point goblin
LD should be like policy-------X---(Some) LD stuff is cool
Capitalism----------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP
Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. I would strongly prefer email over NSDA Classroom fileshare, and please title the chain as so: "Tournament Year + Name - Round # - _____ vs. _____ (Judge)"
If I'm judging you in LD: email@example.com
If I'm judging you in policy: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated LD for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association. My views on debate are heavily influenced by Kris Wright via the Texas Debate Collective Teachers Institute. Most of the sections below are relevant for both policy and LD; see the very bottom for policy/PF-specific thoughts, although policy teams might also want to review the sections for LARP/T/K.
- LARP/Policy: 1
- T/Theory: 1-2
- Phil: 2*
- Kritik (identity): 2-3*
- Kritik (pomo): 3-4*
- Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.
*Ratings vary as function of what you're reading and whether I'm familiar with it. It's not that I will refuse to evaluate an author or position that I haven't seen before - rather, it'll just be more challenging for me to adjudicate. Feel free to ask me before round about a specific author.
- I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining why you win which layers and why those layers come first.
- I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
- I default to a competing worlds paradigm.
- Tech > Truth
- I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
- Prep time ends when you've finished compiling the document. I won't count emailing but please don't steal prep.
- Signpost please. I prefer debaters to be explicit about where to flow things and I appreciate pen time. If you're giving a speech and I'm looking around the different sheets of paper instead of writing, I'm likely trying to find the argument and will probably miss something.
- Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.
- I presume aff in LD: neg side bias exists so in the absence of offense from either side the aff did the better debating. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
- Debaters should time every speech and should always count down on their timer for their own speeches. That way, it'll go off when your time runs out, which will keep you honest and ensure that you don't accidentally go over. I might not cut you off if your time runs out, but I'll stop flowing and deduct 0.1 speaks for every 3 seconds you go over if your timer doesn't ring.
- Given that I predominately coach policy, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these debates, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
- You should have be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
- Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
- I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
- Perms are tests of competition, not shifts of advocacy.
- If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.
- A 1NC strategy that doesn't include a substantial investment on case is generally sub-par.
- I default to competing interpretations. I'll evaluate shells via reasonability if you ask me to but I'd prefer an explicit brightline for determining what constitutes a reasonable vs. unreasonable practice rather than drawing upon my intuitions for debate. If you just ask me to intuitively evaluate the shell without an explanation of what that constitutes, my aversion to intervention will likely lead me to gut check to competing interpretations.
- I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI).
- You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't magically operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
- Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments or I will likely miss something.
- Disclosure is good. However, I do coach both sides of this debate. Read it if you'd like, just don't be mean about it and be prepared to defend your performance if your opponent is clever.
- "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
- I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.
Framework (as distinct from T-FW)
- I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
- You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under. Especially if your framework is complex or obscure, a brief summary of how it functions (i.e. how it sifts between legitimate and illegitimate offense) would be helpful.
- I have a decent conceptual understanding of k debate, especially after teaching it to students every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature so explain well. It is in your best interests to keep your speeches well-structured so they are easy to follow.
- I especially appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative. Good K debates typically include quotes from lines in your opponent's evidence/advocacy with an explanation of why those are additional links.
- I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so I do not have strong ideological leanings here.
- Too many Role of the Ballots are impact-justified; if you're reading one you should warrant it more substantively.
- Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 8.5 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
- Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll almost certainly miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
- If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS random analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.
- My flowing limitations are a contributing factor to why I'm probably not a great judge for you if tricks are your A-strat. If you're reading tricks one of three things is likely to happen: I'll miss it, I won't understand it, or I'll think it's stupid. Additionally, I won't hold your opponent to a higher standard than I hold myself to, so if I didn't understand the implication of an argument (especially a blippy/shady one) in a prior speech, I'll give them leeway on answering it in a later one.
- I'll yell "clear" or "slow" once but that means I already missed something. Honestly though, it's not uncommon for me to be so preoccupied with trying to keep up that I forget to call clear or slow.
- A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, unless the round is bad and it makes me want to go home.
- I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
- I won't disclose speaks so don't bother asking.
- I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get high speaks in front of me, however:
- I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
- Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
- Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
- Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced then.
- If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
- As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way. As a former competitor from a school with very limited competitive infrastructure, most of what I know about debate I had to learn myself absent formal instruction. This makes me very sympathetic to debaters from small schools or under-resourced programs who might not be familiar with the technical jargon of the activity but who, nevertheless, make good arguments. It behooves you, if you've had access to more privileged instruction, to debate in a way that keeps the round accessible for everyone.
If Judging Policy
- Please keep in mind that although I coach policy now, the entirety of my competitive experience and the bulk of my training, judging and thinking about debate has been funneled through the lens of LD. If you're a policy debater, it's probably still useful for you to review the specific argumentative sections above (ex. LARP, Theory, K), depending on what you're planning to read.
- I presume neg in policy because in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff.
- I frequently see teams read half a T-shell in the 1NC (unwarranted standards/voters/implication/paradigm issues, or missing those pieces altogether) and then blow it up in the block. I think that if you read a disad in the 1NC it should probably contain the core parts (uniqueness/link/impact), even if you read additional evidence in the block, and I hold T to the same standard. Otherwise, I'm receptive to efficient 2AC responses along the lines of "that's not a complete argument; lack of warranted standards means there's no offense to the interp and you should reject the shell" and will allow new responses in the 1AR in response to developments in the block.
- If your counterplan is 8 seconds long with no cards, the 2AC probably needs no more than 0:15 answering it and I'll be super lenient with 1AR responses if you blow it up in the block.
- Smart, analytical arguments (particularly as no-links on a kritik or an improbable impact chain) are heavily underutilized in policy. My ideal 1NCs/2ACs incorporate analytics as a component of a layered response strategy. I see too many policy debaters who are just card bots, including reading cards that don't actually contain warrants and reading additional cards in a later speech instead of going for preexisting evidence.
If Judging PF
- I rarely judge PF and I avoid it when I can. I won't know what your topic is and I probably had to google the speech times beforehand.
- If you're paraphrasing cards I will evaluate them as glorified analytics. Alternatively, if you're one of the rare teams that actually reads cards and doesn't paraphrase, say so and I will reward you with speaks. Just don't commit to reading cards and then paraphrase; that's clipping.
- I don't know what it is with PF debaters either stealing prep or stealing speech time, but I'm not here for your shenanigans. There should not be more than a 0:10 difference between your timer and mine, and I stop flowing at the timer. I will deduct speaks if this comes up.
*Updated for TOC 2023*
I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK
Now that that friendly introduction is over:
I'll disclose speaks if you ask.
Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.
TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still aboutspeakingand so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go just below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.
Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone
For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please
For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round
For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand
I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.
I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.
Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.
Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?
Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-This list will grow with time
I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.
I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.
I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.
If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email
Iyad Chowdhury | University of Houston '26 | he/they | email@example.com
pref sheet shortcuts:
tech>truth – i'll vote on anything that has a claim+warrant+impact and is appropriately extended. only exception is anything that is exclusionary.
brief debate views
LARP: i'll be great for this
K: i'll be great for this
Theory/T: i'll be good for this
Trad: i'll be bad for this
Phil: i might be okay for this
Tricks: i might be okay for this.
who am i?
hi! my name is iyad chowdhury (eye-odd chow-dur-ee). i'm an econ major/art minor at the university of houston. i have a lot of respect for the folks that run tournaments and participate in them. with that in mind, i take my job as a judge seriously, because i know you put in a lot of effort to do what you do, so it's only reciprocal for me to do the same. i believe that debate is for debaters. do you whatever you want and i will follow along as best i can. regardless of any preferences i have on my paradigm, i think that any argument that is communicated with precision and accuracy, while having a warrant and an impact, is sufficient for me to vote on it. i did LD for two years in high school and currently debate on the college circuit.
"the round is about to start, what should i know about you?"
-- flex prep/open cross is fine
-- keep track of time
-- i don't care about what your wear and i don't care about whether you sit or stand during speeches. do whatever makes you feel most comfortable.
-- fine with spectators if the competitors are fine with it
-- good with speed in person, go ~70% of your max speed we're in an online round. i have tinnitus so it would help me if you talked a bit louder, especially on analytics.
-- send me your docs! my email is at the top of this paradigm. speechdrop works as well. i don't have a preference.
-- word docs please, not pdfs. i prefer word docs because, for me, it's more efficient than a pdf. no rush if you need to take some time to convert your docs.
-- please be kind and respectful in round and out of round.
- have a clear link story in your adv/da and walk me through it.
- mutual exclusivity, net benefits, competition, and normal means are important for cps. perms on cps need to explain a solvency deficit and how the perm resolves the solvency deficit.
- i find straight turns very impressive
- i have a very high threshold for voting on condo bad. on the other hand, i have a very low threshold for condo good. condo good >>>>>condo bad
- weigh, the earlier in the round the better
- explain the internal link chain to extinction
- zero percent risk of a da is a thing
- huge fan of ptx das, i like to keep up with the news so recent uq ev is always cool to see
- what do i know?
- i'm well versed in most ks that have been on the high school circuit. i don't think it's necessary to list out author names.
- most important thing is framing and ROB/J needs to defend your theory.
- i love clash on alts-- give me reasons why the alt happens/doesn't happen, perm the alt, etc. but if your strat is to kick the alt then im fine with that given the context of the round
- in the link debate, i really like strength of link args and evidence comparison. in tandem, quotes from the aff to strengthen your links are the highest artform given you find the correct links in their ev.
- find loopholes/flaws in the k framing and i'll be impressed if you can point them out.
- if in a util v k round and you are reading util, framework + extinction outweighs is cool to see and probably always the best 2ar
- i like non-generic links and will be rewarded with high speaks
- in kvk, aff: be ready for topicality and the presumption push. neg: do more than solvency indicts, give me at least one substantive piece of offense on the aff
- i'm fine with floating piks just make sure to flash that it is a floating pik before you kick the k
- way too many of these authors are problematic so use author indicts to your advantage
- do not drop case in the 2nr
- specifically in the context of afropess: reading afropress without being black is definitely parasitic to black debate. if you are going to read afropess as a non black debater, your speaks will be no higher than a 27.
- default to competing interps, dtd, and no rvi but it can be proven otherwise. if you want to go for reasonability make sure to have a brightline.
- fairness > education, debate is a game that has educational value and i think we get the most education out of the game if it’s fair in the first place.
- i like to see techier styles of debate here but crystallization is key. give me a clear definition of what the theory debate boils down to and paint a clear abuse story.
- i lean heavily towards disclosure good but identity-based disclosure args like “debaters that are a part of marginalized groups shouldn’t have to disclose” are convincing
- i presume theory = highest layer
- for T, i like when the shell is specific to why the aff is untopical instead of generic shells and blocks. nebel is cool but personally it gets a bit boring to hear.
- what do i know?
- Great with Kant
- okay with
- pretty much unfamiliar with everything else so err on the side of overexplaining.
- i understand phil in more of an academic sense than in a debate sense
- framework in these rounds is especially important, so make sure to allot time for framing in your rebuttals.
- if you are going against consequentialist framing as a phil debater, prove why consequences are bad.
- be v ready for t framework and the neg presumption push
- for k-affs, be sure to explain why the topic is bad, why debate is a space for the aff to be read, and voters so i don’t have to vote you down on t framework because i really do like non t k affs.
- dont read against identity-based affs
- slow down on underviews
- don't be shifty in cx
- what do i know?
- good w
- condo logic
- okay w
- idk / idl
- theory spikes
- anything that i haven’t listed
- condo logic is really fun for me, if you go for condo logic and you make a truth-testing table w the rez as a condo statement, ill be impressed. i have a really low threshold for answering condo logic though.
- if you're going for an a priori please make sure to have a truth testing role of the ballot.
- i do think that there is some educational value that can be extracted from tricks debate. i think that there is definitely ground to learn about different paradoxes, condo logic, and different phils. this is just my reading of tricks at face value however, im still uncertain as to how it’s executed.
- i find substantive spikes more interesting than theory spikes
- maybe pref me if you’re thinking of running tricks in out rounds so you don’t have to worry about speaks. that said i haven’t actually judged a lot of tricks rounds (maybe 4-5 rounds) so maybe you can change my mind
Speaking and Speaker Points):
- what do my speaks look like?
- 30-- expect you to win the tournament
- 29.5-29.9-- late out rounds
- <26.9– need to contact someone important ab you/ you were disrespectful in round
- when you extend, give me a summary of your evidence, don’t just say “extend XYZ” and move on because i won't accept that as an extension so i won't vote on it.
- ballot painting/crystallizing is important. in addition to weighing, i really like layered rebuttals where you tell me which layer comes first and win it.
- signpost!! tell me where you're at.
- give me a roadmap before every rebuttal in the order of which offs you are going in.
- slow down on analytics. if you have prewritten analytics i would prefer if you sent them to me.
- remember that you are trying to convince me that you are correct. in both trad and prog rounds, looking at me while you speak will probably make you look perceptually better than your opponent.
- the more interesting and unique your argument is the happier i will be. still, there is a silver lining between being interesting and unique and just plain silly so measure accordingly.
- be kind in round and out of round.
influenced by: Rob Glass, James Allan, Clark Johnson, Michael Wimsatt, Richard Garner, Ben Erdmann, Breigh Plat, Sesh Joe, Eric Lanning
last updated: 9/11
conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Downtown Magnets SS, Jordan KV, Jordan VS, Heritage WT, Liberal Arts and Science Academy AB, Liberal Arts and Science Academy AR, Liberal Arts and Science Academy RX, Liberal Arts and Science Academy OX, Oak Ridge AA, Rock Hill DG, The Woodlands SP, Unionville AS, William G. Enloe PD, William G. Enloe RN
Texas '26, debating, taught at UTNIF '23 & TDC '23
[Sept 11th update] -
Phil interactions have been somewhat lackluster versus the K, the best piece advice on this is a lot of the thoughts and ideas a K has is usually derived from some philosopher/thinker/prominent person. Figure out who that person is/stalk the footnotes and map those interactions out.
I very much believe that if you go for multiple positions (think T and K) in the 2nr, it will conflict in someway and make your 2NR less persuasive and harder to win. Go for one collapse really well.
Theory restarts make me sad, but you do you on that one.
The worst round I've ever judged involved "You're being racist to white people and I don't like the way you debate" in the 2NR. Any other argument that isn't an ism, even bad tricks, would give you more speaks and a better chance to the ballot than that...
[end of update]
Due to the nature of reactionaries and violent people stalking judge paradigms, I will not be declaring anything personally identifying on this paradigm, nor going into greater details till paradigms on this platform aren't just openly public.
The bottom line to every round is that it must be a safe space for students (or in other terms, minors/barely adults) and minority-identifying people to feel safe in. Within my jurisdiction, I can and will not vote up violent and hateful rhetoric. The words we say and the sentences we interpolate have ramifications to your being and to others.
Other than that, feel free to do whatever, with the only caveat being that I can submit my ballot before tournament officials start requesting me to decide faster.
Debate is a communication activity. The activity doesn't carry rules, rather it has norms that most people agree on. I don't know them all, and that's the beauty of the activity. I do have some predisposition from the surroundings of my environment, because what kind of judge would I be without my own #individual ideas, thoughts, and takes?
When I enter the round, my ballot only declares a decision and rates your individual performance. However, I am moldable to whatever judge you would like me to be. Ultimately, it is your responsibility as debaters to pick and choose your strategies in front of me.
That being said, I am more than willing to struggle through thinking out hard decisions and giving long RFDs.
I will vote up anything, requiring a claim, data, warrant, and impact.
My decisions usually begin with whatever was said in the 2NR/2AR, and I sift through going backwards. If my understanding of something changes or I have to intervene to explain how I understood an argument in round, it might mean you're being unorganized or you're doing more work on trying to be tech-y than to just win your arguments well. I don't particularly care if drops = autowin, but I need a warrant for the things, and at the very least, need a reason as to why I would vote for you. Just because something is dropped doesn't mean its auto-truth, but it does make resolving debates where clash is almost equal to each other the tiebreaker.
I find that your explanations of things should be focused on why it matters in context to the interaction the argument is responding to. I don't need to know every single thing about an argument to make a decision, but there are relevant parts and questions that will arise to determine if I think you've sufficiently won your arguments and how it functions in round.
