Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglass debate. I qualified for nationals twice in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, although I rarely tend to vote on it unless the proven abuse is egregious or its severely under-covered by one side.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

Debate well. Don't go fast.  Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic.

Games player judge - I view debate as a game. I look at the debate as a game board and the flow as an offensive and defensive structure. Strategy is something I value and tend to look for its usage throughout the debate.

I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I would prefer that if you want to visit spreading, to provide a copy of your case. I also evaluate on speaking ability. I listen for fluid speech and professional mannerisms. Vocabulary plays a part here.

I like hearing cited sources when making claims.

hey, i'm iris (seven lakes high school class of 2023) (she/her). i currently compete in congress + extemp but have done ld before and understand most stock larp, k, phil, theory args (no tricks though please).

respect people's pronouns or get dropped. also trigger warnings are incredibly important, especially in congress, where normsetting is a bit more convoluted than ld/pf.

for extemp, i find delivery and content to be equally important. 

good luck! email irischengslhs2023@gmail.com for speech docs if needed (ld)

Iyad Chowdhury | University of Houston '26 | he/they | iyadchowdhury@gmail.com

pref sheet shortcuts:

1--K

1-- LARP

2--Theory/T

5--Trad

2/3--Phil

4--Tricks

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.

Most Comfortable:

LARP—

1. have a clear link story in your adv/da and walk me through it.
2. 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.
3. i find straight turns very impressive
4. 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
5. weigh, the earlier in the round the better
6. explain the internal link chain to extinction
7. zero percent risk of a da is a thing
8. huge fan of ptx das, i like to keep up with the news so recent uq ev is always cool to see

Ks–

1. what do i know?
1. 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.
2. most important thing is framing and ROB/J needs to defend your theory.
3. 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
4. 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.
5. find loopholes/flaws in the k framing and i'll be impressed if you can point them out.
6. 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
7. i like non-generic links and will be rewarded with high speaks
8. 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
9. i'm fine with floating piks just make sure to flash that it is a floating pik before you kick the k
10. way too many of these authors are problematic so use author indicts to your advantage
11. do not drop case in the 2nr
12. 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.

Comfortable):

Theory/T–

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. i presume theory = highest layer
6. 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.

Phil--

1. what do i know?
1. Great with Kant
2. okay with
1. Hobbes
2. Locke
3. Sartre
3. pretty much unfamiliar with everything else so err on the side of overexplaining.
2. i understand phil in more of an academic sense than in a debate sense
3. framework in these rounds is especially important, so make sure to allot time for framing in your rebuttals.
4. if you are going against consequentialist framing as a phil debater, prove why consequences are bad.

Non-T Affs–

1. be v ready for t framework and the neg presumption push
2. 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.

Tricks–

1. dont read against identity-based affs
2. slow down on underviews
3. don't be shifty in cx
4. what do i know?
1. good w
1. gsp
2. kripke
3. sand
4. menos
5. condo logic
2. okay w
1. skep
2. indexicals
3. trivialism
3. idk / idl
1. theory spikes
2. anything that i haven’t listed
5. 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.
6. if you're going for an a priori please make sure to have a truth testing role of the ballot.
7. 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.
8. i find substantive spikes more interesting than theory spikes
9. 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):

1. what do my speaks look like?
1. 30-- expect you to win the tournament
2. 29.5-29.9-- late out rounds
3. 29-29.4—breaking
4. 28.5-28.9—bubble
5. 28-28.4—average/positive
6. 27.5-27.9—even
7. 27-27.4—negative
8. <26.9– need to contact someone important ab you/ you were disrespectful in round

Summary):

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. signpost!! tell me where you're at.
4. give me a roadmap before every rebuttal in the order of which offs you are going in.
5. slow down on analytics. if you have prewritten analytics i would prefer if you sent them to me.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I teach at GDS in the summer.

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

email: kelseydo2004@gmail.com

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

PF at slakes; pronouns - she/her

email for email chains (which i love) - duong.kalina4@gmail.com

if you have any questions please ask prior to round

- tech>truth

- fine with speed but you have to speak clearly (clarity's important!)

- I enjoy a snarky cross- you can make jabs at each other's arguments but I don't tolerate isms (racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc) or overt rudeness.

- You need to extend PLEASE; I'm very reluctant to evaluate an argument if it's not warranted. Weighing is crucial. Defense isn't sticky. Draw a clear path to the ballot for me.

- I'm rather unexperienced in judging prog args specifically but if you reaaalllllyyyy want to, go for it ig

The rest is stolen from bryce piotrowski's paradigm but applies

- If I am judging you in PF or LD, you should create an email chain, send speech docs directly before the speech with evidence (not your analytics or paraphrasing) read during the speech in that document, in a format that does not permit you to edit the document after it is sent so that I can evaluate claims about evidence made later in the round

- I will evaluate arguments on a primarily technical level, though it's easy to win on the flow if your arguments come from a sound literature base and are more true. I frequently become cranky in rounds that are poorly executed strategically, where teams are rude to each other, where evidence exchange/prep time takes far longer than the allotted time, and those rounds with bad arguments (bad meaning: constructed from poor evidence, missing critical internal links, etc.). I strongly enjoy judging debaters that work hard, no matter the strategy.

