Pronouns: they/he | Email: ixdebate at gmail.com

Seven Lakes '21, University of Houston '25

Howdy! My name is Nine (pronounced like the number). Assistant coach for Seven Lakes. VP of the University of Houston policy debate team, NDT '23. Private coaching. If you're interested in debating at UH, shoot me a message!

___________________________________________________________

Order of paradigm sections: General, Policy, WSD, LD*, PF*, Speech/Interp.

*you should read the Policy section as well.

___________________________________________________________

General:

- please do not refer to me as ma'am, miss, etc. my pronouns are they/he. if you have questions about this, please ask!

- I do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, etc. Please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. Just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

- Debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. If you have concerns, please let me know and I will work with you to try to resolve them.

- Feel free to email me with questions! I love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it. Even if you have questions about college, debating in college, etc., hit me up!

- If you don't have questions but have a pet, feel free to email me ur pet pics :-)

- Have a good debate! Have a good performance! Have a good attitude! And most importantly, have fun!!!

- Commonly asked info abt my debate involvement: In high school, I did WSD, OO, Poetry, and Extemp. Camps i've worked at: Texas Debate Collective, Space City Camp (x3), HUDL, Wyoming Forensics Institute. I coach PF, LD, CX, WSD, OO/Info, and Interp. Team USA for the NCA's CIDD 2023 Japan Debate Tour, where we debated LD, JBDF and HEnDA (Japanese formats similar to PF/CX), and Various Parli/Public Debate formats. If you want any more info, you can probably find it on my LinkedIn or Facebook --- feel free to add/connect with me on there. but u can also just ask me directly lol

__________________________________________________________

Policy:

tldr: Put me on the email chain. Set up the email chain even if I'm not in the room yet. I'll vote on almost any arg. Specificity, comparison, and contextualizing is important. Offense over defense. I'm more than fine with spreading, Ks, etc. Probably not going to vote on condo bad. I flow CX. Debate is for debaters! You do you and I will adapt accordingly! Also "Nine" > "Judge.” I will always try to disclose my decision and provide feedback if the tournament allows it. I will not disclose specific speaker points.

the longer version:

I can not express this enough: Debate is for debaters. I will adapt to your debating style accordingly. I don’t really have preferences about argument types when I’m judging. So again, you do you! I will evaluate based on what’s on my flow. And have fun :-) !

The rest is in no particular order.

- Tech >>> Truth. Exceptions are, of course, if you are being explicitly racist, homphobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Everything else is fair game.

- Stealing prep is bad. I will doc speaker points if I catch you stealing prep and tell you to stop multiple times. Taking the time to take out analytics is using prep. Time your opponents' prep/speeches and hold them accountable.

Email Chains/Evidence:

- email chains > speech drop. add me to the email chain.

- card docs appreciated. i won't look at docs unless except to check i'm flowing author names correctly. i will look at ev at the end of round if there's a card doc and/or prompted by debaters.

- rehighlighting ev: i won't read/flow it if you just say "insert rehighlighting" -- you have to read your rehighlighting it for me to look at it.

- clipping cards: i will give a warning if I catch someone clipping cards. depending on how bad it is, i will either stop the round and/or dock speaker points

- ev ethics: missing paragraphs in between highlighted parts, misquoted/misattributed authors, cards starting in the middle of paragraphs, incorrect cites, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round. if an ev ethics challenge is called, i will stop the round and evaluate the evidence unless tournament rules say otherwise (i.e. UIL tournaments)

Speed:

- yes you can spread at top speed BUT slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

- clarity > speed. i will yell "clear" if i can't hear you. if i yell it enough, i will stop flowing.

- i flow on paper, give me pen time when necessary. if i flowed on my laptop i would offer to send my flow, so instead feel free to ask to look/take a pic my flows after the round

CX:

- i flow CX. BUT it is up to you to make sure it gets applied to a speech.

- CX is so under-utilized. Debaters need to be making more arguments during CX and aligning it with your speeches. Please use CX to make arguments!

- i will boost speaker points for actually good CXs. how do you give a good CX?: Matt Liu's Cross Examination Lecture

Framework:

- you should have an offensive reason to prefer your model of debate or the aff.

- specificity is best, reading generic framework blocks are unpersuasive to me. you need to apply it to the aff.

- tvas are nice to have but not necessary

- the best fw arguments implicate the aff's theory of power and/or describe why fw turns case.

- please give me judge instruction, framing points, etc.

- i really like implications to skills and iteration/testing. i think it might be slightly tougher to get my ballot on fairness alone (unless you've implicated it to their case/method), but i will vote on it

- neg fw offense is predicated on predictability. make sure to articulate how you lose predictability/are predictable or why it doesn't matter

Case:

- yes case turns, yes impact turns, yes case debate. i think there isn't enough case debate in most instances.

- i am comfortable on voting on presumption if there is enough defense and/or i could not tell you have the aff solves by the end of the round.

Topicality:

- more teams should read T

- T debate is best when the violation args are specific to the aff BUT don't miss the forest for the trees. you should still do comparison on the model/world of debate.

- i default to competing interps

K:

- yes, read the k if you want to.

- don't expect me to fill in gaps. don't rely on buzzwords and expect me to know them.

- if you're going for the alt, tell me what it looks like and how it applies to the aff. you can kick the alt if you don't think it's strategic, but you need to flag it and tell me how you win on everything else.

- link turns case args that are specific and contextualized to the aff are >>>>>>!!! please make more of these arguments!!!

DA:

- don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better

- link/DA turns case is always nice

- hot take according to everyone i've talked to about this apparently: DAs should be read more often against K Affs. And K teams should be more willing to engage in DAs/not brush them off.

CP:

- i don't have strong opinions about any type of cp. go ahead and read any flavor of cp you like.

- uncarded and/or multiplank advantage cps are fine but generally require more explanation on how they solve. they should be relatively intuitive and/or based on aff warrants/cards. read as many planks as you want (read: condo thoughts in the thoery section).

- i default to judge kick, but this can be reversed in-round

Theory:

- condo is good. my threshold for answering condo bad is very low. i will vote on condo bad if it gets dropped.

- rvis are silly to me, especially when it's just thrown out without a warrant. but i can be convinced to vote on them if there is enough ink on my flow.

- don't have strong thoughts on other theory issues.

- don't blitz thorugh pre-written blocks. again, i flow on paper. give me pen time to write down the analytics.

K Affs:

- yes, read the k aff

- i like the education/real-world implications of k affs. i REALLY like well thought out, thematically tight, content-packed, and well-structured k affs, especially if there are performance aspects to it.

- i like negs strats v. k affs that engage with k aff's theory of power, and am comfortable voting on presumption/framework

- if you're reading a performance aff and get pushed on why your performance is good, i expect robust answers

- you should have a good reason why the ballot is key, why debate is key, and why you should be rejecting "topical" debate

- repeating here too because I would love to judge these debates: DAs should be read more often against K Affs. And K teams should engage the DAs and not brush them off.

Speaker Points:

- i start at around 28.4 and go up or down from there. i try to adjust a bit based on tournament. i evaluate speaker points based on strategic choices and articulations.

- debate can get heated and i don't mind mild roasts or whatever, but if you are just being flat out insulting and making people feel uncomfortable, I will lower your speaks (and stop the round in extreme instances)

__________________________________________________________

WSD:

The following stuff on this part of my paradigm includes some of my most common pieces of feedback on my ballots. If you internalize these, it will be incredibly helpful for getting my ballot.

the short(ish) version:

– I flow and will vote based on what’s on my flow. I would rather vote on content, arguments, and warrants over speaking pretty.

– I value organized speeches!!! Messy speeches = sad Nine = sad ballot. Ways to make sure your speech is organized: 1) Enumerate your responses, 2) Signpost your arguments, and 3) Condense into clash.

– I would MUCH rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. Different events define offense/defense differently sometimes so here’s what I mean: offense = a change to the squo, defense = no change to the squo. If you’re still confused about this, let me know after the round or send me an email. I've noticed worlds debaters are really really good at making defensive args, but not necessarily offensive ones. Please have offense. I want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

– The most judge intervention I will do in a WSD debate is deferring to what I think is the most reasonable interpretation of the motion. This happens ONLY IF debaters have competing definitions/characterizations/interps AND it has NOT been resolved by the end of the round. That motion interpretation is probably key to where most of your offense lies. To be very clear, I do not like adjudicating rounds based on what I think is most reasonable – I would much rather the debaters make those arguments in the round and on my flow.

the longer version:

– Format: Follow it. That means no spreading, no “off the clock roadmaps” (I start the clock as soon as you say "as an off the clock roadmap"), taking 1-2 POIs, etc. That also means no using heavy debate jargon (topicality, condo, etc.). You’re probably using those words in the wrong context anyway. “Fiat” is definitely a word/arg that exists in WSD, but make sure you’re using it correctly.

– Please actually debate. That means having impacts to your arguments, weighing those impacts, etc. That also means warranting out your arguments, explaining your world, etc. Everytime I walk into a debate round I'm beginning to feel more and more like a grumpy old man because teams are just not doing this. Please debate.

– Explain and characterize! The best debaters are the ones who can best explain their clash, how and why actors will act a certain way, etc.

– Word efficiency: there's a difference between explaining and repeating – word efficiency is extremely important to me. Spending 15 seconds to flag, cross apply, or group arguments (as long as you already did the work to explain them) is good enough for me to apply the same explanation to multiple things on my flow.

– Strategy and style are important! I highly value strategic debaters (ex: speech consistency, taking timed POIs, not being contradictory, etc.) and if you have style on top of that, you will get some great speaker points at the end of the round. BUT don’t sacrifice style for content. I'll always prefer analysis > speaking pretty. The best strategic choices debaters can make in WSD is being explicit and giving me some judge direction, telling me what arguments I should prioritize in the round, and *actually* attacking the other team on their highest ground. The best replies are embedded with good judge instruction.

– Issues about the debate can be resolved in-round. Ex: If there is a debate about whether the team gets fiat or not, make the arguments in round and don't rely on me to default to whatever opinion I have of fiat. Or, if you think the team isn't debating the heart of the motion, make those arguments in round. I expect a defense of what exactly the heart of the motion is from both sides in that instance. I'll evaluate those arguments based on what's on my flow.

– Replies: The replies should be holding my hand and telling me what happened in the debate. Tell me what I should be writing down in my ballot. Tell me what you're winning and what they're losing. Tell me how you've closed off the other team's path to ballot. Please please please give me some judge instruction here.

– Ideological lean: Just because I do policy debate does not mean I lean towards policy style arguments. I truly and genuinely don't care what kind of arguments you run or go for as long as you give me a reason to vote for it. Seriously, you do you. I'll vote on any kind of argument.

– Principle debates: If it becomes a practical v. principle debate, I'm expecting A LOT of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. I'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). For instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!). If you're running something about marginalized groups being harmed in some way, the impact could be structural violence or psychic violence to those people, which is on-face, bad and is probably overlooked. I love creative principles and creative impacts here.