Data is tenable to critique and can be optional at times, but the other three are required for me to vote up anything. Data doesn't trump all, but given two equal positions, better argumentation/testing can be found with data that has clear and concise warrants. Data can be skewed, misrepresented, or have illogical bases. It is your job as a debater to make it clear why the methodology/epistemology of their data is bad.
Here is a brain dump of things:
- for the ld prefs: larp, k >> theory >>>>>>>>> phil (kant/util v anything) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tricks, denser phil >>>>>>>>>> trad
- textual and functional competition is awesomesauce - aff teams need to use it more in LD to takeout bad process CPs
- perms are a test of competition between the squo and the CP, usually not an a new world advocacy, though it could be justifiable against alternatives
- if you insert rehighlighting, at the end of the debate i will read that card as well as any others that are contextual to my understanding in relation to the argument in question
- if you're clipping and your opponent doesn't notice, i don't plan on intervening in context to wins and losses, but take some hints: i will probably say clear up to three times and you will see me holding my pen away from any flow paper. I think if you clip through a substantial amount of cards, i will straight up refuse to flow and you'll be very sad to wonder why I didn't evaluate.
- i think if you can't respond to an "anti-intellectual" argument (see: "5G radiowaves causing cancer"), then maybe you should lose?
- the "K of cap" is dope - i think Escalante is sort of a mid alt though I'm not convinced electoral systems are chill like that, people's war is gas
- i've read lots of lit bases, here's the list if you care: Cap, Grove, Beller, Spivak, Psychoanalysis, Settler Colonialism, Security IR, Caste Studies, Munoz, Wilderson, etc. Most of these literature I have a pretty good understanding content wise, but I will probably need their debate application explained more to me.
- (mostly) all your Ks are just building upon sociological/psychological explanations of various philosophers and thinkers
- meta-weighing is fantastic in LD and will award you my praise and speaker point allotments if you do this
- i think the revolution will probably need specific affective infrastructure and places for various groups and beings to play integral roles in making that happen - however can be convinced of the opposite that its all a ruse to never accomplish anything
- i lean neg on T-fwk - clash is awesomesauce and all the K affs that are like "debate bad" need to have a fantastic answer as to why clash doesn't matter or that if they have a model of debate, clash is non-uq to the squo
- neg teams should punish bad LD affirmatives with bad internal links to their impacts - I feel more than happy evaluating zeroing out offense for the aff if the evidence looks like it was taken from the 2000s era backfile and plastered together into a file like a scrapbook
- deleuze hurts my brain, please be cautious and overexplain it for me :<
- i think some "tricks" can be educational like logic puzzles (ie the LSAT/law often utilizes these things). things like the principle of explosion and then reading unfunny spikes and NIBs copied for the past 5 years is not it and i will consider it warrantless
- the scholarship from Nebel T sets you up to be like the person on tiktok who makes bird languages to read the navy seal copypasta in it - take that as you will.
- Spread as much as you'd like - but I am following along and will yell out clear
- blue highlighting => green highlighting > yellow highlighting > weird purple highlighting
- i like pettiness and competitive drive, make it entertaining and I will shower with speaks :<
- prep ends when you send the doc
- go ahead and read your intrinsic tests to a DA - i want to see some chaos this season
- theory restarts make me sad - uplayering and choosing a shell is the equivalent of shooting a shotgun at a target far away - i would rather you win 1 argument really well! :>
- i'm now convinced that meta-theory is poop and you're better off going for an RVI or just reading your own shell and uplayering
- pre-fiat and post-fiat is near incoherent
- impact turns are awesome but don't double turn yourself!!
- im pretty oblivious to philosophy in LD other than the strains of Kant and Util at most, i have a pretty good understanding of things like bindingness, tjfs, phenomenology, etc but you're gonna need to explain
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, here are my Preferences.
1= I know and comfortable judging.
2= A little confusing, but I can understand.
3= Very confusing, but I will try to understand.
4= Way to confusing and likely won't understand. (Strike)
Traditional/UIL style- 1
K/Performance Affs- 4
I have ADD so it can be hard to flow off a Document and have you speaking at 350wpm, so please do not spread.
add to chain/speech drop:
I debated policy on education, immigration, arm sales, did LD 2019-2021. Doing policy for the University of Houston on the antitrust topic and legal personhood. I now coach a lot of high school LDers on a variety of arguments. My background in debate doesn't necessarily overdetermine how I evaluate rounds, but it may inform my understanding of certain arguments, so I felt it is worth mentioning.
top level---(updated after 22-23 TOC):
TLDR: I will vote on anything.
Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.
Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses.
--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.
--- In the absence of paradigm issues on my flow, I'm going to evaluate theory as no RVIs, reasonability, drop the argument (unless its incoherent, such as condo bad). For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", I am going to be very convinced by a 2NR that says this is unwarranted and drop the arg. These defaults can be changed through warranted, extended arguments.
--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.
--- I will not judge kick a counterplan or alt unless I am told to.
--- I default to presumption affirms when the 2NR extends an alt/counterplan, as there is a new world that has been introduced that is a greater shift from the status quo than the plan. But please don't make me vote on presumption.
--- Process and agent counterplans are great. So is in-depth competition theory.
PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.
LD: Tablua Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.
WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to force the hand of the other team.
While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created. Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give me the reason why.
My name is Nandak Dhurjati and I did LD debate at Mcneil High School for 2 years and qualified for TFA state my sophomore year. During my time as an LD debater I debated on the TOC circuit frequently. With that being said, I am fine with most high level arguments, just be clear. Speed is fine, just please be clear while speaking and slow down during the tags. If I do not understand you i will say "clear" 3 times. After the 3rd time I will start to dock speaker points. I still have a good grasp on theory, so if you run theory make sure it is reasonable and you're not running theory for the hell of it. I will not evaluate any outlandish or frivolous theory and on top of that I will not evaluate anything that occurs outside of round. When it comes to framework, if you explain how your framework best ties back to your case I will be more inclined to vote for you. On a final note, don't run anything offensive, don't be rude to one another in round, and please be ready and on time. If you have any other questions i'll be more than happy to clarify before the round starts.
TLDR: I'm fine with most arguments. Just don't be rude and have fun.
Conflicts:Mcneil High School (Austin, Tx) and Westwood High School (Austin, Tx)
Guest Judge for the UT Austin Tournament
-I am a new judge
- Don't spread
-Don't be rude.
- I am a logical judge
I am looking forward to hearing you speak.
My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.
First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.
Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.
Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.
Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.
Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.
Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.
Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.
Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.
In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!
I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.
Most important stuff:
I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.
I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.
You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.
If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!
The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.
You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.
Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.
Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.
My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.
I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.
I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.
As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.
Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:
It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.
The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.
It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.
I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.
There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.
A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.
My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.
There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.
Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:
That which is morally repugnant
This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent
X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.
Philosophy: The function of the debate should be education. To that end, be courteous, resolute, and considerate while planning an offense. Lean towards lay judge (but can still run progressive tactics). CX competition experience and LD coaching experience.
Preferences: No spreading, evidence is more important than theory arguments, apathetic towards solely philosophical arguments, Kritiks must be very well-structured to run.
1. I am a Current DC speech teacher and coach. Background in communications, though I've been within the realm of speech and debate for close to 6 years.
Higher preference in traditional LD rounds, with min spreading. Need to be able to clearly understand and hear contentions and significant points, however won't completely judge against competitors.
2. a. With a preference in traditional LD cases, value and criterions are significant in the round.
b. If using K's, should be clear to follow and refute throughout round.
c. Voting issues should be given, throughout the flow or final rebuttal.
d. Winner decided by key arguments and sense of persuasion.
e. Notes/flow is taken based off off significant arguments throughout round. If I cannot follow, I cannot judge.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Salado High School 18-22 | University of Pittsburgh 23-? | he/him/his | call me “hunter” nothing else pls, anything else makes me feel sad and icky inside.
Hi! I'm Hunter. I debated for four years at Salado High School on the UIL, TFA, and National Circuit. I now study computer science and interactive design at the University of Pittsburgh.
I'm an offense/defense judge, so I am good with anything you want to read as long as you clash with the arguments being presented in the round. This means if you are just throwing out conflicting arguments without warranting why you are winning them it’s going to be very hard for me to evaluate the round. I will try and evaluate all arguments as fairly and equally as possible. I sway more on the side of tech vs truth, but that does not excuse you from being silly about it. I love a clean round so if it's messy, that will SIGNIFICANTLY affect your speaks. Most importantly, have fun.
Please warrant and extend arguments throughout the round, I will not be doing that work for you. I want you to write my ballot for me, absent that judge instruction, I will most likely be voting on something you don't want me to vote on, and no one likes that.
I don't really pay much attention to cross tbh, mostly because I see it as clarification, not a speech. If you make an important stance in cross just point that out in your speech.
I tend to make faces without knowing, so if you see me making a stank face, you're making silly arguments, sorry in advance.
Now for the Stuff we care about.
Quick cheat sheet:
Tech --x------ Truth
Voting for policy ----x----- Voting for the K
Will read ev without being told --x------ Tell me what to read
Infinite Condo --x-------- No condo
Reasonability --------x-- Competing Interps
Overviews -------x--- LBL
Fairness -----x----- Education
"Neg on presumption" x----------K affs that do nothing
"It's pre-fiat"----------x Actual arguments
Counter-interp + offense –x-------- Impact turn everything
Policy --x------ Phil
"Judge" ----------x “Hunter"
Pref shortcut -
Identity K's - 2
Other K's – 2/3
LARP - 1
T/Theory - 1
Phil - 3
K-Affs - 3
Tricks – 4
Trad - 3
DA’s are very strongly recommended. I love policy debate and would love to keep loving it. Please have a good internal link story. This means it needs to make sense !!! 3 cards usually don’t cut it on a DA, but it can for some. If your 1n doesn't make any sense I’ll most likely err aff on the link and internal link story; sorry not sorry. The less you need to explain on the thesis level, the more time you get to explain the link/internal link story, the better the 2nc is, the better way to my ballot.
Please, please, please do impact calc and link comparison.
Along with DA's counterplans are a great position and I love to see them. Competition is important, but not always required. I am a sucker for a good consult or adv CP. Please have NB to the CP, if I can’t figure out what that is by the end of the 1nc then your probs not going to be winning the CP. Judge kicking is silly, I'm not doing that work for you, if you don't think you're winning the perm debate then you probs aren't. Condo is good. Perf con is bad, but competing worlds is probs good. I’m not to picky about uncarded/multi plank CP’s as they can be strategic and great proof of strong critical thinking.
Perm debate is great way to engage the aff with the CP so please shoot out a few perms in front of me and see which one sticks. I don’t have a particular dissuasion to cheating perms and am willing to hear any kind of perm you say aloud.
The more I judge LD the more I realize how much I like FW debates. I think FW is a very important tool for you to win your impacts. For me to evaluate your offense you need to be winning some level of the framing debate. I think a lot of debaters forget this then get mad when I don’t vote for them.
I probs default Util but idk, I just work here.
LOL. I do not understand phil to the capacity to evaluate high level phil v phil debates. For these kinds of debates, a good overview is greatly appreciated. I am most familiar with Kant, Maslow, and Korsgaard (the usual).
I'm comfortable with K debate. Feel free to read them on aff or neg, but don't get silly with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. I love identity K debate (it provides great discourse that isn't talked about critically) but if you're reading an identity-based argument please be of that identity, if not I will be very skeptical of your argument.
I will NOT vote on nonblack afro-pess.
Framework is important, it isn't the end all be all of the round. I think it can be a very good tool for both aff and neg. I understand a fair share of most K’s except for pomo, so please explain what you’re alt does if you are using buzz words only 3 people know the meaning of.
Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are very important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to win the K for me. Impact and alt debates are often very muddy, if it is messy by the 2NR find out how to fix it.
Go crazy with the alt? Idc :) - just explain how it can overcome the links/solve.
When responding to identity K's be careful of what you say, it will probs be racist, homophobic, or ableist . If it makes me feel icky I just won’t evaluate it, sorry not sorry.
Aff's being topical is probably important, and if T is argued correctly, I will vote on it. Please explain what your interpretation allows and why that is better than the other teams model. I default to competing interps.
Theory is cool and a very good argument when it is warranted. I enjoy watching a good theory debate. I default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise.
RVI’s are ok, have a counter interp, prove why their model is not good. 1AR theory is also ok, but for the love of god please don't use it as a gotcha moment to dodge actual substance in the round.
If you want to read these I don’t mind, I will be very skep of unexplained arguments. But if you debate these well, I will vote on it.
Policy v Policy
Love, prefer this type of debate the most. Make sure to do good impact weighing and impact calc towards the end of the round, it’s much appreciated. Be smart and logical about things. I will reward good strategy.
Idk why I have to say this, but a DA with a SV fw is not good strategy. If you want to have a trad debate, please do it, but don’t be mad when you lose to 30 second util fw.
Please do not be discouraged from reading other arguments, even though I hack for policy debates, I love to have fun!!
K v Policy
I enjoy watching/judging these debates more than I do having them. Please make sure to do good impact calc and weighing. Like I said before FW is good, specific links are great. Make sure to compare worlds.
K v K
This is where my knowledge starts to fall apart, and you'll have to do a lot of weighing the two worlds for me. I have not seen enough of these debates in my career to evaluate them right, so I would default to this kind of debate if it’s the last-ditch effort to win my ballot.
(This excludes K v Cap)
I think that at the end of the day debate is an educational event, so I will give you speaks on how well you communicate to me and your opponents. That means be strategic and make good args. Speed is fine, I will yell "clear" if you are going to fast for me. I don't care about profanities unless it is used at or about your opponents. I do think how well you sound does play a factor in your speaks, so I would like to hear a more polished side of your speech.
I will start at 28.5 and work up or down
29.5 – 30: I enjoyed the round. You should be in deep elims/win the tournament.
29 – 29.4: This round was great but a bit messy, you should probs break.
28.5 – 29: This round was alright and average. You should go even.
28 – 28.4: This round was very messy; you were making silly mistakes and I was frustrated.
27-28: You should probs go back to JV.
25: You got an auto loss and are being reported to tab.
Few More things
1] Feel free to post round if you don't think I made the right decision, I won’t take offense. I think post rounding can be a good way for both of us to learn. I am human and will make wrong decisions just like you :)
2] Please add me to the chain, I like to look through cards to give the best decision I can give you. Keep the email formatted as: "Tournament --- Round x --- School v School". Also send a word doc, I don't like PDF's.
3] I'm not the greatest at flowing, if you're going to go full speed on analytics, please send them in a doc.
4] Please explain why a drop matters in the round, don’t just flail your hands and throw a big fit about a drop and then move on. I don’t care that they dropped extinction outweighs, tell me WHY that drop warrants a ballot.
5] Feel free to be silly in round, after round 5-6, I will have judged 10 policy rounds with the same DA impacts, I will reward fun debates.
Hi, I am a parent who many many years ago participated in debate including LD. However, things have changed to say the least. So I am squarely in the lay category. I will try very hard to not be a lame lay judge.
I am a huge fan of intellectual debate and admire clever but sound arguments. I do try to flow and follow the progression arguments. With that said if you speak too quickly I will not get it all down. Also I do not understand most debate jargon, so if you use a lot of it, I may not understand. Additionally when you are extending please explain that point, otherwise it doesn't count for me. Also I am not a huge fan of theory so you will need to make it understandable and do not run disclosure theory.
I will try to value tech over truth because I think that is the point of debate. The other point of this exercise is to communicate.
Please know that I think you are all awesome for getting up and trying. I hope you have fun and get something out of all your debates. Good Luck! : )
BERKELEY UPDATE: I realized I'm dogshit at flowing so please please please slow down if you like to blitz non-sent analytics and signpost if u extemp anything
CHURCHILL UPDATE:I don't really know anything about the topic lol extend a lil more
add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Hi, my name is Eric! I am a parent judge so please adapt well to me. Speaking persuasively and professional dress are very important to me in round. I believe that these LD debates should be similar to the debates between the OGs Abraham Lincoln and Michael Douglas (I got a 4 in my APUSH AP tests so I know what I'm talking about). All debates should have a clear value/criterion and good weighing under that said framework!
Here is a quote that sums up how I feel about this Lincoln-Douglas activity:
"They conceded the sand paradox which triggers skep" - Abraham Lincoln
have fun ill vote off literally anything (except if it's oppressive IE racism good, sexism good, etc)
I've generally been overinflating speaks recently so I get preffed more as a first year out lmao - subject to change based on how tired I am at any current time
tech > truth, truth > tech when it's idpol Ks and stuff that's about violence
FUN CASE > SERIOUS CASE
epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
debate is a game that has educational value
don't read stuff just cause you think I'd like it - a clean LARP debate is a lot better than a tricks debate that I have to intervene in
don't be a fascist
Explain the K thesis well - I don't know the thesis level claims of most kritiks past cap, set col, baudy, security and identity Ks.