Background: I debated at Memorial High School in Houston for 3 years, graduating in 2018. I mainly competed in extemp in high school, and I qualified for TFA State in FX and the TOC in Extemp and Informative. I also qualified for Nationals in World Schools debate twice and reached the quarterfinals of World Schools in 2018. My main debate events were Public Forum and Congress which I did on and off for the most part. I graduated from Harvard in 2022 with a degree in History, and I currently work as a Legal Assistant for a LGBTQ rights nonprofit. You probably won't see me judging too many tourneys this year, but in case you do...

WSD: Remember that WSD is not LD or PF, and I will not be "voting on the flow" the way that LD and PF judges do. I will generally try to stick to the 68-72 range for each speaker, although I've found myself going under that range more often than I've gone over. Of course, this means that you might not like my decision at the end of the day. To lessen the odds of that happening, here are some tips to maximize the chances of winning my ballot:

• For content: "The House" is understood to be the whole world unless specified otherwise. Therefore, your content score will not go above 28 unless you bring solid international examples to the table. Generally, the more empirical and the less hypothetical evidence you bring to the table, the better you'll tend to do.
• For style: I would say the easiest way to improve style points on my ballot is with speeches that have personality. Obviously, this will differ from speaker to speaker, but I have rewarded speakers who depart somewhat from the "clean speech without fluency errors" kind of model and bring humor, personal connections to the topic, anecdotes, etc. to the table.
• For strategy: Teams that are consistent down the bench, especially teams that have a consistent team line, will tend to do better in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here; generally, teams should take 2 POIs, usually at the transition between points that were elaborated on during the roadmap.

LD and PF debate: For PF, I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well. I am not receptive to theory or kritikal arguments in PF.

For LD, I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge), but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For Ks, make sure that the link is specific to the case and that the alt makes sense. I will warn you that I have heard many bad Ks in my life, and while I have voted for Ks in the past, that doesn't mean I automatically like every K that I hear. In addition, it's really no fun for anyone to hear rounds where the AFF has never heard of the K, and their only response is "the NEG doesn't have a value and a criterion so we should win." So try to remain respectful of your opponents as well.

For both forms of debate, I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially on evidence quality and strength of link), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Congress: I would say that I prefer content over presentation. When evaluating content, I look to the type of speech being given (constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization) and my expectations for each type of speech... Unfortunately, I have found that there are many constructive speeches given later and later in the chamber, and many so-called rebuttal or crystallization speeches that neither rebut nor crystallize. Please, please, please remember that this is congressional DEBATE and not congressional soapbox. I love clash and I hate repetitious arguments.

Relatedly, I really detest when chambers need to take in-house recesses at the beginning of items because nobody is prepared to debate. I believe that I have somewhat contributed to this problem by stating that I prefer well elucidated speeches over speeches that were extemped in the chamber. To be fair, I don't want to hear these speeches for the sake of giving a speech, but I am now of the belief that I should reward the representatives who are actually prepared to debate in my rankings. So do with that what you will.

Public Speaking: In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. (For the record: I have checked sources that sounded fishy, and I have tanked speakers who have egregiously misrepresented sources. Misremembered the date or the publication for a source? Fine, I've done that before, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt! Told me that Boko Haram has attacked Egypt or that a New York Times editorial praised El Salvador's Bitcoin experiment when, in fact, it panned it? Not OK!)

For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Interp: Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot, but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions (positive)? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions (negative)? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

Delivery and form are important factors for me: in competition, just like in life, when I am the audience, I do not want to have to strain to understand what is being said. I want to be intellectually challenged, with interesting, innovative and well connected arguments, not by having to follow the debate in a foreign language that I am not very good in.

Attack and defense should be respectful and focused on the content of the points made. We are not at court, and a debate is not won a technicalities, but on the strength of arguments and the evidence for the related support.

I like to see debaters make connections to historic and scientific evidence, really put their argument into context.

How well a debater is able to engage with the argument of an opponent and rebut it with evidence based new support that has not been brought up in the prepared speech is an important factor for me.

Personal Background

As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.

Speech

I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them

Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.

That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.

For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).

Debate

Despite never competing in debate, I have judged the majority of forms at many different levels, I have in the past also helped cut cards for teammates and participated in informal debate scrims.

• I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest

• for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege

• Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)

• If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech

• Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required

• Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.

• That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it

• Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K

• Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear

• Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF

• At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not

I do congress and therefore I am lay

If I am offered a subway cookay, I may jus become flay

And if I am given salty MickyDeez fries, my judging may sway

And if I receive a spicy combo with a large lemonade and no ice from chick-fil-a, I may just vote on the K

Background

I debated for Langham Creek Highschool in Houston in policy for 3 years, crossing over to LD my senior year. I primarily went for the K throughout my career, but was very flex and dabbled in every form of debate. I worked as an assistant coach in PF for SpiderSmart Sugarland and now work as an assistant CX and LD coach for Langham Creek Highschool.