– Model debates: Both models and countermodels need to be characterized. Teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with core stakeholders. Prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where I usually see prop fail). Opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model AND why it is preferable, i.e. net benefits or what the opp countermodel does better/how it avoids prop's model's harms (and this is where the opp team usually fails). I think model/countermodel debates are appropriate for a few policy leaning motions.

If the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish 1) what in the wording of the motion grants you a model (usually the action verb and applying it to the context of the rest of the motion) and 2) why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). Regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, I will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.
__________________________________________________________

LD:

My policy paradigm largely applies to LD. I evaluate these debates like they are policy, i.e., I look to see who is winning the offense/defense.

- I’m probably not a great judge for you if you plan on going for tricks/blippy theory.

- If you're spreading and reading theory/analytics, SLOW DOWN. I flow on paper and need pen time.

- giving "off the clock roadmaps": If you're a prog debater and tell me the order is "the nc then the ac" I’ll be annoyed. If you're giving an order, tell me the order of the advantages and the order of the offs.

- trad LD value/criterion: I don't think the neg necessarily needs a value/criterion if they choose to concede the aff value/criterion and just win under the aff framing.

- trad/prog debates: I don't have a preference for either trad/prog. I tend to evaluate trad closer to how I evaluate WSD rounds and I tend to evaluate prog closer to how I evaluate Policy rounds. If it's trad v. prog, you should be telling me how to resolve that debate. That will probably look like impact weighing/framing. Regardless, I still look for who's winning the offense, what the judge instruction/framing points are, and who made the better articulation of arguments in both settings of debate.

__________________________________________________________

PF:

My policy paradigm largely applies to PF. I evaluate these debates like they are policy, i.e., I look to see who is winning the offense/defense.

- if you do not send a speech doc with cards before your speech, i will start your speaker points at 27. if you send speech docs with cards before your speech, you will start at 29. please make everyone's life easier and just send your ev.

- being okay with speed =/= not sending your docs. also, me wanting cards to be sent =/= me needing them to flow. (but y'all definitely need to stop flowing off the docs!!!!)

- presumption flows negative. it does not flip affirmative based on the coin toss decisions. that is my default stance but you can convince me otherwise in the round.

- defense is not sticky.

- there should be tags on cards that describe the argument the quoted text is making.

- If you're spreading and reading theory/analytics, SLOW DOWN. I flow on paper and need pen time.

- Ks: I am generally more hesitant to vote on Ks in this event because there is just not enough speech time to fully flesh out most Ks. If you read something that is probably more intuitive or you are just that efficient, feel free to read Ks though.

- judge intervention/judge instruction: For the PF rounds that I have judged so far, I feel like I am doing the most judge intervention in this event simply because debaters are not resolving the debate by the 2 minute speeches. Please please please give me some kind of judge instruction or at least impact weighing and tell me what impact I vote for and WHY. It is perfectly okay to kick whatever you need to so that you can get the most explanation on the argument you plan to go for.

__________________________________________________________

Speech/Interp:

A Speech/Interp paradigm feels useless sometimes just because y'all have already memorized/blocked out your pieces and there's little my paradigm will inform you about how to better adapt to me as your judge. But I guess my brief thoughts are here in the off-chance someone reads this and gets something out of it:

You do you, just follow the format and perform the best you can!

For extemp, looking for format things (i.e. having a roadmap, using on-tops, following the speaker's triangle, etc.). I prefer content over speaking pretty most of the time, but since it's a speech event, I still take presentation seriously. I don't really care if you do a three or two point speech, but the content should still be in-depth and make sense.

For OO/Info, most of my ballots come down to the implications/why it matters portion. Humor (even attempts at humor) is always a plus.

For interp, I'm mainly looking for clarity of plot (also, if there is a plot to begin with), embodiment and distinctions between characters, and clear blocking/binder "mojo".

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win. Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

I am an old school traditional judge.

PF - Keep it simple. If you run a plan, a K, or theory, you are unlikely to get my ballot. Treat me like I have no idea what this topic is and explain EVERYTHING. Weigh impacts to get my ballot. Don't complicate a pro/con debate.

LD - For UIL, stick to a traditional format with Value/Criteria and Contentions. Weigh and give voters. For TFA, just know that I loathe rapid delivery and love explanations. If you are going to run a counterplan in absence of an affirmative plan, I will not vote on it. LD is not 1 person policy. Uphold your value throughout the round.

Remember, debate is impossible without effective communication.

FLASHING IS PREP TIME! If you are not speaking, you are prepping. My prep time clock is the official prep time clock.

When I am judging IE’s I look for creative introductions, I look for structure in the piece, and I look for consistency throughout the entire performance.

When I am judging debate rounds, I prefer that the spreading is limited, and I also look for respect between the people who are participating.

I am looking for insightful and new analyses of a topic in OO

I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised in INFO

I want honest and truthful storytelling in INTERP

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.

Congress- Speeches should be delivered at a rate of speed that a casual listener would be able to understand and follow the argumentation. Evidence is necessary and should support every argument in a speech. In order to stand out and rank higher, written speeches should be adapted to include clash from previous speeches and offer something new to the debate. Debaters should offer speeches that forward the debate and do not simply rehash previously stated arguments. A PO should run a transparent and efficient round with a clearly offered way to track precedence and recency.

Extemp- State the topic word for word verbatim, I am looking for strong argumentation to support your answer as well as current and credible evidence. Competitors who have an in depth analysis of the topic will rank higher, fluff and generic answers will rank lower. This is a speaking event and you need to have conversational speed as well as humor to do well. Funny and pop culture AGDs are my favorite.

LD- I am an old school trad judge. I can keep up with moderate speed but if you start spreading and I put my pen down you are not in a good spot. If I can't flow I can't judge you. K and theory aren't my favorite but simple and common K like ROB I am familiar with, extinction arguments are my least favorite, they seem lazy unless you have a really compelling and interesting argument to go with it. Judge adaptation is crucial in LD success. I am not the most tech oriented judge so if you are pulling tricks make them clear and easy to follow for me, I am open to weird stuff but it had better be accessible to me.

For (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality. I prefer POI to read like an OO with someone else's words, give me a really concrete problem solution.

My background is 5 years of debate for Oak Ridge High School, Texas. I've achieved Superior Distinction from NSDA and my main events are LD, PF, and Extemporaneous speaking

For LD: I am a fairly traditional judge. I like impact level debates, either on the framework level or contention level. If you're running anything off-case, especially a plan/counterplan, provide solvency. I'm not into theory level debate.

For PF: I'm a traditional judge for PF as well, and I expect both sides to heavily weigh impacts and provide solvency, especially if you're running an off-case.

Speaking Events(Extemp, OO, etc): Speak clearly and link impacts from sources into the main topic idea. Try to reflect on the points of the opposing side of your viewpoint to reflect on how your solution/resolution can better be embraced.

1. I was a K hack in high-school, mainly PoMo (Deleuze, Baudrillard), but I have read my fair share of literature otherwise as well
2. Comfortable judging any sort of round
3. Tell me what to vote on and why, lay out the round for me in terms of voters, framing, and the lens through which I should frame arguments :)
4. On that note, I prefer a cohesive analysis in the final rebuttals of the round - messy rebuttal flows make judge intervention likely - how am I supposed to piece together your fragmented husk of a speech? lol
5. Email chain is preferred: yajbhargava@gmail.com
6. I give everyone 30 speaks, so please don't read speaker point theory in front of me lol. Speaks are arbitrary and screw breaks. I dont care how pretty you sound, I care about the flow.
7. Obligatory Paradigm Buzzwords: tabula rasa stock issues conditionality voters PIK NIB RVI time skew ROTB uniqueness perm double bind

My paradigm is simple- be good.

When it comes to debate, I won't reward "debate tricks"... you need to do a better job with your case than the opponent, not Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Additionally, keep your facts straight. Don't overlook common knowledge facts.

With speech, I want to believe the character(s) you create. With humorous pieces, I want to be entertained (and maybe even smile). With dramatic pieces, create the scene for me... you do not advance/place because you have the "saddest" piece.

I can adjust to different styles of debate but spreading is likely to hurt you more than help you.

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit.

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park Hs.

Individual events: I look for strong characterization, rhetorical appeals, vocal variety and inflection, expressive facial/ body movements, clear enunciation, confidence, and creative delivery.

Debate events: I look for conversational tone of voice, clear and average paced speaking (No spreading), Rhetorical appeals, strong reasoning and logic, current and credible evidence, and impactful connections.

-I am a novice change with no formal debate experience.

-I am a theatrical actor, choir member, and voice actor which means that I put a great emphasis on how information is presented in addition to content.

-Avoid spreading, as I do not wish to miss points or information presented due to being unable to keep up writing them down

-I am analytical in my approach to debate. I believe in taking all facts presented into account. I do not drop arguments unless they are thoroughly countered (even if they are not extended)

-I do not disclose results at the end of rounds, but I do endeavor to give a positive and a negative to each team I judge, as well as providing general feedback on cards and evidence.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

WSD Nats - I will be following the conventions and norms set out by the mandatory judging training that asks us to think about these things on a more holistic approach, that we should nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative; that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle; that we are not here to engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples; that we are debating the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution); that we reward those that lean into their arguments and side; and lastly that we preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true (whether this is in terms of proving a practical impact or establishing/fulfilling a principled argument) and weighs why the argument means that they deserve to win the round.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech.

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount this year, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

Hello, my name is Ray Chacko.

I believe how we say is as important as to what we say. Teams, during debates, ignore the fact that their facial expression, tone and respect for the rules are delivering a subtle message about the team. They may have empirical arguments with supporting evidence but I believe in order to create a solid impression on the judge, each team member needs to adhere to the ground rules of respect, display a pleasant demeanor and be willing to express their opinion without argument or insults. I believe they also should take criticism of the opponents creatively and be willing to adjust the tone/message accordingly.

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)

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

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

updated for 2023-2024

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. i will not vote on exclusionary arguments.

who am i?

hi! my name is iyad chowdhury (eye-odd chow-dur-ee). i'm an econ major/phronesis 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 claim, warrant, and an impact, is sufficient for me to vote on it. i will not vote on any exclusionary arguments.

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

-- please stand during speeches

-- 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. im not necessarily a fan of the over-confrontational ethos

Most Comfortable)

LARP—

1. have a clear link story 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. case turns too
   
   

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
   
   

K–

1. i'm well versed in most ks on the high school circuit. i don't think it's necessary to list out. ask me before round if i am familiar with anything in specific
   

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.
   
   

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 the 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 probably always the best 2ar to go for
   
   

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. way too many of these authors are problematic so use author indicts to your advantage
   
   

10. do not drop case in the 2nr.
    
    

11. 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. i don't necessarily like hearing these debates but i can resolve them. i'm not a judge to pref if your A strat is theory.
   
   

2. 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.
   