I have a lower threshold for responses for these and I'll buy RVIs good more easily for these args - funny if done right tho - the more frivolous it is, the more i'll enjoy judging it
The bread and butter of circuit LD - I'm confident in DA/CP/Case debates and these are fun to judge if done well
Go for it. I am more inclined to believe that FW is a procedural issue that has an issue on how the 1AC debatability, so "T is policing" args usually can be beat back super quickly.
Go for it. I assume you have FW blocked out so respond to it properly not just "iTs gOoD tO dEbAtE aBoUt _____ IsSuE"
I'm reasonably versed in Kant, Hobbes, and Butler with some Deluezean understanding so I'm alright on that. Skep triggers for phil takeouts are super underutilized (IE the Moen devolves to skep bc of pleasure/pain robots arg)
slow down for analytics that aren't pre-sent
what to do to get good speaks:
collapsing to my favorite arguments and win: spark, evaluate after 1ac/nc/ar, a prioris, paradoxes, friv theory = + whatever I feel like at the time - 99% of the time super high
send me FUNNY shitpost memes in the speech doc = +0.5
give me food (preferably like soda) = +1
sit down really early and still win = +2
give me gossip about people i know (westwood kids probably) = +0.5
funny World Cup reference = +0.2
what to do to get bad speaks:
be racist, invalidate someone's identity, not following a trigger warning request = L25 :)
clipping/lying about evidence - if me or ur opponent catches u thats an L25 :(
at the end of the day, debate is a game. we should all be vibing w each other yk? I think we should all strive for new ways to understand the world around us and find solutions for stuff we need solutions to. just try to have some fun in debate while ur at it.
POLICY (if i'm forced to judge it):
I'm gonna be fully honest - I'm not too well versed in K lit or whatever so if ur reading some wack stuff please err on the side of over-explaining on extensions
I'll also evaluate tricks, phil, and friv theory because I think that it would be funny in policy if u wanna fw ur opponents
I'll give you a 20-30% chance that I WILLjudge screw you - I get tired quickly so I'll boost yall's speaks if you sit down early :)
I don't care what you wear. Be comfortable in round that would probably make you speak better too tbh
Hey, I'm Joey, and I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2021. I TOC qualled twice and got 13 career bids.
Add me to the email chain, and please have it set up before round. I also am fine with fileshare or speechdrop, whatever is fastest.
For online rounds, if we can start the round sooner (if all debaters are there before time), I'll boost speaks, but no pressure I'm fine starting right on time as well
I prefer theory debates; otherwise, I'll adjudicate more similarly to a traditional judge since I'm not as immediately familiar with extension logistics and whatnot.
assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic/topic jargon
One winner and one loser
Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.
How to Win:
You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.
How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:
-Weigh: Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.
-Crystallize + Judge Instruction: You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."
-Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.
-Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.
-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.
I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.
That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.
Slow down on:
1. Advocacy/CP Texts
2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)
3. Theory Interps
4. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)
I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.
-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.
-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.
-Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."
- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case
- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.
- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.
- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.
- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.
- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.
Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:
Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen
I graduated the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.
Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.
Some argument specifics:
Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.
Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.
Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.
Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.
Ks: They're fine.
Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.
Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.
FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.
Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.
What not to do:
Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.
Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.
Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.
Have Fun Debating!
Howdy, I'm Kylie :)
I graduated in 2021 from Mount Pleasant High School in Texas, where I debated for three years. I started my career doing policy but switched to LD pretty early on. Throughout high school, I mainly competed in LD, but I dabbled in extemp and congress. I competed on the UIL, TFA, and Nats circuits. So, I'm well-versed in pretty much everything.
Honestly, you can run anything, as long as you understand what you are doing. A BIG thing for me is respect in the round, TREAT PEOPLE WITH RESPECT. Even if you are winning the flow by a landslide, I will vote you down if you are rude or disrespectful.
I started my LD career debating traditionally, so I don't mind a good traditional round. I vote on FW first, so try to uphold that as much as possible. If not then I look to the contention debate. I REALLY like impact calc on the contention debate. Other than that just try to have a clean debate, and try to condense in the 1AR and 1NR.
DAs and CPs:
I ran many of these so I am pretty comfortable with them. So, do what you want with these.
I occasionally ran T, so I understand it, but please be sure you aren't just using it as a time skew. It has to be relevant in the round.
It's not my favorite thing, but if you make it easy to follow the flow then go for it. Unless it's a great argument, I'm probably not going to vote on it.
I love Ks, I ran frequently throughout my career. So, if you want to run it go for it, but you better understand what you are reading. I like a clean round so please know what you're doing.
To win my ballot: Logical links and clear connections are important whether you're running a traditional or progressive case. Your argumentation skills and strategies is what your opponent is challenging, therefore; a clear, cut, concise connection is what wins the round. Listen to your opponent, (FLOW), provide impacts and know what your talking about. If you've got a few tricks up your sleeve, be sure you know how to use them.
I do not mind speed, but if you decide to spread make sure you slow down on tag-lines. Consider speaker points when spreading. I look to vote for a strong link and one's ability to prove why your case wins the round. Voters are extremely important to me so make sure you use the time in your last speech wisely.
I do my best to flow all arguments presented in the debate and rely heavily on my flow to determine the round winner. Make sure to signpost well, and please give me a roadmap of your speeches.
If you decide to do an email chain please, add me. email@example.com
Positives: politeness, confidence, well-placed humor, preparation and well executed strategies/arguments.
Negatives: rudeness and unnecessary condescending comments, pointless cross examination, skirting the issues or avoidance
Staying true to the competition rubrics.
If I can't hear you, then I can't score you. Please, speak loud and clear.
Intro / About Me:
Shout out to Westside High and UH - I wouldn't be anywhere without you. <3
Don't be discriminatory. I'm warning you now if you have to ask, "Is this problematic? Don't read it - there are better strategies out there.
Also Important: If you read spreading bad in front of me, I will not hack for you. I can spread and I can flow, but I am disabled and these skills were harder for me to develop than most. Many debaters see this as an opportunity for a persuasive 2ar and 2nr push, don't let this be you. I consider this motivated and ableist.
You're either winning an argument on the flow or you're not. Trivializing my struggles or the struggles of any judge for the ballot is an easy way to get me to despise you.
Debate is a game, but it is an academic game. Tech over truth, but truth constrains tech. You'll have a harder time convincing me global warming is fake than convincing me warming will destroy the planet. If two debaters are equal on a particular flow, truth is the obvious tie breaker.
I will try to intervene as little as possible - I'm old school in that you need to explain things to me like I'm 5 for me to grant you the arguments you want to go for.
I have been in this space for too long. I have zero clue how some old heads have been here for 20+ years. As such, it's becoming much harder to tolerate cringe, posturing, flexing, and generally being an obnoxious debater stereotype. While I will not punish you for it, it will still make me cringe. Be nice to people, there's a difference between being confident and being mean.
I vibe check speaks, I don't know what a 30 looks like, but I can feel it. But that doesn't mean that speaks are arbitrary because my flow checks my vibes. I default to a 28.5 and go higher or lower based on your strategic decisions.
Online debate and its consequences have been a disaster for the debate community. Disclose quickly, don't steal prep. I am growing tired of people that can't manage their files and make a 45-minute round an hour long.
Post UT update: Post rounding is cool and checks against dumb decisions, I frequently make bad decisions and I encourage you ask questions, but do it nicely.
Now for the gross stuff
I love the K. I've read many lit bases.
Know your lit, theorize, and don't neglect the material implications of your literature.
I think generic links are fine, but specific links are always better. Saying that a K link is generic and so I should gut check it is never sufficient - you need to explain why a generic link doesn't apply to your aff.
Don't drop your alt unless you're winning a framework push because dropping the alt means that I have to weigh the aff versus the status quo, and 9 out of 10, you will lose that debate.
I default to weighing the aff against the K or something to that effect. If you wan't me to exclude aff offense, you need to do some heavy work.
Fairness is not a good argument if a K team is winning that your model is problematic, justify policy making and then cry about fairness.
Substantive reasons for why they don't get the perm > Theoretical reasons for why they don't get the perm.
You must explain how the perm works for me and the net benefit. Saying "perm do both" - is okay but super weak and usually will not be enough to overcome disads to the perm.
Love kritikal affs, but TVAs usually pick up my ballot here. You need to explain your model of debate / method. You should have a strong relationship to the topic or at least explain why a relationship to the topic is bad or doesn't matter.
Define how your method of debate works, the benefits only your method can access, and why you can include their model / arguments, even if they can't argue for their perfect advocacy.
Generally speaking, it's okay if the topic excludes your specific author - you don't get the perfect aff sometimes, it is what it is. Debate is about controversies and every advocacy (mostly) will have side-constraints, disadvantages, or criticism from different schools of thought. You should embrace this.
Don't neglect case - if they're winning that their scholarship is good and key, it'll be much harder for you to win this flow.
Debatability is not the sole metric that I use to decide T debates. Real world application of literature is another side-constraint of an interpretation.
Sure, your interpretation might produce the most clash, but if there's no exportable topic education, what's the point of clash?
I'm very happy to vote on "Nobody in X field or expertise defines the words in the resolution in a specific way." I hate fake debate T interpretations with 0 real world application.
You need to weigh between standards and different implications of interpretations.
Also weigh definitions - but saying, "Our definition is from a reliable source, and yours isn't." is not an argument.
Competing Interps > Reasonability.
Deploy whatever arguments you need to win the round.
I love a good counterplan gimmick.
Pics are good. But my default can change.
Delay counterplans are not legit. Unless, the net benefit is fire and super specific.
Process counterplans are suspect, but I'm willing to vote on them.
Actor counterplans are fine.
You must justify judge kick - and say you're kicking something.
Use differential degrees or lense of sufficiency framing to explain how I should evaluate solvency deficits vs. the net benefit of the counterplan.
Weigh between different scenarios please.
Compare warrants and explain why yours are better, this is super neglected in policy and LD especially.
Explain how the PIC solves the aff. I will not give this to you just because you label something a pic.
No opinions on condo, dispo, or how many offs are too much. I will police this more in LD. I think 2 to 3 condo positions + squo is enough neg flex, but you're more than welcome to convince me otherwise. I really don't care.
There can be 0 risk of a DA - but it's very rare. You need to do stellar work here for me to say there's no risk to the DA.
I don't like these debates in LD - they're way overused.
In policy, theory debates are fine.
Reasonabilty > Competing Interps
Yes, 1AR theory.
DTA > DTD, unless DTA is impossible.
I used to discriminate against these arguments, but there's no reason why these arguments are any less legit than the K, a DA, or T. I'm just not qualified to be your judge - read at your own risk.
Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com
Baylor '24 - 2x NDT Qualifier
TLDR: Do what you want and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. I've almost exclusively done K debate so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Depth over breadth, if your strat is 7+ off Im probably not the judge for you. I'll always read ev and be engaged in the round but it's your responsibility to tell me how to evaluate the round/impacts. Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity, I usually flow on paper and if you want me to evaluate your args I need you to explain your warrants rather than just extending tags/card names. If there's disputes over what a piece of evidence says I'll read evidence but I shouldn't have to sift through a card doc to resolve a debate. If there's anything I can do to make debates more accessible for you, please let me know before round either via email or a pre-round conversation. Debate well and have fun!
I honestly don't care what you do or say, just please have fun and value the time you have at tournaments; and don't say messed up things. I've been a 2n most of my career but I've also been a 2a at times. I've read everything from baudrillard to disability and performance arguments on the aff to cap, spanos, necropolitics, semiocap, set col, and hostage taking on the neg (this isn't an exhaustive list). I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've went for fw since hs (one time). This doesn't mean I won't vote on it, but it is to say I will have have a hard time being persuaded by "K affs set an impossible research burden" or "procedural fairness is the only thing that matters in debate." More thoughts on fw below. I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction. Please give me judge instruction. Write my ballot in the beginning of your final rebuttal and make sure to resolve the offense on the flow. I want to see clash, the more you clash with your opponents, the more likely you are to get my ballot.
Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine. I'm honestly down for whatever. Whether your strategy is to have a connection to the topic and a method that results in topical action, or you read your aff to impact turn fw I've done it and will evaluate anything. I tend to thing presumption is a strategic strategy against k affs that at least forces teams to explain what they are defending. Tell me what my role in these debates is, what the ballot does, and what the benefit to debating the aff is. If you do these things, you're good.
Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. Contrary to some belief, I will vote for fw and will evaluate it like any argument. I usually evaluate fw debates through the lens of competing models of debate but can be convinced otherwise. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness. Especially on this topic, I think having offense as to why debating fiscal redistribution is good would be beneficial for the neg. TVA's probably need to have at least texts, can be convinced they need solvency advocates too. I can be convinced affs make clash impossible, but if your only idea of clash is the politics da and the states cp I'll be less persuaded. In my opinion, the best way to go for fw is to win your interp creates a model of debate that is able to solve the affs offense (either through the tva or ssd). For the aff, its usually easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense. I enjoy creative we meet args/counter-interps. New, innovative approaches to fw are always exciting as these debates can get very stale.
These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K debates tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing i.e. fw (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in these debates. Affs needs to explain how the permutation functions in the context of the alternative rather than simply extending a perm text as well as net benefits to the perm while the negative should equally spend sufficient time explaining why the aff and the alt are mutually exclusive. I don’t think the neg necessarily needs to go for an alt but if that's your thing you need to make sure you win the framework debate. Affs tend to do better when they engage with the actual content of the K and extend offense in addition to the case. If your aff obviously links to the K i.e. cap vs an innovation aff, you're probably in a better position impact turning the K than going for the no link/perm strategy in front of me. Aff teams would benefit from spending less time on framework/reading endless cards and more time engaging with the links/thesis of the K.
Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.
While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on your opponent conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements that don't mean anything I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you. I'm a policy debater at heart. I ultimately don't care what you do or say in round as long as it's not racist, sexist, ableist, or transphobic. Just make arguments - claim, warrant, impact - and tell me why you're winning the debate in the rebuttal speeches. I judge LD rounds slightly differently - I flow on my laptop. I first evaluate the fw debate which only ends up mattering when it does I guess? I then evaluate the 2nr/2ar to resolve key points of offense. I find LD debaters are often too defensive in their rebuttals and if that's you its not likely to work in your favor. Have offense. Be willing to impact turn your opponents position. I want to see ~clash~.
Please do not spread. I want to understand your points clearly.
I want to know your logical and sequential arguments - explain throughout your argument why it's important.
Truth > Tech
I like off time roadmaps.
Sign posting is very appreciated - makes it easier for me to follow your arguments.
Have a clear summary and final focus.
Be respectful to opponents and each other.
Please keep your own time, I want to focus on your content.
Have fun and do your best!
[[ ]] poststructuralist positions have seemingly fallen out of the meta for some reason. this is saddening - i love the weird poststructuralist goop. if these positions are something you are interested in PLEASE email me because i would love to help out :0.
[[ ]] an updated thought on non-black engagement with afropessimism as of 8/29/23 - i am not and have never been a scholar on anything black studies, wilderson, etc. thus, i do not personally feel comfortable taking a hardline stance on the issue of whether or not non-black engagement with these arguments within debate is acceptable. i totally understand the perspective that would lead someone to make this conclusion, however, my relative ignorance of the arguments contained within the literature makes me feel personally uncomfortable with taking this stance, particularly since, after a bit of introspection, it comes from a place of personal discomfort as opposed to the actual argument contained within the literature. this is all to say - this is a debate that is to be had in front of me as opposed to something that I am going to reject on face. i am receptive to arguments that this kind of engagement is parasitic and should be avoided, however, i am not going to make that argument for students and i am interested in adjudicating this debate as it happens as opposed to using preconceived notions about the acceptability of these arguments. i do think though that this is a debate that should be handled tactfully and in good faith - if i get the inkling that is not the way the argument is playing out, i reserve the right to make decisions based on my personal biases.
[[ ]] update: since its something ive been asked more than once - i will follow along on the doc, but regardless i flow what you say and not what i read.