Here is my wiki senior year and a composition of all my rounds in a spreadsheet if you want to see what arguments I read.

Short Overview

langhamdebatedocs@gmail.com - email chain

"Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks." - Aden Barton

Spreading is fine.

Read anything you want.

General Thoughts

My views on debate are heavily influenced by my coaches and those who've helped me including, Eric Beane, Isaac Chao, and Sebastian Cho.

Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I feel as if lots of judges think it’s your responsibility as a debater to please us as judges, no, it is my responsibility to please you as debaters with a respectable and well thought out decision. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will always be ready to defend my decision. “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or make a determination on your personality on the basis of your reaction to my decision. I was always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest forms of respect.” – Vikas Burugu.

I will certainly reward good evidence if you have it. However, your evidence is only as good as you can explain it to me. “Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension.” – Rafael Pierry.

Read what you want and read it well. I do not personally believe the ballot is a referendum of you as a person, especially in highschool. 99% of debaters go through the stage where they read bad, stupid, and not well-thought-out arguments because they find them interesting. I don't think any of those people genuinely believe those positions, but rather are ignorant to how arguments can be harmful. The best thing I think we all derive from debate is reflexivity, if you think people's arguments are bad and violent, say so, beat them on it, the worse their argument is, the easier it is to beat, people will stop reading stuff after they get hit with a L25. Debate is great because people can read what they want and shift the norms, be innovative, be unique, do what you want, I encourage it.

Tech over truth but tech is influenced by truth. Those who read arguments that are naturally grounded in truthfulness naturally appeals to my human biases and would render your argument more persuasive, but technical debaters can ALWAYS beat truthful claims. Truth over tech is an excuse to insert human biases into debate that overrides and demeans good argumentation.

After watching the 2022 NDT Finals, I think the judge has an obligation to minimize as much intervention as possible, obviously our human nature necessitates certain preconceived notion’s influence upon our decisions but the sole method of my adjudication will be my analysis of the way both teams analyze, argue, and implicate their own arguments, I will not do this for you, simply analyze the way in which you do it yourself.

I think debate is a game not in the sense that there are rules we should follow and a structure around what we do, but in the sense that we play to win. That same game can absolutely be a site of beautiful and authentic good, through activism, revolution, argumentation, and more, but even so, no matter how you choose to play the game, winning in front of me means convincing me through a form of persuasion to give you the ballot.

Specifics

1. I will vote on ad-homs / call outs.
2. ivis need dtd warrants when introduced.
3. big overview K debaters are not as good as line by line ones, i prefer you do the latter.
4. i will keep note of cx.
5. i will try to be as tab as possible thus, "I do not default in any way. if you have not sufficiently justified an argument, I just won't vote on it. this includes things like layering -- theory does not come before substance if you have not told me why it does." - Liam Nyberg, to clarify, this means I WILL vote on extinction outweighing your condo shell on magnitude if you do not layer.
6. things that are particularly harder for me to flow, this does not mean i am not open to these args or that i'm dogmatized against them but that you might want to slow down, "Phil AC/NCs that are 50 pointed with TJFs, Reasons to Prefer, and Pre-empts with enormous philosophical jargony tags that are hardly even delineated." that is all for now.

SPEAKS: In general, I find myself most moved and assign the most speaks to people who signpost, are clear, do good evidence analysis, and display a sense of cohesion within their rhetoric and argumentation. I find myself most persuaded by people who are assertive, aggressive, and firm with their rhetoric but do not come off as rude, refer to McDonough JN, Wake Forest RT, Aden Barton and Zion Dixon. People who best exemplify these traits will get the most amount of speaks in front of me.

Specific things that will get you more speaks.

- Sitting down early if you have won, +! Conversely, sitting down early when you have lost, -!

- Referencing other debaters/teams as examples in some of your warrants. Contextualizing stuff to debate history is so cool.

- Being clear. The slower the clearer almost 90% of the time. The louder the clearer almost 90% of the time as well. University RH is a benchmark for how your spreading style should be to optimize speaks in front of me.

- Good argument strategy and tactics i.e going for the right choice in the 2NR, time allocation, and speech construction. You can win different routes but taking the easiest path to victory will garner more speaks.

- CX Dominance, not being lost or seeming evasive in cross, as well as putting your opponent into binds.

- Sending pre-written analytics will help your speaks and probably my flow.

I will not award you for the 30 speaks spike.

Lowpoint dubs only ever go to people who I found rhetorically less persuasive but won a dropped arg.

I'll start at 28 and go up and down from there.

I'll disclose speaks, I think it's a good norm.

I'll yell clear if you're too fast so don't be worried about outspreading me.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – minhle1933@gmail.com

I am an old school debate judge. Though I have only judged a few rounds of WSD this year, I have coached and judged WSD within the Houston Urban Debate League. I have also judged WSD at NSDA Nationals.

In debate, as in public speaking, I believe in effective communication; that translates to No Speed in delivery.

In WSD, the status quo must be viewed within any plan offered. I have heard, and voted on, the Prop’s use of stock issues. Though I am not a fan of progressive cases. I do not like Kritiks. Like in policy debate, I prefer simple language without the use of jargon.