   

3. i like to see techier styles of debate here but crystallization is key. 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” can be convincing
   
   

5. 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.
   
   

6. please have a TVA
   
   

7. i love hearing impact turns to fairness and education in T debates.
   
   

8. T-FWK v K affs feel stale and repetitive
   
   

Phil--

1. good with Kant, okay with everything else.
   
   

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.
   
   

5. emphasis on overexplain: i don't necessarily understand a lot of high theory phil args like Baudrillard or Bataille and am vaguely familiar with them. if you are reading these args, please explain it to me like I am a 5 year old.
   
   

Non-T Affs–

1. be very 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.
   
   

3. contextualize the role of the judge and the role of the ballot – “why is my ballot important?” is a question i will ask myself throughout the round.
   
   

Tricks–

1. don't read against identity-based affs
   
   

2. slow down on underviews
   
   

3. don't be shifty in cx
   
   

4. if you're going for an a priori please make sure to have a truth testing role of the ballot.
   
   

5. i find substantive spikes more interesting than theory spikes
   
   

6. 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

29-29.4—breaking

28.5-28.9—bubble

28-28.4—average/positive

27.5-27.9—even

27-27.4—negative

<26.9– need to contact someone important ab you/ you were disrespectful in round

Evidence Ethics)

i adhere to tournament rules for evidence ethics.

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.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions: nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I am currently a student at Texas A&M and I have experience competing in Public Forum, Congress, and primarily World Schools Debate at the state, national, and international levels.

Extemp

Organization/ roadmaps go a long way. It helps keep your speech on track and easily followed. Relevant introductions and conclusions are very important, and bonus points if you can weave them in throughout your speech! If you bring up a point, you better have evidence and reasoning to back it up. Try to utilize a variety of credible sources, you shouldn’t reference the same Facebook blogger three times. Remember faster ≠ better.

Debate

For the love of all things, DO NOT SPREAD. If I have to connect the dots with all of your arguments, we have an issue. Furthermore, you cannot win by simply having more arguments than your opponent, they must have weight over the other and you have to prove it to me. Signposting and organization help me flow and will in turn help me follow and understand your side better. I shouldn’t be getting lost in your speeches. Always keep your style respectful, don’t let your confidence turn into cockiness, and remember that speaking louder doesn’t make anything you say more believable.

WSD: Understand your speaker roles! First speeches should be very polished and not read off to me. These speeches should build a solid foundation for your team to build off of. The third speaker should solidify my vote for your side (don't try cramming in new arguments, weigh both worlds, and put everything into perspective), essentially go back through the flow and clarify anything that needs it. If a third speech does all of that well, I won’t even need to flow the replies.

POIs play into your strategy; asking too many or too few will affect your score. Remember to not badger your opponent with them and respect protected time. Be sure to keep a consistent narrative across the bench. I should feel like all four speeches came from the same team and weren’t thrown together randomly.

PF/ LD: Use prep time wisely and strategically. I will keep a running track of your prep time, and I won't stop my timer until you're done conversing/ working on the bench, EVEN IF your personal timer goes off, prepping is prepping. All questions and responses during cross should have a meaning behind them that impacts my ballot. Don’t ask questions for the sake of asking them and don’t let your answers leave room for interpretation. Personally, I dislike off-the-clock roadmaps. If you want to implement some sort of startup organization for your rebuttal, then it should be the beginning of your speech and kept up throughout your speech.

These days I only do this as a favor to people, so I do not judge these events nearly as much as I once did. As a result, do not assume that I possess specialized knowledge about the topic.

My background is in policy debate, though I've judged pretty much everything at this point, having done this since the 1990s. Specifically, I competed in CX debate in high school and debated at UT-Austin before the NDT-CEDA merger. I've also done some informal coaching over the years-- at one point in my life judging nearly every week, travelling with teams to national circuit tournaments, cutting evidence, etc., but it's been a number of years since I was that involved in the activity. In general, you can assume that I'm reasonably competent and can accurately flow arguments better than most judges you're likely to encounter on the local circuit. As long as you are clear, I should be able to keep up with virtually any level of speed, though you probably don't want to push the envelope in debates over Zoom.

I don't usually get assigned to judge acting and performance events, but I've judged many such rounds over the years (including at big, important tournaments), and I usually end up ranking competitors very much like judges for whom that is their primary area of expertise.

I endeavor to let debaters define the standards for the debate, especially since I no longer do this as much as I once did. I have no problem voting based on frameworks with which I personally disagree. To the extent that I have strong prejudices, it is against frameworks that advocate punishing debaters for supposed fairness violations that are more reasonably confined to the argument in question; this is especially true when a debater deliberately over-engages a line of argumentation so as to "prove the abuse" in the final rebuttal. Generally, I feel that debaters choose their own time allocation, and strategic errors are on them-- though I'm less dogmatic about this in LD, since the way the activity has evolved sometimes pushes up against time limits designed for a style of debate from a bygone era.

I have no problem with critical arguments, and you can safely assume that I've read at least some of the primary philosophical literature from which the most popular Kritiks derive. Debaters probably understand their specific argument better than I do, but my experience is that I generally understand the broader context for the argument better than anyone in the room. This is not meant to be read as arrogant, merely as informative about my own background and interests.

I feel like this is already going on a bit, and my experience is that debaters generally ignore most information that judges give them before the round anyway, so I'll close by highlighting three important(ish) things to understand about me.

First, if you're not impacting your arguments, you're deferring to me to do it for you, and you might not like the way that I weigh the relative importance of the issues in the round.

Second, debaters sometimes assume that if they're winning an argument that this means that there is now zero implication for the argument that they're rebutting, whereas I am very loathe to assign more weight to an argument than it actually merits. The classic case of this is a debater cutting into the uniqueness of a scenario and assuming that the scenario now just goes away, but my strong inclination is to look instead at how much uniqueness is being lost (seeing uniqueness as a sliding scale, rather than as a binary). On the other hand, some arguments have more implication than debaters sometimes assume, especially on theory debates. For example, winning a competing interpretations view of topicality means that I'm looking for the best possible interpretation of the resolution (even if means that the ground division in that round is not fair), and winning a reasonability standard means that I no longer care about the best interpretation at all (so long as there is fair ground in the round for each side).

Third, I am very receptive to risk analysis that points out that there is a mismatch between the magnitude of the link and the impact that results from it. Just like I default to a view of uniqueness as a sliding scale, I feel the same way about links. This has implications for both policy issues and critical debates. Tiny links don't generally translate into much of a risk of huge impacts, and I'm more than happy to entertain challenges to the internal uniqueness or threshold of each step of a causal chain before it cascades into the worst case scenario. However, none of this should not be interpreted as a willingness on my part to dismiss arguments out of hand because they are "ridiculous" or "not real world;" I have a much higher threshold for what constitutes an actual argument than that. Instead, I want to make clear that I will take seriously attempts to poke holes in a logical chain (even if the other side has more carded evidence); not all judges do in my experience.

Tabula rasa.  Speed as fine as long as I can hear you.

Clash is good.  I like creativity and will reward that in the round.  A creative case is better than one I'm going to hear every round.

I like an efficient round - please have speech doc sharing etc completed before the round begins.

Most of my debate experience is in WSD but I do have background in LD, PF, (and now collegiate level Parliamentary debate and IPDA)

In debate I look forward to well-constructed arguments/Speeches, I like organization!! The more sign posting the better, I also appreciate roadmaps, (OFF/ON CLOCK is fine) the more organized you are the better I can flow what you are trying to say. I need a good blend of offense/defense, please make sure to extend your points and build upon them, this will weigh big with me! It is important to engage with your opponent's case material, but you will not win on offense alone. I look for big level impacts and weighing of worlds, I need you to tell me directly who fairs better in "your" world. I will vote how you tell me to; does it boil down to timeframe, magnitude, scope, some sort of combination of factors? You got to be clear with me, I can only weigh what's on the flow. I don't like to infer!

I like quality speeches, refrain from spreading, take your time, and ask for clarifications if you need them from your opponent. This makes for a constructive debate!

Keep in mind, that we attack arguments, NOT people! I will NOT tolerate any mudslinging, so please keep it respectful and kind :)

If you need any clarifications from me, as a judge, during the round please don't hesitate to ask :)

Hi y'all! My name is Carlos Diaz and I competed for Spring Woods High School for four years and The University of Texas at Austin Speech Team for four years as well. I am currently the speech and debate director at Stratford High School.

My senior year of high school I was the 2016 TFA state champion in DUO as well as the 2016 TOC duo champion. My sophomore year of college I was a finalist in dramatic interpretation at the National Forensics Association tournament (top 6 out of 250 competitors). The following year I was a semi-finalist in persuasive speaking at the same tournament, (top 12 out of 250 competitors). Although I never competed in congress or extemp, my high school was state and nationally ranked in congressional debate, and I had the great fortune of having some of the best extempers in the nation as my teammates during my time in the UT speech team.

Extemp:

First- answer the question. Read the question carefully or you might give an entire speech that ultimately misses the mark.

Credible and great sources.

Strong format and structure. The speech should be able to flow easily and be coherent enough for non-speech judges.

Oratory/Info:

I want a solid structure of the speech. The audience (and I as a judge) must be able to follow along with ease. This means previewing in your intro.

Be sure to use your space, especially between transitions and with hand gestures. This adds another layer to the delivery of the speech and it makes an enormous difference.

For OO- solutions need to be tangible, meaning things that I as an audience member can take up and do. If the solutions are abstract, you are not fulfilling your role as an orator.

For Info- implications are the man thing that make the speech. They need to be out of the box, and make the audience think of something we would not have otherwise.

Congress:

Preview in your introduction.

You MUST have excellent sources and I will not look favorably upon a point that has no sources at all. How am I supposed to evaluate something that is purely opinion?

To PO's: I pay heavy attention to how you are conducting the round.

Be kind in questioning. Do not be abusive in any aspect of the speech.

Interp:

I will be the most picky in this event just because it's my favorite and I usually have a lot of feedback to provide.

The intro in interp should always have a strong argument, preferably backed up by sources or studies that support the theme of the performance (and yes, even in HI).

Dramatic/Prose: I am looking for a well developed character. Additionally, it's nice to have a set environment that the audience is able to observe.

Although this event tends to be more dramatic (haha), I also want to see levels throughout. A piece that only has one tone and mood is boring, give me more! Add the humor, the doubt, the regret, the hesitance, the anger, and so much more that makes your character a real person.

Programs: Having a clear argument is imperative. Your literature can be anything as long as it connects with your main theme.

Characters need to be unique. I should not be able to confuse characters, so make them stand out. Things like changes in tone, accents (if appropriate), mannerisms, etc.

Humorous: Although the main point of this event is to be funny, i'd rather see it be clean and easy to follow. HI can tend to focus too much on the humor and ignore the plot of the script. Make sure you don't.

Characters need to be unique but also BIG. The entire point of HI is to be exaggerated and to have no boundaries or limitations (as long as it makes sense and adds to the story rather than distracts from it).