[[ ]] top level
- hi yall !! my name is dylan. i debated for plano west for four years and graduated in 2021. during my time i qualified to the toc and predominantly read critical arguments. i now attend UTD and competed for about a semester, mostly reading policymaking arguments.
- if you dont want to read: i am best thought of as a "clash" judge. i am best for the kritik and policy. i dislike strategies that rely on avoiding clash ie lots of procedural uplayering, arguments that would be thought of as "tricks" and endlessly proliferating offs in the 1nc.
- email: firstname.lastname@example.org
- i am not judging as much as i used to this season which i think has made me better at thinking about debates than i formerly was, mostly because i feel to some degree separate from insular debate nonsense. this means i think ive developed less of a tolerance for debater nonsense than i had before.
- i have a zero tolerance rule for any kind of violence happening in front of me. this means any of the -isms or misgendering, but this list is non-exhaustive. i prefer to give minoritized people the agency to do what they would like in the event of violence. if you feel something violent has happened, feel free to let me know what you would like me to do. regardless of what happens with the round, however, doing any of the above most likely will result in a conversation with tabroom and your coach, as well as the lowest speaker points i can possibly give.
- i do not feel comfortable voting on out of round conduct EXCEPT that i think abusers should take Ls. If you think this applies to you PLEASE reach out so i can address it through the proper channels but I will try my best to make sure you dont have to debate in an unsafe environment.
- i like debate in all forms and i think it holds deep educational value that is not accessible anywhere else. i do not think debate is just a game and on some level i think debate in and of itself is a good thing. that does not mean that these assumptions cannot be changed or debated through, its just a small disposition i have. this means that i am unreceptive to and deeply dislike strategies that attempt to avoid nuanced debate and clash.
- think about me the same way you would Holden but less interested in pretending to want to adjudicate vacuous non-arguments that waste everyone's time (sorry holden <3)
[[ ]] K
- I used to consider myself best for the kritik, but this has since changed.nowadays i spend most of my time thinking about debate thinking about counterplan competition, topicality, and other policy-esque things.this is due, in large part, to a disdain for the way the kritik is being executed most commonly in the meta.i am GREAT for you if you have specific links, can do specific analysis, if your aff talks about the topic, etc.
- likewise, i am TERRIBLE for you if you are reading generic backfile arguments, do not know what your cards say, etc. i hold these debates to higher standards because I think about it a lot and i know what you SHOULD be doing.
- i spend the most time thinking about poststructuralism, but i do not understand the high/low theory distinction that debaters so often make since I think most literature bases interact with each other and build upon each other. i do not think this should be relevant.
- the only real grippes i have in these debates are the things that most people get annoyed with which are: vague non-clarifications of arguments, not having any idea what your advocacy does, and doing very little specification and argument interaction outside of pre-written overviews.
- rambling about the pre-post-fiat distinction makes me especially upset. pls do actual weighing and talk about your scholarship/research practices/whatever instead of just asserting the aff is pre-fiat or something like that.if i hear assertions about the pre/post fiat distinction without implications as to why it matters, i will cry.
[[ ]] Policy
- i am quite good for these debates or at the very least a lot better than you think i probably am. my favorite debate to watch last season was actually a pure policy throwdown and i think they can be very entertaining and very fun when done well.
- i think evidence quality wins and loses these debates more often than not. i encourage you to read your opponents evidence and call for me to read it if it sucks because i can and will do that and i've decided multiple debates based on how i feel about evidence.
- i love good impact turn debates and i think they're often underutilized.
- i will judge kick absent a theoretical objection. i think condo is good and infinite and am hard pressed to vote on it absent something egregious. i will not flow condo against one-off, since i think defending the squo should always be an option.
- I presume negative and i don't think any sort of LD theoretical argumentation will change that. i thinks affs need to defend something.
- risk starts at zero,yes zero risk is a thing.
[[ ]] Clash
- I am extremely good in these debates because i fall almost dead in the center on the T question.on a truth level i think a model of debate with the kritik is probably better but i vote for framework more often than not.
- I far and away have the most thoughts on these debates because it feels like this is the bulk of my judging.
- Jurisdiction is uncompelling and is almost never something im going to vote on.
- Procedural fairness is fine but more often than not it gets implicated as an internal link to clash rather than being a robust defense of fairness as an impact itself. while i think this is fine, i think there are significantly more strategic ways to go for fairness that dont just devolve to fairness good because clash
- clash is goated and can be leveraged so strategically. probbaly my favorite of the framework 2nrs.
- i think more often than not framework teams lose when they dont talk about the aff and read generic prewritten 2nrs. i think framework is very good when it gets contextualized to the aff in front of it and can talk about why the model of the aff in front of it is bad.
- i think k teams lose when they do not have a clear model of debate that they can defend that justifies the aff. i usually think the best way to do this is through a counterinterp but raw debate bad no debate impact turns are fine too.
- i have many more thoughts here but most are irrelevant. u do u.
[[ ]] T
- always down for a good T debate
- definitions are important and being able to compare two different linguistic interpretations of the topic goes a long way.
- idont really think pragmatic questions of an interpretation matter. i think the semantic and linguistic validity of an interpretation provides the basis for whats pragmatically viable. just because the topic sucks doesnt mean that you can just not be topical.
- a lot more open to T-whole res or T-subsets than i once was but if it reads cards from a certain debate author i would say probably dont. i still dont really understand the upward entailment test.
- wont vote on rvis.
[[ ]] theory
- definitely not the judge for a bunch of procedural uplayering that sacrifices actual argument engagement.
- will never vote on shells that blatantly dont have a violation, even absent an i meet
- will almost never vote on an rvi absent a straight up concession.
- happy to vote on disclosure theorywhen the interp is something like "must disclose 30 minutes before." more specific interps like full text, cites, etc will make me annoyed more than anything.the violation must be verifiable ie text screenshots or something. a verbal disclosure interaction that i cannot verify is something i do not want to have to deal with because people like to lie about this stuff for some god forsaken reason. im going to choose to not engage with it or vote on it if i cant verify the violation.
[[ ]] LD SPECIFIC:
[[ ]] phil
- significantly worse for this than i once thought but not terrible for it.
- i am far too eager to pull the trigger on extinction outweighs and i think you should probably have a robust and nuanced response.
- i think a lot of these debates end up consisting of arguments that are considered tricks which i would advise you against.
[[ ]] tricks
- no. i think the phrase "shut up" is probably sufficient to answer most arguments in this category.
- i likely will not think your independent voter is independent and likely will not evaluate it in a vacuum ie independently like you want me to.
[[ ]] evidence ethics
- since it has become relevant:i will not evaluate these arguments as a theoretical indict or a reason to drop the team. i believe accusations of academic dishonesty deserve to be treated with a level of seriousness that it cannot get if these arguments can be made without consequence. if this is an argument that is made,i will verbally ask if you are staking the round on it to ask for confirmation. if the answer is yes, i will stop the round. if the answer is no, i will delete the argument from my flow.
- if the violation concerns the content of the evidence,i much prefer rehighlighting as opposed to staking the round. i would prefer to not adjudicate an evidence ethics dispute if possible.
- if the argument concerns the form of the evidence,i will defer to the rules at the tournament (TFA/NSDA) and use that as the baseline for how i adjudicate the dispute.
for anything else: i would ask before round or email me. im always down to talk about my thoughts on debate! otherwise have a great round
Name: Rujul Kulkarni
Yes, please add me to the email chain.
Affiliation: Langham Creek High School
*Current for the 2021-2022 Season*
I debated at Langham Creek from (2018-2020).
Just be courteous and respectful towards your opponent, and don’t spread too fast in rebuttals because I will miss arguments.
Policy Debate Paradigm:
I am not too familiar with Kritiks, but other than that, I am generally okay with everything else. Explain your arguments clearly, as you should be able to justify and defend them properly. Depth on a few arguments is better than 10 poorly executed ones. Impact calc is very important to me. Tell me how/why to vote.
If you are blatantly offensive and disrespectful, you will lose speaker points.
Other than that, have fun with the round.
Hi. I did LD at Westwood High School for four years. Put me on the email chain - email@example.com
Affiliations: Westwood ('19-'22), DebateDrills Club Team ('21-'22)
I've shortened this paradigm because it was very lengthy, but the full one from the 2021-2022 season can be found here.
1] I am comfortable judging policy-style debates and T/theory debates, though the worse the shell gets, the more unhappy I am. I am comfortable judging phil and kritik debates if they don't get too advanced for my brain (pomo, Baudrillard, existentialism, etc.). I am not comfortable judging tricks debates, and though I will still evaluate those debates, I have great distaste in that debate and my threshold for answering those arguments is much lower than other arguments.
2] I agree with Rodrigo Paramo on evidence ethics and trigger warnings. Detailed specifics for ev ethics is below as well.
3] I think tricks args operate on a sliding scale; I think some tricks are worse than others. For example, calc indicts are fine whereas "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" is horrendous. Likewise I also think indexicals and tacit ballot conditional are horrendous arguments for debate. If you're not sure whether an argument is too tricky to read in front of me, err on the side of caution, or just email me pre-round.
4] I believe in open-source disclosure. I think most disclosure arguments that go beyond this are bad (contact info, round reports, actual tournament name, etc.).
5] I give speaks based on how far I believe your performance would get you at the tournament I'm judging at. I tend to average around a 28.5. Yes I will disclose speaks if requested.
6] I require much more explanation for arguments than you think I do. Many 2AR's that I've judged go for a 3-second argument in the 1AR that I did not catch/have an understanding for, and many 2NR's that I've judged blitz through overviews of the theory of power/philosophical position that I cannot keep up with. Either slow down or be clearer in explanations.
7] Slow down please, especially in online debates. You will not be happy with my RFD if I don't catch something because you're blitzing too fast.
8] I am extremely visually expressive. I know it's hard during online debate to see my face when you're reading through a doc, but you should almost always be able to tell if I like something/find something confusing.
9] I don't know anything about this topic. Err towards overexplaining and try not to use too many acronyms.
I perceive the following to be cheating (or check Rodrigo's paradigm):
- Cards starting or ending in the middle of a paragraph, or leaving paragraphs out (yes this includes the "they continue" stuff
- Miscutting evidence
- Misrepresenting the date of evidence
I would much prefer debaters stake the round on evidence ethics claims. I will notice clipping without debaters pointing it out, though you should still do so to make it easier for me. If there is an evidence ethics violation, it will result in the offending debater getting an L 25. If there is not a violation, the accusing debater will get an L 25.
Email chain/questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
Background: I did LD for 3 years in high school, started doing policy debate at the University of Houston in 2021, and I coach at Seven Lakes HS. My major is political science with a focus in IR, minor is phil
- Tech > truth
- I think almost everything is debatable except speech/prep times and will vote on almost anything with a warrant. I have at least some experience with almost all types of args, so do whatever you're good at and I will try my best to judge it.
- I want judge instruction and will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to. The winner is the person who gives me the easiest RFD to write.
- I care more about what the debater says than what the evidence says, as in I don't care how good your evidence is if you don't debate it well. This is not a invitation to lie, but it does mean I will not do ev comparison for you or search through your cards for warrants that you don't put on the flow.
Things I default to: conterinterps, condo is good, disclosure good - that is it
LARP - 1
K - 2
Phil - 1/2
Tricks - strike me please please please
I don't have many specific biases about most arguments, and you could probably convince me to vote on almost anything even if it completely contradicts what I say in my paradigm.
However, I do have some thoughts that may be helpful for you to know:
K --- I prefer Ks that critique structures (cap, set col, etc.) over identity Ks, mostly because I am often unsure of what the alt does. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt, however, I have voted on all of them before.
I also think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. An articulation that is just an ad hominem and doesn't explain why racist undertones hurt people when implemented into something material is a losing one.
All that said, I will vote on any K that is debated well (also that racism is not ok and I will stop the round if you start saying slurs, but saying someone engaging with the state makes them racist is, to me, not a reason they should lose).
Yes you can kick the alt and go for links as offense, but they need to be weighed and impacted out.
CP --- I like creative and fun CPs.
Yes CPs must have a net benefit and the net benefit cannot be T or links to the DA. Links to the DA are not the same thing as links to the K.
T - I default to competing interps
Phil --- yes <3 love it, but I prefer when it is substantial and not just used as tricks. I think debates like Kant v Util are fun.
Spreading --- speed is fine if you're clear, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. Slow down on tags and analytics, and signpost. I flow on paper so you need to give me pen time.
*commodifying racism, sexism, other accusations of violence for the ballot is bad. If you have a problem with a specific debater, you should take it up with tab before round starts. I want to create a safe space for debaters, but do not put me in the position where I have to decide if something that occurred outside of round is bad or not. If it happens during the round that is different.
Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.
Put me on the chain please: email@example.com, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance.
I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.
I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. Given that I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).
The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (ie two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).
While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time. While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).
It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.
Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if for some reason you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.
I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."
Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.
Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.
Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)
Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)
Currently: Texas (2017-present)
Debated for Winston Churchill High School in LD and some policy. Debate at UT Austin in policy. Camps worked at: VBI, Baylor, UTNIF.
Please have the email chain ready as soon as both opponents meet before the round.
I'm pretty open to whatever you want to do and am very open to questions considering my paradigm.
A few thoughts:
- I like debates that are about the topic. Even if it is slightly tangential to the topic, I'm open to it. Find debates filled with vacuous theory arguments or paragraphs of spikes/preempts are not in my interest.
- Don't look much at the doc unless necessary. I'm only flowing the words that you speak.
- Please slow down when reading analytics. Many speed through them and I am unable to catch every word.
- I'm pretty expressive. My face is probably a good indicator of where the debate is going.
- If I'm absolutely unsure of what is going on/no arguments have been made, I'm most likely going to err neg.
- It may not seem like it, but I pay close attention to CX and auto to CX being binding.
current coach for magnolia, director @ vbi
former director at westlake & corona del sol
mostly judged/coached ld the past 2 seasons, pf before that.
i'm cool with anything you read, and any speed you go, as long as you are clear, signpost well, and keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone :)
1: policy, T/theory, cap
2: setcol, non-phil tricks
3: other Ks
strike: phil, trad, dense trix
policy: default judge kick. lean neg on cp theory claims, prefer affs substantively engage with the cp unless the abuse is egregious. cool w cheaty cps. 3 word perms aren't arguments. i <3 well executed impact turn debates.
theory: default competing interps, yes rvis, dtd, T>theory>rest, but idc ill change any of that. will entertain late restarts just pretty please send interps. speaks boost for shells in doc + slowing down for extemped shells/analytics :)
K: cap is my comfort lit base, so i'll be open to niche stuff, 1ac strats, and all impact turns. i'm also v comfortable with setcol, securitization, and ir-centric Ks. beyond that, my in-depth understanding is more limited, but i still often vote for these positions. just please especially actually resolve the lbl: far too many K 2n and 2ars are vaguely cross applying the overview everywhere in a way that hurts my head.
tricks: i can handle simple tricky positions given that they're not phil-adjacent, are clearly delineated in the doc, and you're willing to identify independent reasons to vote in cx if asked. that means i'm not the right judge for stuff hidden in the cut of a card, a full-force nailbomb 1ac, or a bunch of indexicals. i am the right judge for a standard truth testing 1ac, skep triggers, and common, delineated aprioris in the 1ac text (eg no neg arguments).
frontline in 2nd rebuttal, extend defense the speech after its answered, and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument.
come to rd ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending, etc)
I debated varsity LD throughout High School and will be familiar with most anything that comes up in an LD round. As long as you can justify it in round and it isn't blatantly harmful/problematic, any cases and arguments are fine. Unless the rules of a particular tournament prohibit it, I prefer to be included in email chains. I'm generally fine with spreading, but I might not be able to understand the fastest spreaders- keep it intelligible and slow down a bit for important points and taglines.
I debated at Lake Travis High School (2016-2020) and competed in LD, PF, and Policy, but I mainly did LD. Please add me to the email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
You can run whatever you want in front of me, I don't care. However, if the the debate space becomes toxic or harmful in some way against either party then I will auto down the aggressor, tank speaks, or both. Debate should NOT be a cite for toxic, dehumanizing, or any other problematic forum. That being said, don't be mean and you'll be fine. Im chill with any form of K, LARP, or Lay stuff. If you read dense phil, most likely I will not know what it is so be slower or do extra explaining. You can always ask in round if I know a specific type of lit, imma be honest. Please give me a clear story to the ballot (weighing, layering, framework, etc.).