Contentions must be clear along with source citation. If the debater has a contention with multiple cards, it is recommended that sub-pts be applied to distinguish the argument / claim.

I prefer the impact of the argument to be stated at the end of each contention. In the warrant(s), I like examples that can be related to. Links need to be clear and present.

Depending upon the resolution, I do enjoy hearing about a moral obligation, or the desirability or undesirability of the topic.

I like professional interaction between the debaters during POI. Participation in POI have an effect on ranks. I like to see everyone at least ask two and take two questions, if possible.

I am more a line by line judge on the flow. Direct clash is essential. Team members working together is very important.

Speech/case organization is important, and should be relatively easy to follow.

Any other questions may be asked in the room.

In L-D:

I am a traditional judge. Value & Citeria are paramount…philosophically based. If the word “ought” is present, the moral obligation must be established. The Aff & Neg must show how their value and criteria outweighs their opponent. It must be shown how the value is achieved by the criteria. Contentions must be clear and signposted. Sub-pts within contentions for multiple cards are necessary to distinguish the sub-pt claim’s significance.

L-D is not policy debate. I prefer no plans, CP’s, stock issues, kritiks, or progressive cases. Direct clash and refutation is important.

I am an opponent of speed.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

Content and speaking are kinda important

I was a LD debater in high school and I currently debate in college. I primarily did progressive debate so Im well versed in different debate styles and arguments. This also means I wouldn't recommend running anything you don't understand well. I mainly look for big picture debate which means weighing and voters are appreciated. Speed is fine. I don't like frivolous theory but will buy it if argued correctly. If possible please have your case already flowed before you enter the room. I don't really like card readers, like obviously when needed but not every speech. There's value in analytical arguments. Don't be rude to one another, have fun!

2023-2024 Season

Howdy! I've been actively judging every year since I graduated in 2018, so this will be year 6 of judging for me.

PF/LD General:

- NO EMAIL CHAINS AT ALL. If you ask me to be on the email chain, this indicates you have not read my paradigms.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to pre-flow or take forever to get set up, I WILL doc your speaks to 27 max. Pre-flows, bathroom, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will usually use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to make sure you're not lying about how much time you have left. When someone asks for cards, please be quick about this because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

-I will NOT disclose decisions unless I say I will. After round is done, do not just sit there and just stare at me. I will let you know if everything is going to be on the ballot or if I will be giving some general comments.

-Please be respectful in round and have fun!

PF: Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.

Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.

LD: Old school traditional, I like framework debates. NO SPREADING AT ALL, moderate speed is good. I don't understand progressive debates like K's, shells, etc. Adapt or strike me.

Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.

PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.

Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.

Hi!

Add me to the chain :) Oliviasweeten6580@gmail.com

Order is Novice LD, General Expectations, VLD, PF, and then Speech at the bottom!

NLD

As a (previous, now graduated)varsity debater I'm not expecting varsity level debate like K's, phil debate, T debate (either topical or theory), counter plans or the like, or anything advanced really, so just do what you know how at this point!

Something I've unfortunately seen in even varsity debate is cases that are essays. A case is NO place for your own words except for taglines and even then those are supposed to be describing the card, NOT your opinion on the card. A speech is the only place for your opinion and even then it should be based in moral reasoning with your framework.

Before round, I also recommend reflowing your case so you can write their responses right next to your cards so you know what to address. It makes flowing much easier for your judge and that increases the likelihood that the judge will know to vote for you if they can see what arguments you did and/or did not address.

A basic case should be in this order most of the time:

1. Resolved: TOPIC

2. FRAMEWORK (if you do not have a framework or value and value criterion your case will be weighed under your opponents and you will make it very hard for you to win because I will not point out that you need a framework until after the debate. If you are on the neg this is normal to concede to the affs framework so don't worry about it being difficult to win.)

3. Contention 1

4. Tagline, citation, and then card. This process should be repeated for however many cards in the case.

4. If you have any other contentions then they still need to follow this format but only one contention is absolutely necessary in your case on the aff.

I want to see a debate, not two people giving argumentative speeches… This means come back to your framework, respond to arguments strategically, and respond based on the importance layer.

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS

Please do not go past your times for over 10 seconds because I will dock your speaker points. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, use the wrong pronouns after being corrected more than once, or make any sort of comments towards the person you are debating to make them uncomfortable or upset you will be held accountable. Your coach and/or tab will be notified. Please don't make me do this. Debate is supposed to be fun and friendly. I don’t tolerate you interrupting their speech to talk over them.

I will run a stop watch to ensure no prep time is stolen or lost and that things run on time.

Yelling doesn't make you sound better and being extremely aggressive doesn't either. Confidence is important in debate but talking so quickly in round that nobody can understand you, speaking so quietly that nobody can hear you, or yelling to where you're incomprehensible, also, won't get you anywhere.

VLD

Hi! Congrats on being in Varsity!

Tabula Rasa all the way although there are arguments I won't buy if you're being problematic to any group of people which includes everyone. I'm not going to sit there and listen to you tell me why the alt is good when it's literally exterminating able-bodied people or people who believe in a God - lets be serious people.