Overall, I am looking for people that are having fun! The amazing thing about interp is that you are given a platform to completely personify a character, an argument, and a story.

Last but not least- CONFIDENCE. If there's something that I've learned from competing in speech for eight years is that confidence is key. As long as you think of yourself as a winner, you will perform as a winner, and the audience will see you as a winner.

Thanks y'all!

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

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).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. 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.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

Memorial ‘23

Email: ben.duong9034@gmail.com

I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year with six career bids. I have gone for almost every strategy from tricks to idpol so I would consider myself pretty tab and will vote on anything that has a warrant and does not actively exclude others from this space. Reach out to me on FaceBook or email, I will be active on both during the tournament if you have any questions about my paradigm.

People who have heavily influenced how I view debate are Sebastian Cho, Daniel Xu, Elmer Yang, Andrew Qin, Sreyaash Das, Eyan Majeed, and Abhinav Sinha. If my paradigm does not cover something you have questions about, check their paradigms and I would most likely agree.

Pref shortcut, this is purely based off my comfortability of judging these types of arguments I am willing to equally vote on any of them -

1 - Theory/T, Tricks

2 - Phil

3 - Larp

4 - K

Strike - Tricks but done poorly

Top Level -

Tech > Truth

Spin > Evidence

Speed is fine but please slow down on analytics, tags, and author names please

Send any prewritten analytics it makes flowing so much easier for me, I will give 0.2 speaks bonus for if you do so

CX is binding

Be nice to novices but you can read whatever you want as long as you are respectful

I prefer frivolous evidence ethics violations to be read as shells and serious ones like clipping or strawman for you to stop the round. If the round is staked I will give the winner a W30 and the loser a L20.

No ad homs.

Make this round resolvable with technical and efficient debate, you will be rewarded

If you give me any drink with caffeine or some food I will give you plus 0.5 speaks

Theory/T

This is the type of debate I am best at evaluating

I default DTD, CI, No RVIs, Fairness > Education

I think terminal defense almost never exists in the world of competing interps

PLEASE WEIGH between standards and shells. I agree with Andrew Qin’s paradigm so I am just going to copy paste it here, “If there’s no weighing, I’ll default to evaluating on strength of link. I don’t know what it means for the “theory debate to be a wash” if both sides have offense, which means I do not default to presumption or substance if both sides have theory shells that aren’t weighed between.”

Contesting paradigm issues is severely underrated and should be used more

Tricks

Default permissibility and presumption negates

I am fine with all tricks but prefer ones like skep/aprioris over logic based tricks like trivialism

Just like with theory please weigh and slow down because I won’t backflow

Phil

I am familiar with most common phil like Hobbes, Kant, Pragmatism etc. but err on the side of over explaining

Hijacks are strategic

LARP

Over explain topic concepts and try not to use too much jargon - I don't research the topic as much as you wish I did

Fine with anything LARP but am uncomfortable evaluating a dense competition debate

K

I am familiar with a few K lit bases (Set Col, Queerpess, Cap, and Psycho) but you should still err on the side of over explanation

Please don’t read a long OV, I won’t do the implicit clash you want me to do for you, instead be good on the technical line by line

Please flesh out perms and perfcons in the 1AR or else I will stop typing if the 2AR goes for it

I am, at heart, a traditional judge, though I welcome innovative choices that make for effective storytelling in all events.

In extemp, I will be looking for a focus on the given question, clear points that support the speaker's answer, credible supporting sources, relaxed gestures that help emphasize important ideas, and a clear and smooth speaking style.

In Oratory and Informative, I will be looking for a speech that fulfills the purpose of the events - I should feel persuaded to some sort of action in oratory and I should learn something new and unexpected in Informative. The speeches should be supported with multiple, credible sources of different types. The speaker should be conversational in their delivery - formal enough to honor the topic, but casual enough to relate to the audience. Gestures should feel natural and flow from the requirements of the speech.

In the Interp events, I will be looking for an honest performance at heart. In dramatic, I should believe the emotional journey of the character(s), and should not feel overwhelmed by an overly intense interpretation. In Humorous, even when the source material is silly, the audience should feel the truth underneath the comedy. Introductions should be meaningful. If I am ever made to feel that I should not be seeing a high school student performing something (whether it is related to content or language), it takes me out of the moment and will have a negative impact on my ranking. Mature choices are fine, but it is important to maintain lines of appropriateness.

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers recon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I mainly have a history of PF but have extensive debate experience. I will usually flow throughout the round, crossfire included. However, nothing matters to me unless it is extended.

• I am tech>truth
• I prefer line-by-line summaries, I also prefer collapsing
• I'm pretty strict about summaries not including new arguments. If an argument is new, I will catch it and won't count it.
• Spreading is fine. Be reasonable.
• I'm not a huge stickler about being respectful, as long as you're not, like, verbally harassing your opponent...

Add me to the email chain: hunterfoster.debate@gmail.com

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.

Main Philosophy

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

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.

Counterplans

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.

Framework/Framing

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.

Phil

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).

Kritiks

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.

Topicality

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

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.

Tricks

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)

Speaks

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

Point Breakdown

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.

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?

Hello, my name is Darren Frazee. I debated (policy debate) at McNeil HS (TX) went to the University of Kansas for college. I currently help coach debate at Klein HS.

CX/Policy

Please include me on the email chain -dfrazee1@kleinisd.net- just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Overview

I have no problem with K's, theory, or speed. I ran all types of arguments myself as a debater. I evaluate a round based on impacts in the 2NR and 2AR. An argument without an impact gets you nowhere. Weigh your impacts for me. If you can paint me a clear picture of the debate round and why you won, I am much more likely to vote for you. Be kind.

Kritiks

I love Kritiks, but you need to put in the work. I do not like vague links and warrantless claims.

Counterplans

I think counterplans are best when they are unique and creative, but I will consider pretty much any counterplan. Its up to the AFF to tell me why a certain type of counterplan should not be allowed.

Speed

I have no problem with speed, but you must be clear. If I can't understand you, I will yell clear. I will not flow arguments that I could not hear. I will not evaluate arguments that I did not flow.

Demeanor

Be kind and respectful. If your opponent is being abusive, tell me why its a voting issue.

I truly enjoy judging speech and debate events. In the 1990s, I participated in Cross Examination Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking and Original Oratory at Douglas MacArthur High School in San Antonio. While in high school, I competed at the TFA State Tournament (in both CX and DX) and the NFL National Tournament (in CX), as well as debate tournaments such as St. Mark's, Emory, Glenbrook South, Harvard, and the Baylor Round Robin; my CX team either broke, placed, or won at those tournaments. I attended the national high school debate institutes at American, Northwestern, and Dartmouth. I finished my high school speech and debate career with the Outstanding Distinction/Quad Ruby Degree from the NFL. Currently, I am a volunteer coach for Incarnate Word Academy and a full-time lawyer in Houston. My favorite speeches are well-organized, analytical and persuasive. Please be sure to support your argument with credible evidence or authority. A good attention getter and closing go far in my book. Try your best to finish right around the end of your time limit. Overall, I value "stuff" over "fluff," but speaking style, clarity, and mannerisms do help to put gifted speakers at the top of my ballot. Don’t be afraid to offer differing viewpoints to provide balance to your argument; that demonstrates an intellectual appreciation of nuance. I view judging as a community service and am always available for comments after your round. Best of luck.

Judged about twenty tournaments, about two thirds through tabroom. I have exposure in WSD, LD, PF and CX. I've also judged OI, Prose, HI, Domestic and Foreign Extemp.

Do not like spread, as it is too difficult to gleam the details and take notes on it. I feel that if I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth, and be able to jot a note down about it, then you did not say anything.

Speaker points are higher for those that speak clearly, provide well defined citations, use proper voice inflection and appropriate body movement for the event.

While I don't recommend running topicality or kritik, I'm willing to keep an open mind to it if you think you really have a case for it. I have only seen one topicality argument that had validity, but missed opportunity on a few others.

Been catching CX/Policy recently and seeing many Viva Voce violations. Partners, do not interupt/prompt your speaker when they have the floor. It will likely cost you my ballot. Also, even if open cross is agreed upon, the speaker should still respond to all questions after their speech. It provides better speech points for all speakers.

I was a policy debater in the 1990’s and have been coaching since 1999, currently, I am the coach at Avalos P-TECH School. I know that ages me, but it should also tell you that the debate I grew up with was much different than what is going on today. I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate. As a debater, it is your job to be clear at all times so you don’t lose me.

General:

• DON’T BE RUDE

• I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS

• It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage

• Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues

• I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Speed: I am good with moderate speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. Keep in mind that I am old so you probably need to slow down a bit.

Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to. If you don’t weigh for me I have to do it for you and you do not want that to happen.

Other:

Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together. Remember I am old so I will probably lose pieces along the way.

One last thing, I am old fashioned. You are participating in a speaking event. Stand up during your speeches and CX/CF periods (Grand Cross would be the exception). You need to persuade me as to why I should be voting for you.

Speaker Points:

26-30

Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary.

riley.quinn.hardwick@gmail.com

DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

Each format has its own unique attributes, and you should always respect those attributes unless you explicitly read theory which compels me to respect your shirking of those attributes. I am willing to vote on unorthodoxy, but I have to have an important reason to vote on that unorthodoxy.

I am a former CX debater and a tab judge. CX is the format I'm most familiar with, but I have debated and judged virtually every format. When I say I am a tab judge, I don't mean to communicate that I won't evaluate claims based on my own knowledge and experience. If your case relies on my acceptance of your argument that the sky is red, you aren't going to win. I am a tab judge in the sense that you should not assume any one paradigm from me.

My philosophy is that each round has its own rules and must be evaluated depending on what emerges in-round. You should always tell me what is the focus of the round and why. Tell me what framework is most important, tell me what my role is, tell me what the role of my ballot is, tell me which voting issues are the most critical. Otherwise, I will make those decisions based on my own experiences and values.

It is not my job to automatically recognize an argument you are making or extend an argument on your behalf. I'm well-versed in a lot of the theory that might come up. But I prefer being exposed to new, niche, creative approaches and ideas. The caveat to that preference is I'm not well-versed in ideas I haven't yet been exposed to. Please loop me in.

Both traditional and progressive arguments are fine as long as you do them well. Don't ask me whether I prefer one argument over another, or whether I prefer one set of values over another. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's your argument to make. Context and evidence is everything, and it is very likely that I will prefer a sensible and empirically-backed argument over a sensible analytic. What I will say is that some arguments are extremely difficult (effectively impossible) to prove to me. For example, capitalism is a good or sustainable economic system, immigration causes overpopulation, the world is overpopulated, racism isn't alive and well, etc. I've seen ideas like those circulating in the debate space for a while. I don't know if debaters actually believe ideas like those, or if those are desperate grabs at a win, but don't run them on me. I would rather you collapse on ideas you are winning and prove to me why those are paramount voting issues than throw bigoted spaghetti at the wall and hope that breadth impresses me. It won't.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT:

You frame the round and my flow determines the W. In order to win my ballot, you must 1.) provide a framing mechanism or specify which framing mechanism should be preferred and why 2.) win offense to that framing mechanism and prove that your advocacy has the strongest link to that framework and 3.) provide an impact calculus.