Im chill with any speed as long as you are clear. I spread decently fast in high school so I'm used to spreading. If you aren't clear I will say clear as many times as needed. Please slow down on important texts, such as; interps, rob, alts, plans advocacy, etc. Additionally please be loud, I'm a little hard of hearing on my left side. It doesn't affect my ability with speed, just make sure if you are on my left (your right) that you are extra loud. Additionally I flow by ear not by the doc, if something is in the doc but not said in the round I wont evaluate it. This is debate it has to be said out loud to factor into the decision.
Im chill with any type of k you read, but just for efficiency I will be using neg k names and stuff. If you have a K aff or read 1AR k I'm chill with that, its just easier for me to type for the neg k names.
This was what I primarily ran in high school, and thus I am most familiar and comfortable with this debate. With that being said, I will NOT hack for a K, and I have a good basis of a lot of k lit so make sure you know the lit before you read a K in front of me. I am much more familiar with identity Ks than I am with high theory, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N, even if you know that I know the lit prior to the round. You need to explain what the alt does and please answer the perms by saying more than just a link is a da to the perm.
If you kick the K, please give a warrant aside from its condo we can kick. I need an explanation of a link, this could either be why the topic is bad, the opponents performance in the round is bad, or the action of the aff is bad, etc., really I don't care what the link is just please have a link and explain it. A link of omission is a link, please still explain it, I know a lot of people that just say they don't mention it and move on, tell me why not mentioning it matters.
You need to answer perms in some way, a conceded perm is damning.
On the ROB debate, please explain the offense and how it links back. Additionally don't just randomly drop the ROB and dont explain why, espically if this is the main framing mech. Either say what new framing you are going under or extend, even if you are winning the whole k debate without a clear extension of the ROB there is no framing mech and thus no reason (unless other articulated) as to why the k matters in the context of the ballot.
Alt solvency needs to be explained clearly by the end of the 2n. Whether it is a method, mindset shift, or a physical action it needs to be explained clearly. I need to know what the world of the k looks like and thus how the offense garnered by the alt actually works in round.
Answer any root cause claims or prereq args on a K. Just because it is a K doesn't mean that the argument itself is immune to any other root cause or prereq args. I have seen one to many really good k debaters lose rounds for dropping a gov is prereq arg or the aff is a prereq to implement the k so make sure these are answered.
I love performance K's. Make the space yours and do whatever you want.
Defaults: Reasonability, Drop the Debater, No RVIs, Education
I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on but if there is no work or weighing this is what I will default to first, if you don't like any of these then please make an argument. Please do contextualized work on the analysis of the standards and voters. If you don't tell me why the abuse story is relevant or properly respond to your opponents, I wont do the work for you. For me as a judge if the analysis isn't done well or even if it is skipped it is easy for T/Theory to be a wash for me. In rounds I've recently judged, a lot of debaters extend the shell but din't answer the args of the opponent made on the shell proper. Make sure the shell is more than just base extensions, if there is no warrented answer outside of the extension I'll err on the opponents side or it could be a wash depending on how the round breaks down.
My threshold for disclosure theory is really high, I don't by it in general be forewarned. The work has to be done really well, I'll still evaluate it but it is super easy for me to by a reasonability claim on this. Same thing goes for friv theory shells.
They be chillin. I think good substance debate is always dope, but with that being said please provide a clear link story. If the strat is winning off just the DA, you need to give me a ballot story and tell me what the impact is, please don't just extend the card and move on.
Im chill with PICs, but please warrant out how they are different than the aff.
You need to answer perms, a conceded perm is damning. By the end of the 2N I need a clear an extension of the CP Text, the net benefits, and solvency advocate. Please tell me why the CP is competitive with the aff, and why it does the advocacy better. If not explicitly stated in cx I presume all cps are condo so if kicked, just say it at the top of the flow.
I have an average grasp on phil, meaning I have a decent understanding of Kant, Hobbes, and Butler. If you plan on doing very heavy phil or something that is not very common, please do extra explaining. If you aren't sure if what you want to read would fall under this, please ask me, or default to extra explaining. If you spread through long jargon heavy tag lines at top speed, I will likely not catch all the nuances and/or be confused on what the card does. Don't read phil just to be tricky, if you cant explain your framework to a fifth grader its too tricky. If your framework defends morally reprehensible things and you defend those things I will vote you down, and your speaks will suffer.
I will evaluate them but my threshold for the ballot is higher. IF the sole way you plan on winning the round is by spikes and tricks, PLEASE heavily warrant them out. Spend more than just 5 seconds extending it and say why dropping the spike causes the W. Additionally, if the spike has to do with any prefiat/k/phil implications weigh them against said arg and make the path to the ballot really clear. If its just a quick extension and moved on I probably wont vote on it, time needs to be spent on spikes.
Im chill with any type. I did a lot of role of the ballot and value criterion debate. Honestly I'm chill with whatever you do bro, have fun make the round fun for you. The only stipulation is that i need you to warrant back your offense to the framework, whatever it may be. Please answer opposing framework, or say that you concede to theirs. If not stated otherwise I default to ROB over Value/Standard and ROJ over ROB.
Yeah I know most people don't have a section for this, but basically this is just me asking you to please layer, especially if it is a T/Theory vs K debate. My presets if no layering is done is K, T, Theory, Framing, Substance. I also default to Prefiat over Postfiat offense.
I do speaks based on the whole of the round. Things that factor in are strategic decisions and how far I think the way you debated in the round will get you in the tournament. If you are rude, aggressive, say something morally repugnant, demeaning to your opponent, etc., I will tank your speaks. Additionally I will say clear or loud however many times as needed and it will not effect speaks; however, I flow by ear and not doc. This means if you are unclear and I cant understand what you are saying I wont flow it so it wont be in the decision even if a doc is sent.
Please give trigger/content warnings if you read something that is potentially triggering.
I will auto down if you are blatantly mean, egregiously rude, and/or say/do anything explicitly exclusionary.
If not stated anywhere else I default to presumption on the aff.
If anything here didn't make since please ask me questions before round, but please ask specific questions, not just what is your paradigm.
That being said, you do you, Im chill with whatever. Have fun learn some things, and good luck with debate/life in general.
I am cool with tag teaming cross, flex prep, and skipping grand cross as long as both opponents are chill with it. You can read T/Theory or K's in PF but I will hold them to the same standard as I would for LD in both reading and responding. That being said if you read a progressive arg in PF to be tricky and do not know how to run said arg yourself, your speaks will suffer. Additionally, since PF doesn't have fiat, the K link has to be explained in a way that doesn't rely on fiat since it does not exist in PF. If the link isn't explained clearly with this in mind I will by almost any no link arg, keep this in mind when writing/running k's in this event. My threshold for T/Theory in PF is also super high. If your opponent is obviously new to the event and disclosure theory, it is easy for me to by any/all reasonability claims.
I usually don't judge these, however, if I am your judge in a speech event the things I care about most is the analysis. If it is FX, DX, or OO the analysis is the most important part of the speech and where a majority of your rank comes from. If the analysis is unclear on the implication or solution your rank will suffer. Additionally for extemp specifically make sure the sub points tie back to the answer clearly and that the analysis done supports the answer you chose.
i competed in policy debate for 4 years and debated on the national circuit.
put me on the email chain - email@example.com
***i flow on paper. when reading topicality, theory, or framework arguments, please slow down. if i don't flow an argument, it's because you did not articulate it clearly.***
-- topicality --
i generally default to competing interpretations, but most certainly can be persuaded otherwise. have thorough explanations of the internal link and impact - repeating the phrase "they explode limits" 5 times tells me nothing.
-- counterplans --
good counterplan debates are great to watch. explain why the counterplan is distinct from the affirmative and why it solves. aff specific counterplans are always better than generic ones.
-- disadvantages --
have impact analysis and comparison of internal links. turn case arguments are important and underutilized. always answer the framing debate. there should be comparison between models of decision making. surface level, tag-line phrases about extinction being irreversible aren't enough to persuade me to value extinction first, especially when aff teams have well warranted framing args - the 2nr needs a clear, warranted link story, particularly true with politics disads because the evidence is notoriously shallow
-- kritiks --
for neg teams reading the k: no large overviews, i'd rather have that explanation done on the line by line. regarding framework, i generally default to weighing the aff. framework on the kritik is a link-framing argument. i need warrants why your interpretation/model of debate/role of the ballot is preferable and/or resolves the affirmative's offense. why should i utilize your framing as the lens through which i make my decision?
have specific links to the aff. even if you read a generic piece of link evidence, you can still utilize the warrants in that evidence and contextualize it to rhetoric or action of the 1ac. if you're making an ontology claim, i won't just vote on ontology - you still need a link to the aff. you should make arguments as to why the links turn the case.
i'm not familiar with a majority of kritik literature, so don't assume that i know what you're talking about. please explain your theory/thesis. buzzwords are vague and don't actually articulate the implication of your argument. i need to know what the alternative is, what it does, and why is the ballot necessary. arguments about why the alternative resolves the impact of the affirmative are always useful. generally i think you need an alternative in the 2nr, but can be convinced that you don't - just explain why
***no death good/death inevitable args -- i don't find those arguments persuasive at all***
aff teams debating the k: far too often i think affirmative teams are too defensive and aren't prepared to defend why the aff is good. have reasons why discussions about the 1ac and its content are good for debate. framework interpretations along the lines of "neg should read a competitive policy option" are not that strategic or compelling. make sure you're responding to the negative's specific framework standards.
the 2ac should line by line each link argument; waiting till the 1ar will put you behind in the debate. don't group the all of links. saying "their ev is not specific to the affirmative" is also no a sufficient response. you should address the argument made by their evidence and explain why the aff doesn't say/do that. please explain what the permutation is and how it functions. have warranted analysis as to why the permutation resolves the negative's offense.
-- k affs/performance/framework --
i'm more inclined to vote for framework but can definitely be persuaded to vote against it. i need to know what your model of debate looks like and how that compares to their model of debate.
neg teams: just like with topicality, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. fairness is probably more of an internal link to education than its own impact, but you should make the argument that fairness is an intrinsic good. you'll likely need a tva otherwise aff arguments about why you exclude their education become more convincing.
aff teams: i'd prefer that the 1ac would have a close connection to the topic. i need to know what the 1ac means and what it does. if the speech act of the 1ac is significant, why? why does the ballot have a causal influence on that?
-- theory --
what specifically did your opponent do? why did that make it structurally more difficult for you to debate? new affs bad and aspec are 2 arguments in debate i never want to vote for. please slow down when you're reading theory.
-- for LD debaters --
everything i said above about how i evaluate policy debates applies to LD too.
i don't like a lot of the theory stuff that y'all do. if you must go for theory, like any other procedural argument, have a well-developed internal link and impact explanation. i won't vote on an RVIs. they don't make sense, and you shouldn't be punished for reading a theory argument.
-- for PF debaters --
at the beginning of the round, the team speaking first should start an email chain. both teams should email out your entire case before your first constructive speech. in speeches after the first constructive, send out all the evidence you read *again before the speech* -- the amount of time wasted after/in between speeches asking for and sending evidence is ridiculous -- if you don't flash evidence, that will be reflected in your speaker points
-- last updated for the Longhorn Classic 2022 --
I would like to be on the email chain
Most important stuff:
I like clash and heavy interaction between the opposing sides, going line by line is great.
Make sure your philosophical arguments are clear and concise.
Make sure as aff that you provide strong links to your impact. Solvency is critical.
Make sure your claims have warrants
CP and K's are fine
Try to be as clear while speaking as possible, can speak at your preferred speed.
Do not steal prep.
Be kind and respectful.
Newark Science | Rutgers-Newark
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
If it matters, I've done basically every debate style (LD/CX in high school. CX, BP, PF, LD, Civic, and Public in college). I don't care what you read as I've probably just about made every argument from policy action good to talking about grandmas. Throughout my career, I read trad args, Kant, Hartman, Bataille, Disclosure, Wilderson, Gumbs, Wipeout, Politics DA, T, framework, etc.
My only real rule is don't make the room an unsafe space. I've always loved the creativity that debate allows so I would implore you to be free and do what you want as well because I genuinely don't care. Debate's a different game than when I was in it and I'm just here to follow the vibes. Please remember I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it.
- Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine.
- Having an impact is good. Doing impact weighing is great.
- Efficiency is good! Arguments being grouped is fun and shows me that you have a strategic vision of what is necessary to win and what arguments are connected, etc.
- Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient).
- Don't be lazy. For example, even if case is conceded, the aff should still be in the 1/2AR (do not dedicate the whole time to it but remember to use the strategic pieces of your aff that you built).
- I am offering a shoulder to cry on or an ear to listen when debate forgets that they should be creating good people. Don't be afraid to find me or talk to me after a debate or whatever. I do wellness checks when I can (and I have/will hold up a round or 2 to do so).
Trix (or Tricks): Please don't play with me.
THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THE 1AC IS SENT PRIOR AND THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE SPEECH STARTS BY THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF THE START TIME IS 8:00AM I EXPECT THE 1AC TO BE SENT BY 7:58 AND THAT THE SPEECH STARTS EXACTLY AT 8:00AM. YOU SHOULD NOT START SETTING UP THE EMAIL CHAIN AT 8:01.
Email: email@example.com [Add me to the chain]
About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD and did a little CX. I debated at Northwestern for a little. I teach at LD camps in the summer.
- Tech > Truth
- Judge instruction is axiomatic
- Assume I don't know anything about the topic or about your author or philosopher
- Assume 0 level of familiarity and debate accordingly. I'll listen to anything but its your obligation to explain your position
- Don't assume I accept common norms even those widely accepted
- I don't default to anything and you should obviously instruct me on paradigm issues
- I'm not flowing off the doc and won't look at the doc/cards unless I need to after the round (9/10 times I don't need to)
- Don't wait for me for the email chain, I'll get it if I need it post round
- I flow what I hear not what I read - if I miss any analytics that are blitzed through, thats your fault
- Its your job to explain and extend cards properly
- Clipping and evidence ethics violations are left in the hands of the debaters
- Prep time ends when the doc is sent.
- PLEASE BE CLEAR. I will yell CLEAR if you are not clear. CLEAR doesn't mean SLOW
- Don't start at full speed and slow down on tags/analytics/theory.
- Go as fast as you want as long as you are CLEAR.
- I am not a flowbot and I do need pen time.
- If you think you are clear you probably aren't. You should be doing a minimum of an hour of clarity drills a week
- I feel more comfortable saying "I do not have this on my flow" and "I did not understand this argument"
- You can debate whatever and however you want as long as you're not violent and you do not make the space unsafe
- Decision calc is who has the most offense under the highest framework - this means frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. Else I'm presuming util
- ****I don't know analytic philosophy or LD fw tricks. I will evaluate and listen to this, but for dense/intricate philosophical debates please slow down and explain or else things will go over my head.
- I like good theory debates but HATE bad ones. I won't categorically reject bad theory argument, my threshold for responses will be low though. This doesn't mean I'm the judge for theory BS.
- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will lose for evidence ethics violations
- You will get good speaks if you give good speeches (judge instruction, good overviews, line by line, and crystallization), have some personality, and don't debate like a robot
- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you should justify your practice. I love a good clash debate and hold no biases. (In high-school I never defended the topic and in college 85% of my 2NRs were on Topicality, do with this information what you will). If procedural fairness is your thing go for it. If impact turns are your thing go for it. This is your debate/activity, not mine
- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out
- Didn't do Policy long enough to know the meta and norms too well. All this means for you is you probably shouldn't assume I know some jargon, norm, or some innovative strategy and just err on the side of explanation
- Order of debates I feel the most comfortable adjudicating: 1. K v K | 2. Clash Debates | 3. Policy V K | 4. Policy v Policy | 5. T vs Policy | 6. LD Theory | 7. Phil/Tricks
Observations from judging:
- I'm not the judge for a debate with 7 theory shells, I will listen to this but you most likely will not like my decision. Yes you can use theory as a strategic tool but you better be really ****ing good at it.
- "Insert re-highlighting" is not acceptable. If its not read, I'm not considering it.
- Debaters seem to give black examples when I'm judging and this sometimes makes me uncomfortable. e.g "so you're saying if I were to punch a black person in the face for no reason, your fw justifies that"
- Graphic descriptions of antiblack violence triggers me. Also please examine your relationship to blackness and antiblack violence
- I wont kick the CP for you unless you tell me to AND justify why i should. I won't make assumptions for you
- Just because someone makes a bad theory argument doesn't mean you don't have to answer it. Don't assume that I "obviously know that this is frivolous theory"
- ****I've noticed Util v Kant debates to be confusing. Please give me big picture explanations for why I prefer your FW. Don't just do the line by line and expect me to decipher through it. I will be confused, you must tell me meta level decision making reasons to prefer you FW.
- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Iowa ST vs Berkeley FU debates" I simply do not know or give a _____ about these teams
- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.
- Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!
Hi, my name’s Jackson, and I look forward to judging your round. I did LD, extemp, and a little Policy in high school, from which I graduated in 2020. You can run anything*, but for theory arguments especially make sure you actually explain them, as I won’t vote for what I cannot understand, even if it is dropped. Spreading is fine so long as I have the speech doc. Please give voters, and actually weigh impacts. If you don’t weigh and your opponent does, then I’m going to go with their weighing, and you will probably lose. Also, signpost! If I cannot flow it, then you didn’t say it. I don’t disclose, but I do give notes after round.
*except disclosure theory. Which I think is ruining debate
firstname.lastname@example.org thats my email before you ask.
I have sections below specific to each category, so just scroll and look for the bolded section you are interested in.
Experience: I am currently the head coach for Neenah high school Speech & Debate (but currently only assisting in LD/PF... if that makes sense? I do all the other things) and have been a coach for the last 6 years. I have students who compete locally as well as nationally- we had the national champion at NSDA in Congress, and a Quarterfinalist in LD, a national competitor in Speech, middle school nats nationa runner up....so I have judged all over the place. This is my ninth year as a judge ('22-'23). I judge all categories, except varsity policy. I was not a debater in school, so I have a more basic understanding of the more obscure things that go on in debate.
"I have 5 minutes and wanted to check your paradigm quick, whats the headlines?"
Congress is my JAM. I love it and I prefer to see that level of enthusiasm/preparation from the participants.
I wasn't a debater- explain things clearly or I drop arguments I don't understand. ***note on that- I understand the terms of debate (link, turn, impact, etc), just not more niche philosophies and less popular arguments***
Be nice to each other- respect will get you far with me
Impact calc and weighing of final arguments is the best strat with me
Don't argue with me in RFD. If I drop you and you think you should have won, explain it better next time.
I can handle spreading, but if you can't... don't. It's awkward to have to tell you that you don't make sense.
Use a timer, and stick to it- I hate it when kids go over time. I stop flowing within 5 seconds of the end of your time. I will not warn you about this- you know your time limits.
Okay, I love these little things I have seen on other paradigms, so hopefully this helps.
For your pref sheets: (1 being top pref, just to be clear)
K's 1<-------------------------------X------>5 (I like them, but I feel like I am not a good judge for them)
Policy – 1<----X--------------------------------->5 /strike
Phil – 1<-------------------X------------------>5
Tricks – 1<-------------------------------------X>5 Actually... X. <== I HATE them. Please don't run them.
Trad – 1<--X----------------------------------->5
See below for more in-depth explanations divided by category
Behavior: You are acting as a member of congress- keep that in mind in how you behave! Please make sure to respect the rules of your parli and PO. For the love all that is good, please pay attention to the round. This is far more fun when everyone participates! If I see you on your phone for more than a minute at a time I will be annoyed. Obviously you can answer a text or check the time quick, but if you are disengaged I will notice and I will not be happy.
Speeches: I LOVE *actually* extemporaneous speeches. Please breathe some life into your words- you are trying to make your fellow congresspeople vote for or against the bill! Make sure you include stats, citations, and some analysis of other speaker's points. I believe that if legislation is up for debate, there is current research to be read about it, thus I expect you are only using sources from AT MOST the last 5 years. Better if they are from the last 3. A good, weird AGD is fun. Please avoid the common Taylor Swift/Disney/over used quote choices though. Bonus if you can make me a crack a smile with it! (not really a "bonus," but I remember them when I am doing my rankings- which helps your placement)
PO's: Have a CLEAR sheet for people to follow, keep it updated. If you make a mistake, fix it and move on quickly. LEARN your chamber's names. It is so awkward to hear POs continually mess up the names in the chamber. If you need it, but a phonetic pronunciation spot in your sheet and ask them to put their name in that way for you. I tend to rank PO's high, as long as they are engaged and well versed in the congress rules, (or at least learning them!) if they are not engaged and EFFICIENT, they can expect a low ranking. I can't stand it when a PO says a whole 30 second thing after every speech and questioning block.
Questioning: Ask short, clear questions. Don't have a ton of lead up. I don't mind if you need to argue with each other a bit, but keep it civil and don't cut each other off unless its clear they are wasting your time or are not answering the question. It drives me insane to have a silent room for questions and no opposition to a bill, please ask lots of questions! It plays into my ranking- great speeches will only get you so far with me! If you don't ask any questions in a bill cycle, don't expect a rank of over 6 from me. This hold true even if you didn't speak on the bill. It doesn't require research to think critically and ask thoughtful questions.
Recesses: Keep them short. Do not ask for more than 5 minutes between bills- I am not willing to extend the end of the session to accommodate the chamber wasting time during the session.
Overall Preferences: I can't stand it when kids want to break cycle to just give a speech. I realize this isn't your fault, but that means the debate is stale and we need to move on. Unless you are giving a whole new perspective on the bill, you are far better off moving on to a new bill and giving a speech there. I am especially critical of these speeches in terms of quality of content and sources, because if you are insisting we listen to your extra speech, it must be REALLY good and worth not moving on.
Preferences: Please be clear and professional in round. I hate that the attitudes and behaviors seen in other styles is seeping into PF. As noted in other sections, I was not a debater, so don't expect me to know every single term you share. Generally, if I make a somewhat confused face, define your term.
A few things I love to see: Please, collapse arguments. It's so awesome to watch a veteran team (or even a novice team) weigh arguments and determine the largest impacts and points in the round and weigh them against each other, rather than slowly increase their speed in through the debate to try and get every single argument in to the last speech. Spreading has no place in PF- stop trying to make it happen, its not going to happen.
A few things I hate in rounds: Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. If you want cards, fine... but ask for them all at once and get it over with quickly. It is super annoying to go through CX and then have a 15 minute "card trade" before getting back into debate.
Preferences: This is what the majority of my students do. I will flow everything and I will say clear if necessary, but only once before I stop flowing you. I was not a debater, so my knowledge of really weird arguments is lacking. Let me say that again. I WAS NOT A DEBATER- EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN. It has become more and more common to use really dense philosophies in your framing- this is something I have little experience with. Make sure to explain your super specialized philosophy carefully or I can't use it as a weighing mechanism. I encourage you to run whatever you like, but explain it very well, especially if it is not something common. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure if it is common- like I said I am not well versed in most of the different arguments. In terms of speed I judge a lot of policy, so I would say I am comfortable with most speeds seen in LD.
A few things I love to see in round: Please weigh & tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be. Signpost clearly- I love hearing you tell me exactly what the "uniqueness" is, the "link" and the "impact. It makes it much easier for me to organize my flow. If you have nearly identical frames, I love to see kids recognize that and show how they can fit into each other's frame, rather than making the round about whether I should weigh using "limiting suffering" or "increasing societal welfare." Let's be honest, those are pretty similar, and if you fit in one you probably can fit in the other.
A few things I hate in rounds: Swearing- This seems like an obvious one, but is lacks professionalism if it is not needed to actually make the points. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. Last thing: if you run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent and then you have a case against your opponent, expect me to completely drop your fairness argument. You just proved that you lied about the fairness since you prepped that argument. Use your time to prepare blocks and responses instead of wasteful and lazy theory shells.
Preferences: I do not like any tricks or unprofessional behavior in round, but snark is always okay. I prefer not to hear teams talking to each other while their opponents are presenting, as it is distracting to me as a judge. Open speeches are a no-go. If you don't have your own stuff ready, then take prep time. If you're out of prep time, organize yourself better next time. I generally only judge novice policy once in a while, so be aware you might be my only round this year, and I probably don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area.
I am fine with spreading, (probably a 6/10 for speed) however if you are not understandable, I will only tell you clear once before I stop flowing you. Please be aware of your own speaking issues- for example, if you have braces and rubber bands, you probably should not spread, since you will be almost unintelligible. On the topic of spreading- I understand it is a strategy to get as many arguments in as possible, but be aware that a large breadth of arguments you do not understand is basically useless.
Impact calc is huge for me. If I don't clearly hear you explain why your impacts are bigger or more important, I judge completely by what is on my flow. DA's and CP's are fine in a round, and good experience for a novice/Post nov. I always flow cross x, and keep track of questions asked. I do not want to see a framework in novice policy.
Misc. Stuff for any style debate:
-I am not about speaker points- I think its a really biased system, but I do it because its required. I would not consider myself generous with points, but I try to be fair with the way the system is set up. That said, if you’re mean to your opponent I will substantially dock your speaks. If you can’t control your round without being disrespectful there is something wrong. Since I have been asked, I average about 28 for speaks.
-I don't flow things from CX unless I am told to. I find it to be one of the more telling parts of any round about who has stronger arguments and better understands the content, but if you want it to weigh in to my decision, you need to bring it up in speeches.
-Please understand whatever you’re running before you run it in front of me- it is super frustrating to hear kids hem and haw about defining terms when they didn't take time to understand what they are saying.
-I dislike timing rounds and I've found I'm extremely inaccurate. I will keep time, but it is best if we have multiple timers going to ensure accuracy. Please time yourselves and hold your opponent accountable so that I don't have to. I HATE having to cut people off because they are over time- I actually prefer if their opponent has a timer that goes off so I can hear it.
TLDR: Be respectful, know & define your stuff, use current sources, watch your time.
Hey! I have another paradigm up with some more judging history but my name is Abhived and I am a Freshman at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign! TOC 2X. I am an incredibly lazy judge.
I am very very expressive. I frown, stick my eyebrow up, and do other rlly obvious things when I don't like an argument. Please do not go for said argument. I will note vote on the silence pic or any other argument that was not read.
No Google Docs! Download the Doc and send it in the chain or file share.
Please slow down! if 1 is lay speed and 10 is Aadit Walia on a fast day then I can handle a 6.5- maybe a 7. I am not very good at flowing.
The less time you take in your speech to win the higher speaks you will get. If you win the debate with more than half of the time left in your speech you will get a W30 in front of me, regardless of who your opponent is.
If you are debating against T/Theory in the 2A extend case. Bare minimum.
My email is email@example.com
I am a good judge if:
- You are good at the K
- You enjoy fun tricks + friv theory debates
- You are really good at explaining your stock Phil position
- 2N on Framework
I am a mid judge if:
- You are meh at explaining your phil
- You are a legit theory/T debater
I am a bad judge if:
- You are an intense policy debater. I judged one good policy round this year and it made my head hurt.
- We are in an intense phil v phil debate
- You over adapt and are reading buzzwords for a K that no one understands
A couple more things:
- No misgendering- speaks will get slashed after the second time and I will be more than happy to down you if your opponent asks me to
- Plz don't read the Small Schools Disad on T fw- I think that the argument is poop
- If you are debating a nonblack debater reading pess or Warren, all you need to do is breathe the words nonblack pess bad to get a W
- Postrounding is good. If I can not defend my decision I probably did not make the right decision + you are holding me accountable. Don't be super rude and we won't have any issues.
Current:PhD student @Rice
Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,
For Last Chance Qual:
Debate stock, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not at 300 wpm.
Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump
I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.
"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."
I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.
Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).
for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.
If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~
If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.
I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.
It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.
I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.
I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.
Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"
NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.
Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.
On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.
ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:
PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.
Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy and am best at judging policy arguments. (P.S. I realized that I tend to give way higher speaks in substance debates. Take that as you wish)
Policy - 1
Theory/T - 1
K (security, cap, set col) - 2
K (anything else) - 3
Phil/Tricks – 3
- Tech > Truth
- Fairness > Education
- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory
- T/Theory > K
- Comparative Worlds
- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD
- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.
- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.
- No buffet 2nrs please
- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously
- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar
- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation.
- Stealing prep
Things I'm not voting on
- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure).
- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater.
- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument
- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".
- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)
- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge.
- Likes: impact calc, ev comparison, plans with tight scenarios and big impacts, rehighlighting ev, cheaty CPs, reading theory against cheaty CPs, "the order is case"
- Dislikes: not weighing, old/no UQ, underhighlighted ev, plan flaw, other debater: asks you a cx question about your ev you: "where is it/that", literally extending your tags in the 2NR
- Somewhat familiar with most K lit at this point, but refuse to fill any substantive gaps in your explanation.
- Likes: robust line by line, root cause, link turns case, good fwk debates, pulling lines from the aff, actual alt solvency, set col vs phil, specific links to the plan
- Dislikes: massive overviews, "what's a floating PIK", the "state" link, the current standard for a sufficient explanation of ontology, no perms in a method debate
K Aff/T Framework
- Affs need solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Negs need an answer to aff solvency and a robust defense of their model of debate
- Likes: testing, fairness, intuitive aff counterinterps, Non T aff vs one off Cap K, TVAs, actual solvency
- Dislikes: "T is violence/policing", 6 minutes of my coaches prewritten fwk 2NR, 3 minutes of my coaches prewritten A2 fwk 2AR, blitzing through the 1ACs theory of power, "we don't need solvency", 2NRs that ignore case
- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)
- Don’t assume I have read your literature. BUT, I will still evaluate just like I would any other type of debate. I just need a very clear extension of why your framework comes first/is true.
- Likes: extinction first, fun calc indicts, Blum, TJFs, going for turns under their fwk
- Dislikes: not reading a fwk in the AC, not reading a fwk in the NC when the AC doesn't read one, the "pragmatism" aff, TT takes out theory, hidden triggers in the fwk
- I will evaluate them the same as any other argument as long as I hear a claim, warrant, and impact.
- Likes: warrants
- Dislikes: "what's an apriori?", condo logic, indexicals, if the negs response to your trick is that it negates just as much as it affirms - you probably shouldn't read it!
- Love it!
- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier.
- Likes: robust weighing, caselists, infinite regress vs spec, combo shells with unique offense
- Dislikes: poor explanation of semantics, 5 second 1AR shells, 2NR theory that isn't severance
- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.
- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.
- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).
Hi, I'm Adrita! McNeil '22 UT Austin '26
I did LD for 4 years, competing on the tfa circuit mostly and some on the nat circuit before online debate burnout lol. I qualified to TFA state my sophomore junior and senior yearsm breaking my senior year, as well as NSDA nats as a junior.
I will vote off of anything that isn't morally repugnant (sexism/homophobia/racism/etc. good) as long as you are doing the work to tell me why you're winning. That being said, I was a policy debater for the most part so I understand the CP/DA debate the best but this did become boring at times so I occasionally ran T/theory, Ks (cap/set col), and low level phil (kant/rawls/hobbes type stuff).
please don't read tricks. or an underview with 76 blips where 1 becomes 3 min of the 2ar. also friv theory is a pretty hard ballot to win in front of me, my threshold for a response is very low. also eval after 1nc/1ar will make me upset
1 - larp
2 - T/theory, K(cap/set col), phil (basic kant/hobbes/rawls)
3 - dense pomo/id pol Ks, anything beyond basic phil, K affs
4 - friv thoery/tricks (i will be sad if i have to judge tricks)
random things: time yourself, i'm good with flex prep, idc if u sit or stand during speeches
speaks go down if your mean
speaks go up if you make good strategic choices, or make me laugh
good luck, have fun, and make sure you're learning! ask me any questions you want
Last updated - 3/10/23
Garland HS - '20
The University of Texas at Austin - '24
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX)
LARP - 1
T/Theory - 2
K - 2-3
Phil - 2-3
Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)
TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom
Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)
People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox
debate is a game
Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.
CX is binding
DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)
1AR theory is cool
Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)
(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)
Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)
- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.
- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.
- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.
- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.
- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(
- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.
General notes I think are important:
- BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.
- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.
- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.
- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.
- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.
- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.
- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.
- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.
- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.
- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.
- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.
- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.
- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with
- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!
- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.
- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)
- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.
- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.
- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.
- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics
- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.
- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.
- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.
- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.
- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.
- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!
- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.
- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.
- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.
- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.
- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.
- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.
- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.
- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.
- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.
- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?
- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.
- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.
- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.
- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.
- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.
- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.
- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!
- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.
- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).
- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.
- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.
- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.
- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.
- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.
- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.
- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.
- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.
- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.
- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)
- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.
- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.
- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.
- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.
- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.
I'll up speaks for doing the following:
- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)
- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality
- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1
Tristan Rios (they/them)
BTW looking for teams to coach, feel free to reach out via email
Email - Trisrios6955@gmail.com - plz put me on the email chain
for organizational reasons please make the subject of the email chain "Tournament - Round # - Aff team v Neg team" or something similar
who on hell is Tristan?
I am currently debating at UT Dallas (2022-Present), I have been debating for 6 years prior - 2 years at Lopez Middle school (2016-2018) , and 4 years at Ronald Reagan High school (2018-2022)
last year i was an assistant coach at Coppell as well as a coach for a few individual cx and ld teams
I have done it all, from occult horror storytelling to trans theory to baudrillard, to the all foreboding framework makes the gamework, the kids i coach also go for a very wide variety of arguments from exclusive k teams to policy fascists. Both me and the kids I coach have gotten bids and been to the toc. I state this not as a flex but more so to state that even though I may seem very k leaning (and I admit it is the literature i read the most in my freetime) I have successfully coached and am aware of a wide variety of argumentative styles which means you will do best if you do you, dont try to adapt. if I think an argument is bad that doesn't mean i dont evaluate it, it just means i have a higher expectation for the other team to answer it well.
- trigger warnings
- anysort of interpersonal "-isms" that is done from debater to debater
- generic links are fine as long as they are contextualized to the aff
- I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
- I default to viewing every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact IF not told otherwise. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
- I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.
if u send blocks during the debate +0.3 speaks
if u open source + 0.1 speaks
Note for LD:
i know alot of tech judges have a strange amount of distaste for evaluating traditional debate, but dont worry about that with me, i will happily judge the round regardless of your stylistic preferences
I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 24 twenty four years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.
My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.
Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the head coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.
Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.
I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.
Add me to the email chain! firstname.lastname@example.org
LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.
PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.
CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.
Congress for TOC: I normally judge LD, but I have some experience coaching congress. I haven't seen a full round in a long time though. I'd say I am most impressed by funny intros, unique arguments, and strong cross. I probably don't care quite as much about evidence, presentation, or decorum as the typical congress judge - well reasoned and defended arguments will do just fine. Passion and sass can also be good if done well.
General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.
- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.
- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.
- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.
- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.
- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them
- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.
Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.
I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.
T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.
T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.
Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.
Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.
Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.
Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.
Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.
How do I get a 30?
I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:
1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC
2) A good analytic PIC
3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting
4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before
5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well
6) Successfully going for an RVI
Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.
I coach Baylor Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.
If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.
Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.
I think affs that are unrelated to the topic are lazy.
Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.
Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.
There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.
-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?
-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.
-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.
-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.
-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.
-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.
-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.
More category specific stuff below, if you care.
From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.
I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.
1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.
2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.
My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.
1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.
2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".
Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.
Not much needed to be said here. Have good internal link analysis. You don't need to be a poly sci major, just be knowledgeable about what you're reading. Econ, Biz Con and of course Heg are among my favorites here.
- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.
- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.
- Solvency comparison is rather important.
Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.
Perhaps contrary to popular opinion, I'm rather even on this front.
I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.
Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.
Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.
Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.
Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.
Note: My paradigm has changed a lot, mostly in the sense that I am more obvious about my biases. For people who pref me for general shenanigans, know that I am pretty much equally good for judging you except for minor adjustments to the tricks section.
Fine for all arguments. I presume debate is a game but can be convinced otherwise. I have my personal beliefs about debate but will (mostly) not interject them absent extreme circumstances. I protect final rebuttals like they are newborn infants. I hate over/under-explanation.
I am not a litigator of character. I am not interested in voting on arguments that disparage someone's character or actions outside of the round. Frankly, I do not care and cannot verify what happened outside of speech times. If you advance these arguments, know that I find an RVI very persuasive.
Won't stop rounds absent something both a) obvious and b) heinous like harassment or communication with coaches. Evidence ethics is not a reason the debate should stop, and if you really care make a theory argument. Won't stop rounds for clipping but speaks will drop heavily and theory is convincing.
Phil - 1
Theory - 1/2
Policy - 2
K - 2/3
Tricks - 4
Speaker points are an evaluation of strategy, technicality, efficiency, and persuasion. Judges who say they aren't persuaded by ethos are lying.
Highly generous with speaker points if you forward good debating. A 30 is not impossible.
If there is any educational value to be garnered from this activity, it stems from this form of debate.
Fine for "cheaty" process CPs, PICs, agent CPs, and anything else people intuitively think is "unfair".
Not as adept as flowing/understanding dense competition debates as other seasoned policy veterans so you should slow down a bit and explain.
Insertions of evidence are fine unless your opponent contests it.. Explain the implications of re-highlighted evidence instead of just throwing 1AC cards in my face.
Default judge kick unless told otherwise. Won't read evidence unless told otherwise.
If you truly believe the K is more than a means to get the ballot, do not pref me.
I am familiar with a variety of literature bases, including but not limited to SetCol (Tuck, Yang, Rifkin), Weheliye/Wynter, Hardt and Negri, Marxism, Afropessimism (Warren, Wilderson), Foucault, Agamben, Deleuze, and Puar.
Moot the plan. Utilize your theory of power to bolster framework offense and draw one well-explained link to the affirmative. I have incredible respect for K teams who can execute this strategy non-generically, technically, and convincingly. Alternatively, nuanced link turns case analysis can be extremely strategic.
Truth over tech is idiotic. I cannot evaluate the validity of arguments absent evaluating them technically. If I really only voted on "the truth" in plan vs. K debates, I would literally never vote negative.
Your theories are asinine and unintuitive - adapt accordingly. I have no problem giving an RFD that amounts to "I do not know why this is true".
A lot of K evidence is vague and uses unnecessary jargon. I appreciate technical K debaters who collapse effectively, draw specific links to the plan, and give clear judge instruction.
K tricks are good but need to be more than 2-second blips in the 2NR. 1NC should have an indication the alt is a floating PIK. If the alt isn't material, I have a really high bar for an explanation on how it solves case.
Appeals to personal experience are easily disregarded. Debate is a competitive game, not therapy.
Defaults are CI, DTD, no RVI, comparative worlds, fairness/education matter, epistemic confidence, util, and presumption/permissibility negates (or goes to the side of least change).
"Frivolous" is a ridiculous term. If you win offense on the shell, it is not frivolous. Losing to Santa hat theory is a skill issue.
1AR theory is annoying and therefore strategic.
Slow down on texts/blocks. Do not jettison my ability to flow for the sake of spewing more arguments. Explain stuff like IRA/NCM.
I don't really have any nuanced opinions on non-framework topicality. Fine for semantics or limits, but limits is more intuitive.
Very comfortable. I'm familiar with Levinas, Kant, Virtue Ethics, Util, Contractarianism, Particularism, Skep, Rawls, Hobbes, Marxism, Deleuze, and Butler. Anything else I am probably at least vaguely familiar with.
Overview explanations are good. Err on over-explanation for dense phil / obscure stuff. Utilize well-explained hijacks.
Most (if not all) IVIs are stupid. These should not be a thing in final rebuttals absent fatal errors, but can be strategic time sucks.
I have zero preference as to whether or not you defend the topic, but you better be prepared for framework.
If debated equally, I will conclude that reading a topical plan is preferable to not reading one. I am, however, not a hack - the negative must articulate a limits DA, an impact to that DA, and why it outweighs/precedes affirmative offense. I am just as good for fairness as I am for skills, movements, and clash.
Extend defense to the impact turns the 2AR will inevitably go for. The bare minimum is either switch-side debate or a well-explained TVA that resolves most if not all of their offense.
Blippy one-liner IVIs make me nauseous. I will protect the 2NR from BS. You will not get new articulations of offense in the 2AR.
Too often the affirmative gets away with 1-pointing a PIK with a blippy permutation after spending an abhorrent amount of time on topicality, and then that 4 four-word permutation magically becomes 3 minutes of the 2AR. This strategy is cowardly and makes debate worse by mooting effective negative engagement, while also serving to annoy me.
Always impact turn the aff if you can. Tech good, heg good, cap, opacity bad, are all positions the 2AC/1AR will probably handle worse than framework. I am decent for the cap K against K affs.
I have judged exactly one K v K debate in my 96 rounds of judging (as of 4/25/2023) - not great for these rounds. These debates seem to be handwavy and have an aff bias, although content-wise they are very interesting.
TL;DR - I appreciate well-executed shenanigans. I do not appreciate poorly executed shenanigans.
I usually find these debates incredibly boring at the novice/intermediate level. I don't judge that many tricks debates that I find very enjoyable and thus have become less fond of these arguments. That is not to say that I am not willing to evaluate them, I am just not nearly as much of a goon for this type of argumentation as I was at the beginning of the 2022/2023 season. I am probably better at flowing these types of debates than most people.
Not voting on eval after the 1AC absent a resolution of the logic problem. New and innovative tricks are welcome - funny tricks are invited. If you read a prioris that aren't intuitively offense under a role of the ballot like comparative worlds, you need independent justifications as to why they matter. Slow down on complicated logic tricks.
I understand a novice's inclination to read these sorts of arguments, but for the sake of my and your opponent's sanity (and your speaker points), please read a disad.
I will unconditionally disallow new 2AR responses to 1NC arguments absent 1AR justification. Saying you get new 2AR responses in the 2AR is self-defeating.
I am firmly resolved to defenestrate myself if I have to judge this type of debate.
Earl Warren '19
UT Austin '23
I competed in Congress primarily but also did DX, IX, and LD.
Overall, I'm cool with just about anything. Do what YOU want, but do it well.
Please engage in clash if you're past the 3rd speaker. i mostly give 4-6 rankings for speeches. i'll normally rank the PO 4-8 if they didn't screw up big time.
LD and PF
- Tech > Truth, don't spend a lot of time on the value/criterion debate, & don't be mean.
'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework, meta-weighing, kritiks, plans, cps, disads, and (kinda) theory. trix are bad but I am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.
Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through, then, it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extend what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.
Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two arguments, then I will default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing, I will be forced to make the decision on my own.
Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow, but keep in mind that I have never been the best at flowing. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' three times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down.
Team cases are the worst, I prob won't be very happy to hear and judge a case that I have heard before and will likely give lower speaks. Team cases ruin the integrity of debate and make me sad :( -- The purpose of debate isn't to win, it is to develop yourself and your cognitive reasoning. Case writing and research is essential to that.
Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.
I disclose. I will always disclose. If time allows, I will always give oral RFDs. I prefer oral feedback because it allows for questioning. Post round me if you want to, I do not care. I keep a decent flow and am comfortable explaining my decision.
Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.
THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.
In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge
That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).
I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.
You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.
More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:
"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.
Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.
There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.
Basically: debate like it's trad LD."
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
Last updated Fall 2023 -
I'm a Second year out, I was in debate all 4 years in high school and competed in most events at varying levels and styles. I am currently a second year debating at Trinity University.
Add me to the chain --- firstname.lastname@example.org
Please make the subject with this format "[Tournament name] [Round number] [aff teamcode] v [neg teamcode]"
Send pet pictures/cute animal picture in the 1AC/1NC i wont give speaks but it is kinda funny otherwise.
Pref Short cuts --
Policy, and k - 1
Theory - 2-3
Phil Tricks 3-5
Tl:DR: I consider myself tabula rasa, but im certainly not without bias. I do start from the position that the 1AC should establish some advocacy and mechanism to justify it, and the neg should forward some reason the 1AC, 1ACs model of debate, etc is undesirable. This view is certainly not set in stone, my decision is always based on what happens within the debate, but absent an alternative way of viewing debate, that is how I default. Winning offense in the last speech and weighing it against other offense in the round is really what is most important for me. LBL and warrant analysis is everything.
After judging a few tournaments this year, I find that teams that don't establish a clear articulation of what my ballot does normally don't win in front of me. This looks different depending on what position you are going for, however i think what it really boils down to for me is explaining what my job is, how I'm supposed to view an argument/debate, and a clear articulation of what i do with an argument if it is or is not won is really what makes the difference between a confident decision and an unsure/confused one.
Speaker points - They are based on the strategic decisions made in a debate. Effective collapsing, weighing, and making your line by line easy to follow is how you get good speaks in front of me. Please signpost, i find it hard to follow debates when there is minimal or subtle signposting. please make it explicit so i know where to flow.
Speaker point note - I have noticed I'm not a speaker point fairy. I think whats really most important in getting good speaker points from me is executing a well thought out strategy. I think this is also needs to be supplemented with really good evidence. The people that get high speaks with me have a very solid stratagy from the 1NC, and they executed them with cards that have highlighted warrants and good explanations/extensions in the latter speeches.
Topicality & Theory -I really love technical T debates. However, i think many teams don't execute it very well and it makes it frustrating to judge. Whats most important for me in these debates is judge instruction and warrant explanation. as in, i find these debates normally leave me with a lot of questions that could easily be resolved with better impact calc, as well as better line by line the teams actual warrants. Essentially, when these debates are super block heavy and/or aren't executed well It can be frustrating to evaluate. When reading these positions please just clean it up in the final speeches and articulate a clear interp of what debate should be like, how they violate it, and why i matter with impact calc that explains why your thing matters.
Disad & Counter plan -Not much to say here, i really like these strategies a lot. Especially Explanation is really the most important thing for me. Ask specific questions pre-round or email me.
The K - I enjoy well executed Critical debates, but i have found that i really dislike poorly executed ks (aff and neg). I've spent most of my time in debate reading and learning about k debate and really enjoy it. Rather than just listing off all the lit bases I've heard of or read I"m just going to say I am down for anything. Explain to me what debate is, why we should be here, and win offense. Technical debate does not disappear in k debates without some justification for why i should abandon the flow, but that would itself require the flow so it's an uphill battle for me. K's as impact turns are really persuasive to me i've found, more so than when the alt is just framework, not that I am opposed to those flavors of ks, i just tend to like kritiks with large substantive components.
T - FW/USfg - I ideologically lean aff in these debates, i don't think affs have to be instrumental defenses of policy necessarily to be topical, especially in LD, however i find teams often don't execute and/or allocate enough time to the fwk sheet to realistically win the debate by the 2AR. This does not mean that you should not read critical affirmatives in front of me, the contrary, i really love these debates when done well, however I think the 1AR should be much more offensive in most k aff debates i judge.
Phil/Tricks - This is where i have spent the least amount of time thinking about in debate. I think this should not be your A strat with me in the back, I require a high level of warrant explanation for arguments like this because i think most tricks don't actually have warrants. Presumption and Permissibility negates unless told otherwise. Tricks need to still be extended correctly with a claim warrant and impact, if there was not a sufficient level of explanation of the argument in the 1NC/AC and it is pointed out then that would likely be sufficient to answer most tricks. I'm also likely extremely persuaded by any criticisms of trick debate or just some dump about why i reject them would likely be sufficient for me in most instances.
Note: I think it is almost impossible to win skep in front of me. I wont hack, but the 1AR uttering the words "pascals wager" and "morally repugnent" will always be wildly persuasive to me and I don't think there is a skep debater that will be able to explain to me why it is not unethical.
If you still have any questions please email me or ask me before the round!
I am a policy centered cross-x judge. I try to stay tab as much as possible and keep an open mind but I don't have the high-level experience that many other national-level judges have. I flow the speeches and take notes during cross-x. I will look at the doc to get the cites and try to read the evidence between speeches.
When you stop prep time, please be in the process of sending or uploading the speech doc. If you say "stop prep," do not turn around and whisper to your partner. If you are the 1NR and you say "no prep," do not start talking to the 2NC and you should have the doc already uploaded if you have new evidence.
I did not debate in college and I am not well-connected to NDT level trends.
As I get older, cognitively I am a little slower and a more concrete thinker. That being said, my weaknesses are high theory kritiks, performance / identity arguments, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplan theory.
I have no predispositions against arguments. I actually love innovative arguments like critical philosophy, kritikal affirmatives, and process counterplans but I just lack experience so my decision may be a bit unpredictable. I will defer to an offense-defense paradigm and list the offense that each team is winning and then decide which impact or framework I should choose based on the arguments. I will also try to compare the evidence if needed and use the arguments to compare warrants.
I do my best to get a tight flow but I can't get every word. If you are debating theory, you might want to go 90% of top speed and make sure you are enunciating well. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, and it won't be on the flow.