ID pol ✓ (just be sure to explain afropess/afro opp I never really saw those things in debate so I don't really understand them as well as other things and impact it out)

POMO ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓ 100% yes (I will be your best friend if you read this unless you read it poorly ???? I will say, however, I'm not sure familiar with Bataille. I mostly read/saw DnG and Baudrillard (I did those actions respectively))

T framework meh

Theory... just please put it in the doc. I can't vote off of what I can't get down/remember

/\ - For any theory type of debate I didn't really do a whole lot of that when I debated so I can assess it but if there are going to be theory debates that are like super layered and confusing I'm not really the judge for that. So, not good for super intensive theory debates that get messy very fast but I can assess regular theory violation shells. I will not, however, buy waterbottle, laptop sticker (unless it is actually bad), or shoe theory.

Spreading I'm okay with as long as you send me the doc. If you spread please attach the doc with analytics before speeches I'm even worse at flowing spread analytics or anything that isn't a card like spreading theory tags like omg save me. I didn't really spread until my last year of debate and even then I didn't get spread on a ton of times so I don't have a lot of practice with speed. If you spread I need you to speak loudly instead of the tiny, high-pitched mouse voice everyone likes to use to spread. Clearly spreading = perfect speaks. Trust me you want good speaks!. I didn't realize how important they were until I didn't break due to missing 1.5 speaker points at UIL state ( ´•︵•` )!

I like speechdrop, email chain, or tabroom's version of speech drop too. Everything works just let me and your opponent know what you're using and let us join if we ask. Say it with me. ADDING YOUR DOC TO THE EMAIL/SPEECH DROP DOESN'T COUNT AS PREP TIME - THAT IS MEAN. The 15 seconds it took you to attach your doc to the email isn't going to make the tournament run late OMG people.

Extending is a big deal to me. Don't extend your ROB okay... then why does it matter? Don't extend your amazing 1nr/1ar impact calculus showing me why extinction is bad okay... why did you bother doing it in the first place? If you think something is important on the flow TELL ME. I will not judge hack. If you want something to be a key voting issue lay it out for me. There are too many eager judges and lazy debaters who want to rely on what they did well in one speech to magically go into the flow of the next one without having to point it out.

Framework is also a key voting issue for me (depends on type of debate). If you ignore your ROB or FW and just tell me why something is bad without showing me why your FW says its bad or why your opponent doesn't meet your FW then how do I have a way of knowing that 3 million starving children is bad? If you want a tabula rasa judge that means you need to pretend they are a little kid with no knowledge. Give me my morals to operate with.

I will honestly listen to any kind of debate. I'm good with Ks, POMO, ID pol, theory, lay, policy, K v K, etc. I don't vote more one way or the other I just evaluate the round as it is and decide who did better strategically and who overall should have won. My emotions and personal views do not get in the way. I am pretty centrist and don't really believe in politics in general so consider me the ultimate tabula rasa.

PF

I've judged one or two PF rounds and only participated in my first year of debate once so I basically know nothing about PF. Please either give me the times so I can know how long to time you for.

SPEECH

I have never done speech but I know what to look for.

1. Try to keep the 'um' and 'uh's to a minimum and none if possible
2. Try to not move your hands around a lot - keep it to a minimum
3. Move slowly between points without turning your back to the judge
4. Looking for clear and normal conversation paced speaking
5. Try to be funny- if your humor comes at the expense of others I probably won't find it funny.
6. Looking for a good AG that is related to the question without actually stating the question in the AG.

Hi, I'm Zarik (he/him). You can call me Zarik, ZT, Tao, judge, or any combination of these names. I would like to be on the email chain - zarik.tao@gmail.com

Background: Currently a senior LD Debater at Bridgeland High School (probably done debating at this point lol). 5th at 2022 6A UIL State, qualified to TFA State x3, Doubles at TFA State 2022.

I was a heavy on LARP and Phil as a debater, so take that information if you will.

Pref Shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory - 1

Phil - 2 (Depends on type)

K - 2 (Depends on type)

Tricks - 5 (or strike me tbh)

I will pretty much vote on every arg if it is cohesively developed and I am able to explain back to you the claim, warrant, and impact in my RFD. (except if the arg is obviously morally reprehensible e.g. sexism, racism, etc.)

LBL > Long Overviews

Tech > Truth (but I think both are important)

Flex prep is cool; prep stops when you finish compiling the doc.

My judging philosophy is to be as non-interventionist as possible; people spend a lot of time prepping for this activity and you deserve the right to read whatever arguments that you want. That being said, I am a very expressive person, so if your argument does not make sense, I will probably make a face at you.

In Depth:

LARP - Pretty self-explanatory; you can run pretty much anything (plans, cp's, 7 minutes of case turns, disads, etc.). If you are aff PLEASE extend solvency or I will negate on presumption. Also, PLEASE collapse in the 1AR/2NR. I do not want to hear 5 different extinction scenarios that are all really underdeveloped in your rebuttal speeches. 0% risk is a thing.

Defaults:

1-3 Condo is probably good for neg flex; anything else is probably sketchy.