I always use gateway issues (T, theory, framing) to help frame my decision. If those issues don't come up, or their clash lacks depth, I consider how well each team has met their burden and allow that to frame my decision. Notice that I say this is how I frame my decision. This alone will not win you my ballot. I vote holistically. You might win one important issue and lose every other issue on the flow, resulting in an overall loss.

Be considerate about how you construct your case, how you write analytics, and how you organize your speeches. I am a bit of a gamesplayer in that I track how the flow of your speech mirrors your opponent's flow. Spending the bulk of a constructive speech reading your evidence into the round without reading offense on your opponents' case or reading defensive arguments is poor strategy. Collapses should be intentional, not an accident resulting from mass concession.

Your advocacy suite should be strategically organized and directly communicated so as to make the decision abundantly clear for me. I want clear extensions, roadmapping, and signposting. If you are going to roadmap, give me a detailed roadmap of the distinct arguments you plan to cover in your speech. Do not tell me the order will be 'aff and then neg', or something to that effect. Those are literally the only two sides we will be discussing in any debate round. It's a given that you will cover one or the other at some point in the round.

INTERP EVENTS:

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a slate (contextualizing the piece, stating the theme, listing the title[s] and author[s] of the source material[s], and reiterating the central theme of the piece), complete the exposition, rise into the climax, and then fall into the resolution.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and your binder to block different elements of your piece or characterize different characters. Utilize eye contact considerately as well.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Utilize vocal inflection, pacing, clarity, enunciation, accents (where appropriate), and volume to discern between different characters and different scenes. The intentional application of these elements can be used to juxtapose different elements, emphasize important ideas, and discern between different characters.

Physically move from point to point in accordance with the speaker's triangle. Use gestures to illustrate or emphasize points

The plot of your piece should be clear and easy to map. Whether you are utilizing one source or multiple sources, your piece should be paced and organized with lots of consideration. You should fully embody each character depicted, and there should be a clear distinction between each characters, each scene, each action, and each section in your piece.

SPEECH EVENTS:

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a roadmap, two to three supporting arguments, a restatement of the roadmap, and a conclusion. Stick closely to this organization and signpost generously throughout your speech. Use verbal transitions and the speaker's triangle to help map your speech.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally throughout your piece. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and other elements to make your piece moving, memorable, and engaging. Utilize eye contact as well. Look at your judges and your audience-don't look through us.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Except on rare occasions when you may exercise a characterization, you should maintain even pacing, appropriate projection, varied inflection, vocal clarity, and a confident, conversational style. Avoid coming off as meek, stilted, confused, monotonous, etc.

For original oratory, make sure you clearly define your personal connection to the content in your introduction and conclusion.

For informative oratory, make sure your visual aids are simple, straightforward, easy to read, easy to decipher, and actually enhance your speech. Any attempts at humor are always a plus.

For any speech event, ensure that you are citing a healthy amount of sources in your speech. I like a balance between qualitative and quantitative evidence in the speeches I judge.

Content and presentation are equally important to me. I prefer three point speeches, but I will always prefer a holistically superior two-point speech to a superficial and sloppy three-point speech. The content should have depth and be logically organized.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

I am a retired coach. I have judged LOTS of rounds in all formats. I consider myself traditional in my approach to all events. I have provided my paradigm for speech and debate events here.

Public Speaking Events

All speeches should have well structured introductions, fully developed body, and satisfaction for your audience thru your conclusion. Sources are key to your speech, you should use a variety of appropriate sources. I expect that your speech will include the "why do I care" - What draws your audience to want to learn more from what you have to say. In extemp, I expect you to answer the specific question you were given. I evaluate all non-verbal communication in your presentation. I accept all perspectives on all topics; however, I expect that your are aware of your audience and avoid language or statements that may be offensive.

Interp Events

First and foremost, pieces should be appropriate for the venue. While I understand that some pieces may contain some sexual innuendo, I will reject innuendo that is not a part of the original script or that is added for the "shock value" rather than the development of the performance. Your introduction should be more than telling me the storyline that you are presenting. There is a reason you chose this piece, a topic you want to discuss. Share that in your intro. Give me believable characters that I can empathize with. Be sure there is an identifiable difference in your characters.

In all debate rounds

Don’t depend on email chains or flashing briefs to include an argument in the round. If it is not spoken during your speeches, it is not in the round. I prefer a more communicative speed of delivery, especially when using online competition. I can keep up but, I think the idea of trying to spread your opponent out of the round is not in the realm of what debate should be. I would rather hear a good clash on the arguments presented.

In PF

I believe PF should be a debate with class. Interactions between opponents should be cordial. Crossfire should be used to obtain information NOT to belittle your opponent. You can not ignore your opponent's arguments and expect to win. Evidence and common sense are key.

In LD

I feel that LD should be philosophy based. Even if the topic is policy-oriented, the selection of a policy is always based on values. Therefore, you should be prepared to debate your value and criterion to support your view on the topic. If you can't support your view, how can I accept your position?

A Kritik on the topic is not an acceptable position. You have been given a topic to debate and that is what I expect to hear. If all you offer is the Kritik, you have not upheld your burden and will lose the round. Running a Kritik on the topic in addition to case arguments is a huge contradiction in your case.

If you want me to view the round from your viewpoint, you must provide voters in your final speech.

In Congress

This is a congressional debate. I expect that you do more than read a prepared speech. There should be responses to previous speeches. You need to be active in the chamber. Questions are an essential part of the process. With that being said, don't ask questions that do not seek to expand information. That is a waste of the chamber's time and takes time away from those with solid questions. Provide sources to the house to substantiate your points.

In CX

I encourage traditional debate in terms of format. That means I do not like open cx. With that being said, I accept progressive style arguments. I will listen to your arguments, but I expect you to provide warrants and logical analysis. If you are the opponent, don’t assume I will reject an argument on face, you must respond if you want to win the argument.

I DO vote on STOCK ISSUES. So Affirmative teams should be prepared to meet those standards.

Negative teams, please don’t throw out a dozen arguments only to drop the ones that don’t stick. If you bring the argument into the round plan to carry it thru to the end.

Label your arguments before you start reading your briefs!

I believe it is essential that you weigh the impacts of your argument in the round.

Ok, who is this child judging me?

Hi, I'm Anderson! I'm currently in my junior year of debate. I mainly do LD, which I am not super good at but I really enjoy it, but I've somehow qualified to TFA and broke at a couple of national circuit tournaments. I've also cleared at many locals in extemp and impromptu, cuz my coach makes me do it (i rly dont like IEs ngl).

My views of LD align a lot with Jack Quisenberry and Lilly Broussard, so check their paradigms if you want extra info.

Here's my sophomore year wiki if you want to see what I usually read (its just a load of policy w a bit of theory).

If you are doing PF or other events, you can find that stuff on the bottom.

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

LD

Shortcuts (based off of how comfortable I am with judging them):

Trad - 1

Policy - 1

Theory - 1

T - 2

Phil - 3

K - 4

Tricks - dont really know yet tbh but prob not great

General

I wanna be on the email chain - anderson_hendrix@northlandchristian.org

I want you to do you, while I have certain things that I enjoy more than others, I don't want my opinions to prevent you from running what you want to run. If you know your case and you explain it well to me, it will get you really far.

I am god awful at flowing, you will find me in the back typing with two of my fingers. Spreading is totally fine, but with that being said, PLEASE SLOW DOWN on analytics, I would consider myself as a 7 out of 10 in terms of speed. I get that sometimes 1ncs will make that extremely difficult, especially for the 1ar. So if you must go extremely fast, please put analytics in the doc.

Plz make rounds accessible for trad/novice debaters- you can crush them but do it kindly. You don't need to spread to beat a novice. Read whatever you would like in front of them, but please don't be shady. The higher your kindness, the higher your speaks will be. :)

I have low toleration for rudeness- there's def a fine line between being perceptually dominant and being rude. Sassiness is fine - but being a straight up cotton-headed ninny muggins will cause your speaks to fall below the Earth's crust. Showing some human decency to your opponent is always appreciated

Tech>Truth to the highest extent ethically possible - I go into the round assuming I know nothing, and will assume the debaters say is true (i.e. if you say "the sky is red" I will assume that is true until your opponent says otherwise.

I dont judge on the basis of presentation and appearance - you can do a handstand while you give a speech for all I care, leave the debate on the flow.

I do keep time - but feel free to time yourselves. I will stop flowing if you go over time.

Non-Negotiables

• Speech times (6-3-7-3-4-6-3)
• No discriminatory args or language
• No clipping
• All args must have a claim, warrant, and impact

Defaults (can be changed if you say otherwise)

Comparative Worlds

Presumption affirms

Permissibility Negates

Fairness = Education

No RVI's

Competing interps

Norm setting>ira

Trad LD

If you do these four things, you will most likely get my ballot.

1. KNOW YOUR CASE & EXTEND - I feel that a saddening amount of rounds are lost bc people don't understand what their case says, if you can give me a well-warranted explanation behind your arguments and do good extensions, your case will seem really strong, and you will be far ahead if you are doing a better job than your opponent.
2. JUDGE INSTRUCTION - tell me where the most important arguments in the round are, and where I should be voting.
3. WEIGHING - explain to me why the impacts of your case are the most important, and TIE IT BACK TO YOUR FW. When there is no metric for me to decide who's impacts come first, I have to decide for the debaters WHICH IS VERY SAD :(
4. BIG PICTURE ANALYSIS -compare worlds for me, explain what the aff world looks like versus the neg world, this can be a huge tiebreaker, especially if the debate is close on the line by line.

Policy

• Love it! It's what I read most. Basically cool with anything in this category.
• Just make sure you delineate what ur going for and what ur kicking (i.e. "Im going for X DA and kicking X CP")
• CP's should probably have a solvency advocate and a net benefit in order to be legitimate. Cheaty CPs are awesome, but be prepared to respond to theoretical arguments if that is your strat.
• For DA's, make sure it engages with the affirmative, and doing some sort of weighing with the aff is so important. Doing some evidence analysis and impact calc is highly encouraged.
• Soft left affs are fine, I personally dont run these but if you can explain why your impacts come first and beat back exticntion arguments we should be cool.
• Impact turns and link turns are super fun, I havent had a whole lot of these debates though. Just explain ur transition arguments and weigh between impacts and you should do well in these debates
• For policy v k, make perms and be able to defend your method of debate or the structure that you are residing to.