Topicality-I like topicality debate but I am looking for examples of cases that the other team would allow. I am looking for specific arguments that you will not be able to run. Saying "limits" and "ground" does not qualify as an extension. You will need at least 2 or 3 sentences to explain what that theory means, give examples of in-round or potential abuse impacts, and warrant out why I should down the team.
Theory-I can flow theory pretty well and I will vote on it. But again, you need to give a 2 or 3 sentence explanation of what the in-round or potential impacts are to your theory and why downing the team is merited. Extending taglines or buzzwords won't be sufficient.
Disadvantages-Make sure they are unique and the links are specific. Do impact calculus and compare the impacts.
Counterplans-I like counterplan debate. I like all types and am open to counterplan theory but just don't go too fast and be specific. "Perm: do both" might not always be sufficient. The affirmative may need to have a perm text that is written out and specific to what the perm does especially in a process round or advantage counterplan round.
Kritiks-Sure but I am not the most up to date on kritiks. I sometimes don't understand really dense theory and philosophy. I do prefer specific and timely links that interact with the assumptions of the case over generic links of omission. Framework debate needs to interact so if you are going for an identity or performance argument, I can't be expected to automatically vote for your framework; there needs to be a clear extension of the in-round and out-round implications of endorsing your specific framework and a comparison with the other teams framework. I do prefer kritiks that are timely and germane to the topic and connect to real-life events.
Case Debate-You probably are going to need this and it needs to specific and recent. There needs to be impact comparison and engagement with the warrants of the evidence.
sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions
I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. I studied rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.
update for berkeley/tfa '22: respectfully, i am not the girl you want on your LD elims strike card
tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. Don't over-adapt, just do what you do best.
I do my absolute best to intervene as little as possible. this means that whatever you give me to work with is what I have to work with - I cannot make arguments or suss out contradictions for you. the better you are at making meaningful distinctions, the happier you will be with the outcome. evidence alone does not constitute an argument, and the quality of your explanation always, always supersedes that of the ev. use your head.
clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.
topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks
theory - if you must
disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good
K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.
framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen
case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing
i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is fine
prep ends when doc is saved,
be nice & have fun
BIG QUESTIONS -- NSDA 2023
Never judged it, not really sure what I'm walking into, Im down for anything and whatever goes. Whatever "debate the topic" means is something you have to do, do it however works for you
LD Quick Pref List
Phil/K (non trix) -- 1
DA/CPs -- 1/2
T - 2
Phil (trickier) -- 3
Theory -- 4
Tricks -- 5/Strike
I'm Avery, call me Avery. I use She/her. I don't like being called judge. If you "Sir" me you will not be happy with your speaks at the end of the round.
email: email@example.com Put me on the email chain. The email chain should be set up before the round starts, NOT AFTER!
I debated for 4 years at Jack C Hays.
Not voting on cards written by current debaters
In college (22-23) I read Edelman and Cap on the Neg and read a Lacanian Legal Studies aff about Frankenstein. I've read a lot about a lot but always find myself drawn to the random psycho positions and pomo goo.
"techy but not super tech over truth"
I've coached weird plan affs and Phil positions this year -- I've thought a lot about Phil positions and find most of them read in ways that undercuts a lot of the "phil power" available to them.
I'm a massive fan of very weird but smart args. This has made my views on debate a lot more "flat" in that I'm much more open to being silly than before. Random generic Ks are very fun, i like seeing new weird things. I'm agnostic on a lot of meta questions of debate (yes plan no plan, fairness education, limits good bad clash good bad, all those types of things).
My opinions about the world don't leave when I enter the round and the same applies for every other judge in existence. Certain args are obvious no go-s such as transphobia good, racism good, sexism good, etc.
I will not be friendly towards misgendering/transphobia in debate and reserve the right to vote how I want at the end of the round. Don't want me to make interventionist decisions? Don't be transphobic. This event is rarely safe for many and enforcement is needed on these questions. This is an activity that should be safe for those involved in it. I would recommend avoiding gendering your opponent during the round, instead refer to the speech, arg, or if you must refer to the debater saying "the neg" or "the aff" will suffice.
Will I vote on death good? Yes, Happily.
I confirm that I have taken the Cultural Competency Judge Training course and agree I will do my best to provide culturally competent and inclusive feedback and decisions. My comments will only be related to the content and quality of the presentation or speeches themselves.
Explanation of views on debate and args -
ALL ARGS- Every arg in debate is either defense or offense. At the end of the day, the team with the most winning offense wins any debate, so make your offense clear.
K - I'm K competent, explain your thing. If you can't explain your thing I dont want to fill in the gaps for you so I'm not going to. I think LDers often don't enough framing with the K and just kind of have floating links and vague impacts, a coherent framework component to the 2nr solves a lot of this.
I've engaged and read a lot of the debate K literature, my personal interests as far as readings go should not influence what you go for. Pomo, Identity, etc (whatever arbitrary category you prefer) are all on the table. My personal interests as far as "critical" literature go are Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, and Marxism.
K Affs/Performance -- it helps a lot if they are tied into the resolution in some way as far as answering framework goes, but I dont think there by default needs to be a need for this. If you are going for a counter model that actually maybe solves things do that, if you want to just go for impact turns do that. As far as performance goes I find myself not really every doing more than writing "poem" on my 1AC flow and it never being brought up again. Performance should probably be tied into the whole speech act and not just "look I read a thing"
Framework vs K Affs -- I think a lot about framework debates and have become mostly opinionless on them. I find these debates conceptually really interesting but I'm not sure how much of that can ever be drawn out in LD. Do things with framework besides "limits good!" and engage the aff more.
Policy Affs vs K -- I tap out on extinction first a lot, but this is mainly due to lack of impact framing or weighing by the negative. If you are doing a framework push in the 1ar/2ar you need to implicate what winning it gets you/ why the links dont matter anymore etc on a substance level. I often find perm explanations from policy affs very lacking, I'd much rather judge an impact turn to the K than a nonsensical perm 2ar. How affs win this debate is by having offense on the the K at some substantive level (links, alt, impacts, not broad issues of "fairness"). Negs should be turning the aff in some way or interact on some level with the aff outside of "there is a link, moving on to impact." otherwise I'm left just evaluating between 2nr impact rambling versus 2ar impact weighing.
Very low threshold on some procedural arguments -- If debaters did a bad thing that I notice it will likely sway how I end up viewing arguments across other flows unconsciously anyways. Don't be afraid to go for "people doing bad things is bad and its a reason to reject." I'm pretty easily convinced if there is a "link"
Phil - Yes. I'm not a fan of the more tricks style affs but I get why they exist and I'll vote on the things. This includes like skep and induction.
I actually think a solid skep 1nc can be very convincing mainly due to people refusing to interact with these kinds of arguments. Induction fails is a winner, Skep is a winner, Moral Particularism is a winner. If you win some framework question that makes it so I either negate or CAN'T affirm the resolution with offense of why affirming would be bad or impossible then you will probably be in a good spot.
Policy Args - Yes they are good. Functionally and Textually compete, explain things. I don't go for or extend these things very often, but I promise I will follow whatever you do. Don't be afraid to go for a CP DA. LD basically just doesnt have enough time for these debates to get techy enough for me to get lost easily.
T - LDers please read an interp with definitions of the resolution l words, I'm not a fan of people just saying "grammar" or basing the interp on vague vibes the aff maybe did something bad. I try not to hold on to many defaults on T because I think debate about meta level questions should be largely up the debaters. Counter-interps should be extended, they should have standards, and they need reasons why they are good (I dont really care what the reason for it being good is, just make sure you answer the opponents args, otherwise T interps become two ships in the night).
RVIs on T is an arg I think is foundationally silly -- you dont get to win for following norms. However, drop or undercovered args are undercovered args, go for them if you must.
Theory - Most theory read I find pedantic and rarely a reason to DTD instead of DTA (except condo). Lean neg on condo in LD but very open to it being read. Strong tendency to not vote for AFC, ACC, Colt, TJFs, etc.
Probably not the judge if your A strat is 1AR theory restarts, but I will vote on it I just likely won't be very happy. These debates just end up becoming theory overview 2ars which become very intervention heavy to evaluate.
Disclosure is weird, I don't like voting on specific kinds of disclosure (open source, first three last three, etc). I think this is distinct from args such as "New affs bad" or "mis-disclosure." I do however think disclosure is a good norm and not very persuaded by a lot of arguments to the contrary -- going for disclosure bad is an uphill battle
22-23 CX NATO Topic -
I haven't judged a lot of debates on this policy topic. I'm probably not coming in to these rounds with a lot of the "topic baggage" acquired through out the year.
Updated June 2023
NSDA Nationals 2023: Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.
I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.
I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions before or after rounds.
I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.
Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and warrant arguments. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.
Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.
Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/
You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf
You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.
Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.
If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.
Prep Time Standards:
Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.
If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.
Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.
-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.
-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.
The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.
Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.
Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.
CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.
DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.
Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.
Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.
A little about me I competed for Tuloso Midway High School from 2017-2021. In terms of debate, I mainly did policy and occasionally did LD, WSD, and Congress. I competed for TFA, UIL, and NSDA.
I'm a tab judge, but default policy unless told otherwise, but I want you to debate what you're comfortable with, I am open to most arguments. While I'm familiar with different debate arguments, I haven't looked too much into the topic this year, so please please please explain your arguments thoroughly to me. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
I want you to write the ballot for me mainly in your last speeches. Do comparative analysis with evidence to prove why I should vote you up. Don't just keep repeating the tag lines but give me the warrants behind them. Lastly, tell me what impacts I should be prioritizing. I'm a big fan of impact calculus.
I'm okay with spreading but please don't spread if I literally can't understand anything you're saying. I prefer if you speak slower and I can understand everything you're saying. I will say clear if I can't understand what you're saying. Really important for speaks.
Something that's very important: Please be respectful of everyone in the round, I will not tolerate any kind of bigotry. Also please be nice to everyone in the round. I know debate rounds can become heated but keep everything respectful. Use this space as an educational sphere and have fun!
I mainly debated on the traditional and semi-progressive scale. T's, DA's, CP's, and policy affs were my thing and I ran K's later in my career. Examples include an open borders K aff, and K's such as cap, set col, afropes, neolib. I'll explain more in depth in the K category. However, as long as you explain the thesis of your argument, I'll listen to anything.
Aff: I mainly ran plan-text affs, but I'm familiar with K and performance affs. I'm open to both and really appreciate the literature, but I need you to explain the thesis to me thoroughly. I'm very comfortable with plan-text affs, but also be sure to explain the different parts the aff including harms, impacts, and solvency.
T's: I'm all in favor of voting for a T violation in the 2nr if ran correctly and convincingly. I do believe if you want to go for T it should be the only thing you go for, but if you go for T with other off case, I won't vote you down for it.
DA's: Love me a good disad. I mainly ran PTX DA's. I need you to explain the disad and convince me on every part of the disad. The uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I would love to hear case specific links, but if you only have generics then really explain to me why they link. Don't just say the disad outweighs please explain to me why.
CP's: Cool, CP's. tell me why it's mutually exclusive, how it solves the aff, and how it doesn't trigger the DA, and most importantly net benefit. Perm debate is really important to me.
K's: K debate wasn't my go-to but I really appreciated the literature and had a lot of round experience with it. I vote on framework and then the K proper. Please explain to me the link, impact, and alt. If I don't understand or see the world of the kritik, it'll be hard for me to vote for it.
Tech>Truth in most instances
Thanks :) If you have more in-depth questions just ask!
Things that can get you higher speaks:
- AUTO 30:doing a question on one of my math/cs psets
- AUTO 30 (for online): Give the 1AC/1NC with either your little brother/sister staring at the screen in the background or with your pet (dog/cat/turtle/etc.) in your arms/visibly near the screen
- +1.0: GETTING ME FOOD (protein bars/shakes and anything meat is nice, but nothing too unhealthy (except maybe boba))
- +1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
- +0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
- +0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
- +0.5: Reading unique and strategic tricks/theory that I haven't seen before
- +0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
- +0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Naruto, Office, One Piece, etc.)
- +0.3: Being funny
- +0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
- +0.2/-0.2: Feel free to play music pre-round: if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Lil Uzi Vert, and Trippie Redd, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
- Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task
I haven't judged/thought about debate in a little less than a year and I have no clue what the topic is so keep that in mind
I debated for 3 years at Strake Jesuit and got 12 bids. Email: email@example.com
Basic Phil: 1
Basic K: 2
Weird Phil/Weird K: 4
Debate is a game. Tech over truth. I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.
Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.
Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.
Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD) and just recently graduated with a Business degree from UT-Austin. I currently work at a FinTech firm as a Business Analyst and do part-time independent coaching. I do a decent amount of research so I can follow-on substantive topic jargon but don't be overly aggressive with acronyms.
email - firstname.lastname@example.org
Tldr - Won't intervene w/ the ballot but will w/ speaks. Most importantly, you do you. We all give up a lot of time to this activity and I'd much rather judge a good debate where you debate at your very best, with the arguments you're most familiar w/, then trying to adapt and doing so poorly. I am not the greatest flow - unlikely to catch arguments less than 5 sec in length and small arguments are unlikely to play a huge role in my decision unless decisively emphasized in the last speech. I think of arguments in ballot story-line contexts so you should present a coherent Aff/Neg story rather then extending a blipstorm of arguments.
Debates I'm most confident in judging: 1] K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, 2] Policy v K (Clash of Civs), 3] Phil, Theory, 4] Tricks.
Please extend Offense. If you don't explain or defend your Impact, unless something has gone drastically wrong you will not win.
I have spent a lot of time cutting and coaching the K but Clash of Civs debates are kind of repetitive and boring.
Don't really care what Framework Impacts you go for. Fairness for me is an impact but I do think you have to have a defense of the game if the Aff has impact turned the content/form of the game being bad.
I think K-Affs should recognize what they are - either you are actually Topical and which case you should only need the I Meet OR you are not actually Topical and you need to tell me what about the Neg's model of debate is bad. If you waffle in-between, I will think you think there is some value to strategy/the game and it's harder for you to generate your "telos/content of the game is bad". I vote Aff in K vs Framework debates when Offense is clear and weighed - being vague only hurts you, not your opponent.
K v K debates should and do come down to the Perm 95% of the time - structure your offense around it.
T interps must be carded, T interps must define words in the resolution, not abstract grammar principles sloppily applied by high school debaters.
Reasonability is about the Interp not the Aff.
Personal preference is DA/Case 2NRs over CPs, I think it's the purest form of debate - I however understand, cut, and coach CPs very often.
Absent Theory or a Perm, my RFD in a CP v Case debate will always "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve this debate for me.
I probably will not catch your 5 sec Condo 1AR arg - if you are a West Coaster and you have some moral righteousness over Tricks debate and you do this, shame on you. Some arguments done by West Coasters are so blatantly blippy and meant to be 2AR hail marys if dropped and there is zero difference between that and Tricks debate.
1) 30 speaks if you bring me good food
2) +.5 speaks per minute of speech not used (make sure to let me know).
3) +.5 speaks if you do ad-libs in between each flow
4) Unique debate pickup line in the doc
5) Making the round funny
6) Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
7) Sending all pre-written analytics in the doc
I default not flowing unless said in the speech
Hey, I'm Tommy. I debated for Dulles and graduated in 2022. I qualified to the TOC twice. I primarily read tricks and theory.
I will vote on anything that has a claim warrant and impact. I'm bad at flowing.
1 - Theory/T
1/2 - Phil/Tricks
3/4 - Larp/K
Theory: Probably what I'm best at judging. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI. I don't care how frivolous your shell is.
Phil: I only read Pragmatism and Kant, but I'm familiar with skepticism, hobbes, contracts, Levinas, etc. Over explaining always helps. TJFs are strategic. So is permissibility and presumption. Religious philosophy is really cool.
LARP: I only did it when I had to. Weighing is good. Assume I know nothing about the topic or any current events though.
Kritiks: I have an okay understanding of stock kritiks but nothing more than that. I think K tricks are strategic.
Tricks: I'm bad at flowing. Too many can be a hassle. When done correctly they are strategic.
Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent, please do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time!
ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!
please time yourself
ask me anything before round!
i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: email@example.com
1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory
2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!
3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.
- have the doc ready to send ahead of time
- i enjoy a good cx
- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.
- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.
- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad
- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.
- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)
- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky
- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.
- send any relevant screenshot for violations
i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:
- comparative worlds
- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption
- epistemic confidence
- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis
- no judge kick