Functional and Textual Competition in the CP is probably good, but I will vote on PICS and Consult CP's etc. unless the aff wins abuse in the shell.

There needs to be an justification for judge kick (can be like 5 sec) if you want me to kick the offs for you; otherwise just spend the time kicking them yourself.

Comparative Worlds over Truth Testing (really easy to be convinced otherwise)

Theory - Fine with any theory; the more frivolous the arg then the lower threshold that I have for responses, but I will still vote on it UNLESS it pertains to the appearance/properties of the other person (e.g. water bottle and shoe theory is absolute b.s.). PLEASE extend paradigm issues.

Defaults (Please don't make me use them):

DTA > DTD (Unless it's T)

Competing Interps > Reasonability

No RVIs on shells

Content > Form

Text > Spirit

Topicality - I actually really enjoy topicality debates, including Nebel and Leslie, if they are done well (which is find is pretty rare, even for myself). Just contextualize why you win semantics>pragmatics or vice versa/both and the warrants for T "a" or bare plurals and if you do it well, you will probably get good speaks.

Phil - Fine with mostly everything if explained well; I pretty much only read Kant on aff LOL. If it's kind of a benign philosophy, it's probably good to have in the case to me whether is deon v consequentialist and how impacts are weighed under the framing. Syllogism > Independent Justifications. If you are reading util, PLEASE stop reading the Moen evidence it says a bunch of nothing and just switch to the Blum evidence.

Kritiks - I have a good understanding of Set Col, Afro-Pess (I will not vote on non-black Afro-Pess), Baudrillard, Pyscho (Lacan), and Foucalt/Agamben. I have a base level understanding of Empire, Queer-Pess, Asian Melancholy, Adorno, and Deleuze. If you are reading other authors/topics, you either 1) probably shouldn't read it because I might not understand it, or 2) explain it really well to me.

K Tricks (root cause, alt solves case) are cool, Floating PIKs are probably abusive but the other side should either run theory or ask for it in CX.

Tricks - Please delineate them and not hide them in a paragraph; that's not cool for me nor your opponent. If you're winning on tricks you're probably getting low speaks unless it's actually developed really well in your first speech and I've never seen that trick before.

Turns to tricks under truth testing is actually really cool if you pull it off you'll get good speaks.

Hey debaters, my name's Connor Taylor, he/him. I'm a senior at Cypress Woods High School. I'm good with all kinds of debate (I've done LD, Policy, and Pf) but here's my listing for LD bc that's what I'm doing now. I qualified for UIL Regions, TFA State, and broke at UT to trips in 2021. Jacob Koshak was my coach, if you want to have a good understanding of my background go read that.I wanna be on the speech drop or email chain: cjtricky04@gmail.com or cjtricky@icloud.com. I prolly disclose speaks if you ask. These r my prefs its quick

1 - LARP

LARP is fun. I did a lot of larp, most topics are good for larp. Plz don't force it read ur best strat but larping is what I would say I was probably the best at. I think good larp needs heavy on the weighing page, and inherency is something I need to take from my policy days. Plz plz don't read an aff that has already passed.

1 - K

As long as debaters thoroughly explain the link as well as the k itself, it is my favorite form of debate. It'd be my first voter. If you don't know the K don't read one please its a no bueno.

2 - T/Theory

T is a good argument, don't force it. I like T as an answer to actual abuse, like if they run a non-disclosed K aff or something. However, don't come in w some garbage t interp that literally breaks the ground. If you do go for T, please do a good job. I feel that T can get washed out and super duper boring to the point that the round loses its whole meaning.

Theory is a good check, but I don't like it as a strat. I'm not the judge for you if you mostly do theory, the K v theory debate is fun though.

Defaults

edu>fairness - debate is a game sure, but I debated to learn about new topics n crap. Like yeah fairness matters, but education serves as a method for us to understand what is fair. If we were not educated, we wouldn't know if something was skewed. Education is the only thing we can keep from debate in the long run.

competing interps > reasonability - Unless the shell is friv, competing interps makes for better debates. If the judge can reasonably decide whether the theory is good or bad bc the debater spends time telling them to, the debater can just give a counter interp that makes the round more fun.

tech>truth - its a game but if you play the game bad you have to lose. Theory does come on the highest layer unless told otherwise (i lost on that so i know). I will say that i prolly have theory and k closer than most for layer so just tell me where to evaluate it.

5 - Trix/Spikes

Tricks are for kids and spikes are dumb. I would vote on them, but its a low threshold for answering them. I feel like they skew the round unfair for the debate, like the "cover" speech literally cannot concede an argument or the round is done basically.