Theory/T

• Also love this! I don't care how frivolous your shell is, but I will give have less of a threshold of responses for more frivolous theory, especially if you are reading tons of shells.
• I default to fairness and education, DTD, competing interps, No RVI's if you don't read paradigm issues, but feel free to debate paradigm issues as much as you want, I find those debates very engaging.
• Definitely will evaluate RVIs, I hate people that straight up refuse to evaluate them, just make sure that you properly justify that you can get RVIs before making them
• 1ar theory can be a fantastic strat that you def can win on, I think it is a good strat against abusive negs and I LOVE CP Theory.
• I am a disclosure enthusiast, and I def do accept any form of disclosure theory and probably will be biased towards it, but I still def will evaluate disclosure bad arguments.
• Pls dont be an idiot and stake the round on ev ethics, just read a shell and debate it for the love of god. Ev ethics shells are usually very easy to win.

K

• If you decide to read a K, I probably don't know your lit, so PLZ PLZ PLZ explain it to me
• K's have a lot of jargon that I dont know, so plz just define any unusual jargon for my sake
• If you are reading one on the neg, please make sure you have a clear link to the aff
• EXPLAINNN, so many k's debaters don't do this, if you can clearly explain the parts of your k and how they function and you can definitely get my ballot
• Reps K's are fun, but pls don't base them entirely off of ad homs if you run them, link them to the actual philosophy itself
• I am somewhat familiar with cap, setcol, and security, everything else is going to take explanation for me to understand, I am very willing to evaluate any K, put please run at your own risk.
• Postmodern Ks - uhhhhh yeah I dont really get these but feel free to run it if you think you can explain it to me

Phil

• My opinions about phil have changed a bit after camp
• I'm trying to start running phil a little more but I have a major lack of experience
• Experienced with certain fws such as Kant, Contracts, Util, SV, Skep, anything else just make sure you explain ur syllogisms clearly
• When extending arguments, make sure you have clear implications for them (i.e. a priori ethics takes out their k for x reason)
• Probably terrible for phil v k debates

Tricks

• I don't really run these and I'm not experienced at all when it comes to this, so please keep that in mind if you running these things
• I do really like spikes in a 1ac ov/uv and in 1nc hedge, prob the only type of trick that I think I could evaluate w/o being completely confused
• Im really bad with phil based trix, probably shouldnt run this in front of me cuz I dont think I will be able to evaluate it tbh
• Please stop grouping permissibility and presumption together, they aren't the same thing, make them separate for the love of god
• Please have a claim, warrant, and impact for all of your blippy arguments, I won't evaluate it if it doesn't have those things the first speech you read it
• Please be careful about this against identity k debaters or trad/novices, be accessible when ur doing it
• JUDGE INSTRUCTION AND WEIGHING PLEASE, I will not vote if no proper weighing is done

Speaks

My range of speaks that I give is from 26-30, and I start from a 28 and move up or down for there. My speaks scale is also like this

30 - Omg I'm inspired, late elims at least

29.4-29.9 - Fantastic debater, will reach mid to late elims

29-29.3 - Did a great job, early elims

28.5-28.9 - Did good, Bubble round

28-28.4 - Getting up there, possibly bubble round

27-27.9 - Can be improvements to your strat, but you have potential.

26-26.9 - Probably not ready for the event/division

Lowest speaks I can give - isms/phobias/ev ethics/clipping/stuff of that sort

Keep in mind that my speaks change depending on the difficulty of a tournament - its much easier to get a 30 at a novice ld local than it is to get a 30 at the TOC.

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU GOOD SPEAKS:

• Mentioning frogs in your speeches
• Ending your speeches early and still winning
• Good strategic decisions
• Being kind!!!!!!
• Clear signposting and being easy to follow

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU BAD SPEAKS:

• "What's an apriori?"
• Being repetitive with your arguments
• Unclear spreading
• Being rude
• Sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, anything of that sort

Scale Thingy:

Voting for policy---X-------Voting for the K

Researching/coaching policyX----------Researching/coaching the K

Tech (as long as its not discriminatory) X----------Truth

Will read ev without being told-----X-----Tell me what to read

Sending the doc counts as prep---------X-Sending the doc doesnt count as prep

Condo good---X-------Condo bad

Dispo good-------X---Dispo bad

PICs good-----X-----PICs bad

Yes RVIs-----X-----No RVIs

Overviews------X----LBL

Alternatives/K affs should solve things or lose--X--------Alternatives/K affs can not solve things and not lose

Debate good-X---------Debate bad (the activity)

Debate good-----X-----Debate bad (the community)

I hate impact turns-------X---I love impact turns

Yes ur Baudrillard/Kant---------X-Not ur Baudrillard/Kant

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

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

PF

• I've done pretty minimal research on the topic, so I know it, but treat me as a lay judge.
• I will prioritize the line by line in the round, but doing some big picture weighing is really important for getting my ballot
• Speaks can be cross applied here
• You can read some of the more traditional stuff in my LD paradigm, all of that will apply here

LD -

• Traditional judge - do not mix LD with Policy debate
• Framework - make sure that your v and vc are upheld throughout the entire case
• Moderate speed is fine; remember that if I cannot flow your case then you will more than likely won't do well in the round
• I want to hear impact not an overwhelming amount of cards - how do you interpret your cards for them to uphold your case's stance on the resolution?

PF -

• Absolutely no spreading
• This is a people's debate, please make sure that your case displays a cohesive development of your critical thinking skills
• In this debate, you are speaking to an average person, do not treat like I am an expert
• Second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal

A few general points -

• I do not want to be on the email chain
• I will not disclose during prelims
• Do not ask me about speaks
• Please treat your opponents and judge with respect and integrity; this is supposed to resemble a professional environment meant to develop your communication skills
• If you bring spectators to round, please make sure that YOUR spectators respect the flow of the round. Once you enter room, they are there from start to finish. I will not tolerate an interruption of the concentration and flow of the participants and the judge. I will leave a note on your ballot for your coach to review or speak directly to your coach.

Congressional debater for 7 years on local, state, national level - very experienced in CD and have had a fair share of experience with PF and Extemp.

For Cong - be active in round - questions matter! Speech quality matters over quantity. Make sure to warrant statistics and provide a reason why your impacts matter. You are here to represent your constituents so keep that in mind.

PF - Favor tech but only if you explain how tech is specific to the topic (no extinction etc) Make sure I can at least understand what you are saying, if you spread and I don't pick up what is said it is on you.

I am a recent graduate from Gregory-Portland High School, where I participated for three years in Speech & Debate. In those three years I competed at TFA State, NIETOC, Nats, & UIL State, where I was a finalist in Prose. I competed in almost every event from the Speech and Interpretation side, but mainly focused on Duo, Duet, Info, & Prose. 

In Interpretation events, I like to see creativity in a piece. I want you as an artist to take me beyond what the Stage Directions in your script say. In Duo/Duet, I want to see good chemistry between you and your partner, as well as good use of the space around you. In binder events, I want to see good binder tech. Do you maintain control throughout your entire piece? Are you making a V-shape with your binder?

In Speech events, I want to see your passion for what you're talking about. If it's Oratory, make that personal connection between you and the topic. If it's Info, I want to see creative boards - but not ones that take away from your speech either. 

At the end of the day, I want to see cleanliness, creativity, and passion!

-You have to weigh it has to be comparative and I prefer specific warrants based on in-round argument vs general ideas on how two impacts interact in a vacuum

-I wont accept new weighing in first final unless no other weighing is done before and 2nd can respond but can't read their own weighing

-in 2nd rebuttal two things you have to frontline and dont read disads if theres a legitimate violation/issue I'll evaluate a new off but I don't recommend doing it on a ticky-tack violation

-Im fine with progressive arguments but you cant kick it you can collapse on specific warrants but any argument you read should make it to final and i wont evaluate no RVIs or must read competing interps

-im fine with any speed in the front half of the round but in the back half the faster you go the more I'll miss or not get which makes it hard to vote for you so make a judgement call

-warrants and contextualization are more important in the back half than the front half that doesn't mean you can make up new warrants in the back half it just means dont forget if your argument doesnt make sense I wont vote for it because I dont know what Im voting for

-Ill give block 30s if I can so if you dont get a 30 its because of your behavior in the round so I would call on you to reflect a little on what may have happened in the round to warrant it

I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid Kritiks and spreading.

LD: I prefer traditional LD; No spreading, civil clash, and a strong emphasis on philosophy over policy. I will tolerate progressive debate/Kritiks and policy, however, be careful and make sure your case is well crafted with this.

IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery!

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.

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

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Background:I currently do college policy debate at UH, I did LD for 3 years in high school, and I coach debate at Seven Lakes HS.

GENERAL TLDR (for all debates):

- Tech > truth

- I think almost everything is debatable, 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. I will not do ev comparison for you or search through your cards for warrants that you don't put on the flow. The only time I will look through evidence is if neither debaters explained their args well enough for me to write a coherent RFD or if you specifically tell me to look at something.

- Based purely off of my knowledge of args and not preference: Policy > K, Phil/LARP > Tricks

- Flex prep is fine. time yourself

Long version:

My paradigm for LD, CX, PF are combined below. Read what applies and skip what doesn’t. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it that could significantly influence how I judge the round.

Nothing here is set in stone, but these are some thoughts that may be helpful for you to know:

K --- I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do. 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 am just less familiar with these literature bases and am better for Ks like cap and security.

2. I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is very interesting and great but it’s implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hominem and doesn't explain why racist/sexist/etc undertones hurt people when implemented into something material is a losing one.
Racism, sexism, any form of violence is not ok and I will stop the round if a debater starts saying slurs or making people uncomfortable, but saying someone engaging with the state makes them racist is, to me, not a reason they should lose.

All that said, I will vote on any K that is debated well.

Yes you can kick the alt and go for links as offense, but they need to be explained and impacted out.

CP --- I like creative and fun CPs that actually solve. I will reward creativity and uniqueness because it demonstrates that you (maybe) have a nuanced understanding of the topic.
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.

DA —-I think DAs against K AFFs are cool. The link articulation obviously must be different, but I do not think it is unreasonable to run a policy DA against a K AFF.

T —-I default to competing interps.

Disclosure —- You should do it

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.

Tricks —-I don’t like them but for some reason keep being put in tricks rounds.

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.

Speaks —- I have historically been a terrible speaks goblin, but this year I will attempt to be nicer. These speaks explanations only apply to tournaments AFTER 2023 Grapevine.

Below 26: You did something very bad

26-27: You did something I didn’t like, were rude, or something else along those lines that is related to your behavior outside of your debate performance.

27-27.9: Need to work on some things

28-28.9: Did what you needed to do, you are at the level I would expect you to be at

29-30: Above average, exceeded my expectations in some aspect

Speaks increase when you: make good strategic decisions, are funny, creative, confident, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space BUT I think attitude, sass, and confidence is great and funny - the line seems thin but it really isn’t, you can be aggressive without being terrible and rude

Speaks decrease when you: Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash.