Other junk

Do underviews and overviews. It won't hurt to do either and is good, makes it an easy way to the ballot. I like rebuttals that are top down and not all over the place, tell me where to flow it/when to im on paper as of writing this idk if that if that stayed

If you have any questions ask. Make jokes if you can. As for speaks, you ought to be fine unless you aren't fine. If you aren't fine you'll prolly know. Just don't be racist/sexist/homophobic. I'm open to questions before and after round, plz just don't postround my decision. Ill defend it, and if im somehow wrong sorry :/. Ig u got judge screwed

I am a speech and debate coach. I consider speech events to be an excellent way for student's to have real-world practice in conveying their thoughts and beliefs. I enjoy listening to speech events that show a speaker's range as it pertains to vocal tonality, personality and knowledge. I look for clear preparation and organization through details brought fourth in the introduction, body and conclusion. Sources should be clearly stated and expanded on. I want to hear content on social, political and educational topics that revolve around current events. Adding in personal touches when appropriate are also appreciated. I consider debate a communications event. Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. I prefer a traditional style of debate and am big on speaker clarity. I’m okay with a speaking pace a bit faster than ‘normal’ conversation but avoid monotone speaking and inhibited breathing! Do not spread. Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter! Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments. Be sure to extend your arguments, especially after they’ve been attacked. Take advantage of Cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. Topics reflect concerns in our society, so take it seriously and do not waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers’ intent. My vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present. Please don’t be jerky or rude – it will cost you speaker points!

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

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.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. 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.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me 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 we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- 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.

- 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 disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret 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 on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
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, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

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. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Random Notes:

- 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. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- 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".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Tom%20Aff

Neg: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Tom%20Neg

Updates Section

23-24 season update in general: I am not keeping up with the topic lit (or debate in general) very well so please don't assume that I know anything.

MAC PF: I have not done or thought about debate for like, 3 months. That means I have zero topic knowledge and very bad flowing ability. Slow down and explain more for me or I won't get what you are saying. I will try my best to call clear on Zoom but that's difficult so please be clear to make my job easier.

-------------

About Me

Hello! I’m Bach (he/him)—also fine with judge, sir, etc. just don’t make it weird.

Seven Lakes HS ’23, UT Austin '27

Debated 2021-23 (mostly LD, dabbled a bit in policy), went to TFA state senior year. I am currently not debating in college.

kienbtran1655 [at] gmail [dot] com for email chains and questions (also CC sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com if judging PF or sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com if judging LD)

Top-Level/Logistics

Make email chains early so we can begin as soon as I get to the room. You have 30 seconds within prep ending to send out speech docs. Any delays will eat into your prep time, annoy me, and you will lose speaker points.

I am bad at flowing. Please slow down and give me pen time (I flow on paper) especially on taglines, author names, interps/counterinterps and analytics. I’m probably 5-6/10 in terms of speed and will yell clear when I cannot keep up.

I am willing to vote on anything with a warrant and impact extended into the final speeches (minus a few exceptions); however, I am most confident in/prefer judging policy or trad debates. Obviously I am more familiar in some types of debate than others, and thus would prefer judging them more because then I will be more confident in deciding rounds. Likewise, I "hate" (not in the hackery sense) judging things that I have no idea about because then I will make a decision that leave both of us unhappy. This is not to say that you should abandon whatever that you do—just explain more than you would usually do and I will be happy listening to your thing.

Tech>Truth unless you do something truly reprehensible. Obviously you need to do more work to convince me to disregard common sense.

I will not alter speech times and speech order. (Almost) everything else is fair game and I will try to adapt to whatever model you outline in round.

I will vote you down if you go for death good or endorse oppression. I will also not vote on out of round theory violations that I can't myself verify (except disclosure) or indictments of character/appearance (so no shoe theory etc.).

CX is binding unless I am told otherwise.

I like to have my RFD be as close to what you say as possible, so please have lots judge instruction and evidence comparison—I don't want to dig through the speech docs after the 2AR to determine who wins what.

Speaker points: the winner will start at a 29 and a loser a 28 if nothing interesting happens. You can increase that by being funny, creative, strategic, organized, and/or nice (especially to less capable opponents/novices). And off course, if you act like a jerk then I will have no problem tanking your speaks.

Postround me (in a nice manner) if you have questions!

Pref shortcuts

[1] Policy, Trad

[2] Hardcore Policy (12-off strats, competition theory, etc.), Policy-esque Ks (Cap/Security)

[3] Other Ks, Theory/T, T-FW v. K-affs

[4] PoMo/Identity Ks, Friv Theory, Phil, K v. K-affs

[5]/[Strike] Tricks, Lay

Specific Genres of Arguments

Policy

I default to a policy making paradigm and util framework unless told otherwise.

You do you really—I hate thinking so just have lots of judge instruction (call out shenanigans!), ev comparison, and impact calculus to make my job easier.

I think that condo is good until neg reads more than 3 and/or aff calls them out. Also fine with whatever terrorism neg chooses to do unless aff calls them out. Will judge kick if instructed to and will listen to objections.

You should probably slow down when explaining more niche policy things (like intrinsicness, textual competition etc.) since I'm not very familiar with those.

I enjoy impact turns a lot (especially the ones that distort decades of scientific consensus).

Kritiks

I know the basics of the Cap K and that's about it. More explanation on whatever K you read would be helpful. Also proceed with caution if you want to read postmodernism or whatever dense and/or abstract theories in front of me.

If I cannot explain back to your opponent what the alt does then you are probably losing.

Absent any framework arguments I assume that aff gets to weigh case.

I will miss whatever implicit clash that is in a giant overview so just LBL.

I think impact turning Ks are really fun given said impact turns are not morally repugnant.

Theory/T

I was not the most proficient theory debater so you might want to not make it super dense and hardcore. If you enjoy spamming friv shells then probably strike me.

I default to competing interpretations and DTD on condo, T, and procedurals, DTA on everything else, no RVIs, but the sillier the shell the more I am inclined to go the other way.

Please don’t spread through analytics/standards, I will likely miss them (and you will be sad when I make the wrong decision).

Disclosure debates are often silly but I will still listen to them.

K/Non-T Affs and T-Framework

Full disclaimer: You probably do not want to have these debates in front of me—I am terribly illiterate of whatever lit base you read and probably not capable of understanding the intricacies of performance/non-topical debate. That said, I promise to try and follow along to the best of my ability should you choose to read a non-topical aff. But please slow down, explain more, and do not assume that I know anything.

I don't really care if the aff team reads a plan or fiat a policy action or instrumentally defends the USFG or whatever—all I care about is whether they can defend whatever the 1AC says against negative objections (but talking about the topic somehow is still very useful nonetheless).

I didn't really think about K affs and framework and such all that much (and definitely am not thinking about them now), so I suppose I'll just vote for whoever debated better.

I am probably not the person for K v. K debates but if you do try and have one I will try my best.

Phil

I only know util and a tiny bit of Kant (maybe Hobbes?) so I'm probably a bad judge for this.

Hiding tricks in phil ACs/NCs means that I will probably miss them and laugh at you when you try to blow them up later.

Defaults: presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds/policy making.

I always wonder what the hell are TJFs and why they matter.

Tricks

I'm probably a strike if you like tricks since I do not understand this kind of debate at all so I will likely make decisions that you will not like. That being said, if your tricks aren't meant to avoid debating, go for it and I will try my best.

I refuse to vote for anything that does not have a coherent warrant when first introduced.

I evaluate the debate after the 2AR.

Defaults are same as the phil section where applicable.

Trad

I enjoy good trad debates. Bad trad debates makes me really really sad however.

If you are an ethos/speaking pretty kind of person you might want to reconsider your approach. I like more LBL, judge instruction, weighing, etc. instead of like, a 4-minute 1AR oratory.

I hate siily "justice v morality". I like real framework clash a lot though.

Framework is not a voting issue, it's an impact framing mechanism that I use to evaluate arguments.

Evidence Ethics

I would suggest that you do not initiate those unless it’s some egregious violation (i.e. clipping, severe misconstrusions, elipses, no source text, etc.). Generally, the challenge is a no take-back and I would give the W 30 to the winner of the challenge and L 0 to the loser. I do not like these at all because tab will be involved so just read theory if you can manage it. That said, I reserve my right to vote you down if you decide to game evidentiary standards even if the other team doesn't call you out.

For PF

I will hack for paraphrasing theory. Read properly cut cards or stay away from me. You have been warned.

Everything from the LD section above applies.

Not having cut evidence and/or original source text available upon request is an auto L.

Extend whatever that you want me to vote on into summary and final focus. An extended claim without a warrant is useless. The more comparison, weighing, and judge instruction you do the better.

Frontline case in 2nd rebuttal. Anything that isn't responded to in the speech that follows is conceded.

I won't evaluate new stuff in the backhalf unless given compelling reasons to do so.

I default to util if no framework is read.

Cool with Ks, theory etc. but please do it properly. Also keep in mind that I hate paraphrasing and disclosure theory.

If aff reads a plan then I will judge the round as if it is a larp round, but if aff doesn't and neg reads a CP then they need to justify it.

I hate hostile and loud crossfires. I also hate 10-minutes of "uh did you read [X]" before crossfires. Either send out docs or just flow.

For Congress

I will probably never endeavour in judging this, but if for some god-forbidden reason I have to, please stand out. Entertain me.

POs starts at a 1 unless someone stands out to my eyes. My ideal PO resembles John Bercow.

Other speakers will get high ranks if they speak exceptionally or do silly things (refer to UK Parliament). I want to see people who abuse parliamentary procedures for their benefits.

The closer your Congress chamber resembles an actual legislature, the more entertained I will be.

That being said, please be nice to others.

For Speech

In general: I implore you to stand out. Best way to do it in front of me is to be funny. Dank humour and internet memes/references make me laugh all the time. Try to not go over time - I'm very lenient and will give you like 45-second grace periods, but don't be excessive.

For extemp, I pay attention to content, but presentation matter too (about something like 40-60). Ideally I want a (funny) AGD and 2-3 points with (some) sources. I won't fact check you, but like, just memorize the sources. With that being said, I find sourceless improv pieces that are executed flawlessly and elegantly very impressive .

For other speech events (if I ever have to), I will rank you in the order of how hard you stick in my memory—do with that what you will. Just entertain me, please.

Run anything, no tricks or friv shells

tech>truth always

quick prefs:

1)K-cap,security, basic ID pol, Deleuze, baudrillard

2)policy

3)real theory

4)friv theory and tricks

im good with speed

good luck ????

speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down accordingly