*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.

junior vpf at bellaire

try and preflow before round

ask for oral paradigm

amyllong02@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

speed is fine but go slow on tags and author names. don't really like spreading but it's tolerable (if you do spread make sure to send case) ? Before each speech, I do prefer a road map (i.e. aff case, neg case, framework, etc)

don't know much about tricks/theory, so if you do use them in round, you will need to explain it well or I can't vote on it

did debate for a few years (mainly LD) but dropped after freshman year — do with that what you will

In debate I look for clash within a round, I think it prevents the round from coming down to a "he said, she said" argument. I also like seeing detailed explanations behind why an opposing sides argument is flawed. These detailed arguments prove to me that the student understands the base of the argument. I in general, like students to be as detailed as possible when they make their arguments. It is important to avoid making vague arguments. I like clearly stated impacts in a round, but I also need to be given a weighing mechanism to evaluate the impacts. I think it is also important that students are speaking clearly, in order to make understanding their case and points easy. I like clear impacts in the round, but I also want to see a weighing mechanism of how to evaluate said impacts. I fine with you talking fast but there is a clear line between talking fast and spreading.

Make sure your arguments are fully fleshed out. Don’t be vague, be as specific as possible.

in speaking events, I pay a lot of attention to speaking style. I feel that your style should be clear and fluid in order for the speech to have clarity. Content is also really important, I look for detailed analysis on topics, which shows me that the student fully understands the topic. I like speaking events where it is clear that the speaker is finding ways to engage their audience.

When it comes to interp events, I expect the performers to have fully formed characters and showcase believable interactions. Emotions can be hard to capture, and I look for students who are able to fully convince me that they are feeling these emotions. I think that performances should be dynamic. When pacing is stagnant the entire performance I feel that it becomes difficult to be invested in the story that is trying to told with their performance.

I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next.

In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

tldr:

trad tech pf judge

he/him

general:

add me to chain

If you're going fast send doc(s)

Weigh

Substance is good, theory meh, and everything else is at your own risk

if you want more: paradigm

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

My name is Laura Martin. I have been a teacher for roughly 10 years. I have judged prose and world schools debate previously. 

For the debaters:

• please no spreading. I will not understand what argument is being made.
• Please use evidence. A claim has no backing without it. 

For the speakers: 

• make sure you speak clear and to where I can hear you 
• use your space (HI,DI,DUO,DUET) 
• Be aware of your time
• I enjoy a entertaining and enlightening speech

email: jake_mccathran@northlandchristian.org

hi i'm jake (he/him) and i'm a second year debater at northland christian school who does mainly ld. contact me before round if you have any questions

LD:

basically just debate how you want, i will evaluate any arguments with warrants. i'm more of a tech over truth judge, but please extend your arguments, even if your opponent drops them, or i will not flow them. weigh your offense, i don't care how many arguments you're winning in the round, it means nothing to me if you don't weigh. in terms of framework, explain why you winning framework matters,if it means the opponent has no offense, explain to me why. too many times i see debates over framework that have no impact on the round whatsoever. i have my progressive related paradigm at the bottom but before you even consider it, please make sure your opponent is ok with it,if you spread against someone who is inexperienced, your speaks will be tanked. also if you're gonna spread, add me to the email chain.

things i like:

• collapsing to one contention
• good weighing
• highlighting your cards in light blue
• being respectful to your opponent
• clear voters at the end of rebuttals

things i don't like:

• being unnecessarily rude
• stealing prep
• talking too quiet or just being unclear
• new responses in the 2nr or 2ar (for pf, no new args in the final focus)
• being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. (pls just use common sense)

for speaks, i'll usually give them based off good speaking, being polite, and having good strategy such as strategically collapsing, good extensions, and good weighing. another good way you can get speaks from me is making the round funny. seriously if you just take 5 seconds out of your speech to make a joke, i laugh at a lot of things and you can definitely get a boost by making the round entertaining. a few good ways to get your speaks tanked include clipping cards, stealing prep, being totally unclear, and being disrespectful to your opponent.

for y'all progressive folks:

larp is very cool and probably what i'm most comfortable with judging as that is what i have ran for almost all my rounds. plans, DAs, CPs, all that stuff i'm fine with but without weighing, i'm a lost man. pls weigh. impact turns im very much fine with. counterplans i love, especially abusive counterplans, but u better be ready for a theory debate if it's too abusive.

theory is also very cool and i couldn't care less how stupid your shell is, just make sure u have actual warrants in your standards. default to DTD, competing interps, and no RVIs. 1ar theory is cool but im open to that debate.

Ks are cool when i know what's going on, i really only know cap ks, set col, afropes, and anything else NEEDS explanation. i think i lot of people miss it when people say your Ks needs explanation because i still never see good explanations in round. do not assume i know your K. also make sure your alt is clear in what it does.

for phil, i love kant and util, and can judge rawls, structural violence, and hobbes, but also explain these!!! slow down on analytics, i like tjfs, and meta ethics are cool and probably needed.

tricks are definitely a thing, they can be funny and smart if executed correctly, but i will not vote on it if it doesn't have a warrant. also be accessible when running this sort of stuff such as novices because i would really hate to vote off a one line ivi that went conceded by someone and it's like their second tournament. just be mindful about that or speaks go downnnnn.

other debate events

my ld paradigm cross applies for the most part, but for events such as pf, worlds, etc, please don't spread or run crazy progressive positions. i also don't know the topics, so treat me as a pretty lay judge.

IEs

i don't do IEs very much, but i judge based off how well you present yourself, your clarity, and the content of your speech, such as having good sources and analysis. also, make it entertaining. a lot of speeches just talk about politics and get boring fast, so throw in some jokes and i'll be more likely to rank you higher.

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

i like charismatic speakers with big energy

dont be boring

Oral Interpretation: In interpretation events (HI, DI, DA, DUO, POI, PR, PO), I am looking for a performance that creates a significant personal or social meaning from the literature chosen. I am also looking for a performance that shows emotional and tonal complexity and a range that is both suitable for the piece and is demonstrative of the skills of the interper.

There should also be intentionality in the decisions made in the interpretation of the piece. For example, all the blocking employed in the piece should have a purpose and should not seem haphazardly included in the performance. This also goes for what is included in the cutting of the piece, for the words spoken, the emotions and tones conveyed should all contribute to the message you are trying to convey in your interpretation.

Public Address: In Public Address events (IX/FX, USX/DX, OO, INFO), I am looking for speeches that are adding novelty and insight to the topic of the speech. Making the topic relevant and understandable to a general audience is necessary for success in these speeches.

Speeches in these categories are more effective and engaging when they employ a variety of pacing and tone that convey to the audience the significance and emotional stakes of the points you make. On top of clear speaking and style, one needs to create the engagement for the audience with their voice through these tools.

Speeches should be well organized and easy to follow for the audience. They should have clear but original sign posting to help audience keep track of where they are in the speech.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I'm a speech coach, and this is not my preferred event. That being said, I am rather traditional when it comes to judging LD with heavy emphasis on the battle of values and achievement of the value criterion through your use of your evidence.

I have some debate experience through high school, but consider me more of a lay/UIL circuit judge.

Speed is okay if you are understandable, but I should not have to read along to understand you, if I can't flow it, it didn't happen. Elements of progressive debate such as theory and K are fine but have to be well justified within the context of the debate.

Speaks are awarded on quality of debate based on speaking and presentation with 28 being the average debate performance, lower being, well, lower, and being among the best I've seen will be awarded a 29-29.5. If you are somewhere in between you will be awarded somewhere in between.

Assistant Coach at Spring Woods High School Speech & Debate for Victoria Beard.

Interp: Source of the majority of my experience in Speech & Debate. I look for multiple levels to a performance; character portrayals by students with an understanding of the emotions and stakes of their piece; a concise plot to the cut, coherent from beginning to end; the greater the attention to minor details (mannerisms, gestures, inflection, etc.), the better.

Public Speaking: I enjoy interp-flair, but it cannot supersede the content, argument, or sources of your speaking. I will call you out on inaccuracies.

Debate: Rank your Spread from 1 (slowest) to 10 (fastest), then keep at 5 maximum -- quantity will never match quality. I appreciate excellent enunciation and clarity, and support debaters providing roadmaps for judges. Dropped contentions are watched for. No disclosures after round end.

I'll start with this, since it seems to be the only question anyone cares about anymore: if you scale speed on a 1-10, with 10 being as fast as humanly possible, I prefer a 3-5 depending on the time of day (lower in the early morning or later evening).

Now, if you want more nuance: I'm the coach at Clear Lake High School in southeast Houston. I previously coached (and attended high school/competed at) Deer Park High School in Deer Park, TX. I've been a head coach for thirteen years and judging for the past eighteen.

As a CX judge, I find myself becoming more and more of a policymaker-style judge. I am a flow judge and am okay with moderate to faster levels of speed, however as an educator I feel that this is a communication event first. I'm not going to call for a bunch of cards if I didn't hear them, so please make sure I can actually understand you. Unless I'm judging virtually, I don't want to be on the email chain. On DisAds, I can't stand generic links and am incredibly unlikely to vote on them. Make sure your internal links also follow some kind of logical train of thought and tell a coherent story. I will vote on topicality, but I have a pretty high threshold for what I consider reasonably T. I don't love kritiks or deep theory debates but I'm also loathe to tell a debater that they can't run them at all just because of my personal feelings. With that said, please make sure that you explain your kritikal arguments, since philosophy has never been my forte.

As an LD judge, I do not have the experience as a competitor and judge that I do for CX. Because of that, understand I might need my hand proverbially held a bit if you dive deep into philosophy. I prefer a slower, traditional/old school style LD round with a strong emphasis on that quaint notion of a value framework. If you've somehow read the last couple of sentences and still think I'm the kind of judge that you should run tricks in front of... let me be clear that I'm very much not. If that's not the kind of judge you want - and I recognize that what I've written sets me far apart from the norm as far as what LD has become - then I encourage you to rank me as low as MJP will allow you. It'll make my life and yours much better.

I feel that PF shouldn't require paradigms (seriously, can we go back to the original intent of this event?), but since we're here... I really despise rudeness in crossfire, and I want to see a solid line-by-line throughout the debate with good impacting at the end. Don't overthink this.

I love Congress. I absolutely adore the event. If I'm in the back of a Congress round I'm a happy camper and I want to see polished, extemp-style speeches that show thought went into them. I also expect to see either clash or new argumentation in the speeches following the first couple of bill cycles, otherwise I feel the debate grows stale and boring. I want to see an attempt at collegiality and a little sprinkle of LARP'ing never hurt anyone.

I've never judged or even watched a WSD round in my life, but I'm coming around to the event and want to learn. If I'm in the back of your Worlds round... consider me a flay judge.

A quick run-down for speech/interp paradigms, since evidently that's a thing now?

Extemp: I love this event and for my money I think this is the best event we have as far as portable skills are concerned. I don't want or need you to be a citation machine, I'd prefer you take a handful of sources and build solid analysis around them.

OO/Info: These are my favorite events to watch and judge, and I love how much of an opportunity they give students to showcase their own unique voices. I like humor but don't want this to be stand up comedy (you're not Josh Gad, and that's perfectly okay). I want a clean performance with solid, memorable analysis. In Info, I love when the visual is something outside the norm; one of the most memorable Infos I've ever judged used a sealed plastic cup filled with water and an egg, and I still remember that (many) years later.

POI: I don't judge POI often but every time I do I'm blown away by how creative students can get within its parameters. I want to see a POI that's seamlessly blended and brings in as many disparate genres as possible. As with all interp, I want to see and hear the "story" you're telling me come alive. I also really like the idea of POI as a form of argumentation, so if I can see that clearly throughout your piece all the better for me. My thoughts on POI also cover (with obvious changes for the rules/norms) my thoughts on Prose and Poetry, for what that's worth.

HI/DI/Duet/Duo: I'm looking at the totality of the performance. Much like I mentioned on POI, I want to see and hear your script come to life through the interpretation. It's exceptionally rare that I get to judge these (I honestly can't tell you the last time I have, to be honest), so I don't go into these rounds with any real expectations. I just want to be wowed overall.

Neither speed nor file justifies lack of clarity. Slow for tags and, especially, authors if you're going fast.

I can understand and vote for anything with warrants & clear explanation

Do not clash and refute from after constructives until the absolute end of the debate. I need voters and/or weighing to vote for you

LD/CX:

Varying degrees of knowledge on diff philosophy/high theory, up to you to risk finding out whether our knowledge intersects,

but anything w/ warrant/explanation

PF:
Line-by-line, weigh

Ask in round for more specifics

I am constantly hot girl suffering so don't make my job harder than it needs to be <3

TLDR for each event—

Congress: Content 50%, delivery 50%. I want to be impressed and entertained. Mostly entertained.

Platform: If you're monotonous, enjoy ranking 6th.

Debate: I don't want to think more than I have to. I will flow and I'm tech over truth, but I am mostly a flay judge. I don't flow cross-fire. I don't time, y'all keep each other in check. I prefer giving verbal RFD's because they're less work and I go more in depth than I would if I have to type, but if you want a written RFD to look back on just let me know before the round begins.

Interp: I like interp kids the most because you guys are, on average, less pretentious and more entertaining. I have no experience in interp so I apologize in advance for the bad decisions I am inevitably going to make. At best, I can tell you that I look for believability, technical skill, engagement/entertainment, and meaning of the piece. Otherwise, treat me like a parent judge who is here because my daughter decided she wants debate on her resume.

Make my life easy, thanks :)

My background if you're interested for judge adaptation purposes or you're a loser who likes tabroom stalking—

PF in middle school, Congress and Extemp in high school.

I am a traditional LD judge.

Persuasion is necessary. Moderate spreading is okay.

If you make a non-topical argument, I will not evaluate it.

I expect teams/individuals to keep track of their own time in terms of speeches/prep.

Be clear in your thoughts and layout the structure of your speech confidently

Be conversational in your speaking and go slow.

Context: I'm a new parent judge that has only judged a handful of rounds, and while I have completed the Adjudicating Speech and Debate course by the NFHS I'm still learning multiple aspects of speech and debate. 

For: Speech 

For all the Speech, people. YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the bad things!

Interp, Poetry, Duo Interp, Duet Acting

Delivery- I want to know if you have honed your speaking abilities and if you have practiced. It's easy to tell how much work you have time into memorizing and perfecting every part of your speech. Don't let a little stutter or stumble trip you up. A little mistake like that won't be the thing that holds you back. Your Presentation should be WELL prepared.

Passion- I want you to express yourself as much as possible. Truly embrace your piece and make me feel it. I want to cry, laugh, or reminisce at the end of your speech. If you can make me feel your speech and piece, I will feel significantly more connected to your piece.

Piece- It should be unique. It should be something you can relate to and a piece you have a connection with. Make sure your story is coherent and that it flows well. Overall ill be focusing more on your presentation, but if the piece isn't good, then neither will your speech.

Informative and Original Oratory 

Delivery- I want to know if you have honed your speaking abilities and if you have practiced. It's easy to tell how much work you have time into memorizing and perfecting every part of your speech. Don't let a little stutter or stumble trip you up. A little mistake like that won't be the thing that holds you back. Your Presentation should be WELL prepared.

Research- It should be clear to me that you have a deep understanding of what's going on. Whether that comes from your tone or content, it should be well thought out and, more importantly, well-researched. I don't want you just to give me a lot of facts and expect me to give you a high rank. Carefully weave it within your speech so that it flows well. I want to learn something new during your speech!

If you have any questions, please let me know!

For: Debaters

I am a new parent judge. Consider me extremely lay. 

Speed- I don't like speed. A conversational pace is preferred. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most.

Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, so DON'T make them.

How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from basic content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently, and do your best.

Cross Fire- Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.

Speaker Points-  I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.

If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!

Rice University Classic/NPDA Paradigm, Updated 9/22:

I'm Bryce - I debated for and ran the University of Minnesota Parliamentary Debate Team when I was in college and graduated in 2020. When I debated, I primarily read topical affirmatives and went for (very silly) theory/topicality arguments, topical DA/CP strategies, and the Cap K most commonly on the negative.

I am now the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. My full time job is speech and debate, but at the high school level, not the college level. My HS team competes in all NSDA events. but our largest squads are doing national circuit HS Public Forum and Congressional Debate. I judged a couple of NPDA rounds at Rice last year and hadn't judged before that since McKendree 2020/NPDA 2021. I'm back to cover McKendree's judge obligation at Rice and I'm helping them in the prep room for the tournament. At this tournament, I am conflicted against Rice RS and McKendree.

As many judges do, I will do my best to evaluate whatever round the debaters in the room want to have. I will not be upset at, or outright reject, nearly any non-"ist" thing you do in a round. If you would prefer to have a round that goes against the below listed preferences, I'm going to appreciate and respect you all the same: I just might view the round differently than you do, and I think that's okay if you're okay with it.

That said, as many judges do, I have preferences for what I like to see and what I think makes for a good round. Here are some of those assorted thoughts, which can be overruled by better technical execution or persuasion during the round:

• Cowardice is a voting issue. Debate to win and be bold.
• I would prefer the affirmative be related to the topic in some way (does not have to be USFG/fiat/etc, but you should be prepared to defend whatever your idea of debate looks like, of course) and I probably err negative in an evenly debated T-FW vs non-topical aff round, but not by much.
• I would prefer that advocacies defend something material and for advocacies to clearly delineate what that material thing is - I am more compelled by "you don't do anything, so vote neg on presumption" than many other judges. The litmus test for this is: can I coherently explain what an actor doing the action of the plan text is in no more than 2 sentences? If the answer is yes, you're good. If the answer is no, or "it's more complicated than that," perhaps reconsider your strategy.
• I would prefer your arguments be as specific as possible - I like excellent warrants and small but deep debates rather than LOs reading 7 off and MGs reading theory. Similarly, I like LO strategies that spend lots of time on case. I would like as much direct clash as possible, all things being equal.
• I like reading evidence and hearing evidence comparison in HS debate rounds I judge. Examples and a solid understanding of history are great evidence in NPDA - for every claim or logical warrant, you ought to have some example or tangible thing that explains how the thing you say is true has been empirically proven or otherwise validated in real life.
• When making decisions, I primarily decide rounds in terms of which impacts each side best solves. Does the plan or the counterplan solve war with Russia? Does the interp or the counter-interp control the best link into limits? Judge instruction, impact calculus, and link comparison goes a long way in close debates.
• When deciding, I tend to determine easy things first, identifying concessions, etc., and work backwards from there, rather than starting on the largest question of the debate. I will often back into a decision that way. I am generally thinking about who I will vote for for the duration of the round, and consider what the winning MO/LOR or PMR strategy would be well before those speeches are happening.
• While I think that what you say in a debate round matters and that debate trains some cool skills that you can and should take with you, I find the technical aspect of the game more interesting and I'm more concerned about you making good strategic decisions to try to win the debate.
• The affirmative may always read a permutation. I have never understood the "no perms in a methods debate" argument despite going for it myself sometimes.
• By default, I assume the status quo is always an option. If I think the CP or K is less desirable than the plan, I will evaluate the status quo/DA versus the plan unless the PMR instructs me otherwise. This is not a strong opinion -- I have no real predispositions regarding the presumption debate in the event that the neg reads a CP or a K. That said, in most of the rounds I watch, the MO/LOR only really articulate why the CP is preferable to the aff, and not the status quo explicitly, which makes much of this bullet point moot.
• If a team wins some "we meet" articulation on theory, it's terminal defense and the rest of the sheet of paper almost certainly does not matter. I do not understand the concept of a "risk of a violation."
• I am willing to vote on terminal defense to an interp or offense based on poorly-worded interps.
• I am willing to vote on terminal defense in general. Zero risk exists. This would mean the round has gone very sideways indeed.

Here are some other NPDA-specific quirks and preferences you may find useful to know:

• I'm fine with you calling points of order and indeed would prefer you do if you think an argument is new. Unless I'm on a panel and another judge would prefer I not rule, I will rule on the point of order.
• I have never seen a good LOC that was more than 3 off and case. You're not reading cards and you get 30 minutes of prep with no backside rebuttal. Large, wide LOCs tend to result in very shallow debates and lots of new MO claims that make the debate hard to resolve.
• Unless instructed otherwise, each of the following positions will get their own sheet of paper: plan text/solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, theory interpretations, framework arguments (not impact framing), kritiks minus the alternative in the order of framework, links, impacts, and kritik alternatives themselves. I'd prefer you give the order with this in mind - i.e., don't say "the aff," say "plan text, advantage 1, advantage 2"; don't say "the K," say "the alt, then the rest of the K".
• Please read all plan texts, interpretations, etc. slowly and twice, and provide a written copy for both opponents and myself. I would prefer you do this during flex before your speech, but I'm fine with this happening before the beginning of flex immediately at the end of your speech. I will use the written text of the plan/CP/interp to decide arguments based on what the plan/CP/interp is, not what was said. If I think there is a discrepancy between what I have flowed and what has been written down, I will verbally clarify before starting flex/the next speech.
• The lack of a backside rebuttal in NPDA = the MO should probably not be making new arguments. New MO arguments = new PMR golden answers, including golden turns, offense, theory.
• I will almost certainly flow the LOR on a new sheet of paper. I will flow the PMR on each sheet of the debate, next to the arguments the MO made. The LOR's framing claims will inform and break ties between the MO and the PMR.

I have my full high school paradigm below, should you care to read more. Ask me other questions before the debate and I am happy to answer them, provided they were not answered above.

---

Overhauled on 7/19/2023 for PFBC and the 2023-24 competitive season

Who am I?

Pronouns: he/him/his

Here's my experience. This largely does not matter, but it might help you get a sense of how I think about arguments and where I'm coming from before the round:

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp, Minneapolis, MN: September 2021 - Present

Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2021 - Present

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2020 - July 2021

Assistant Debate Coach, The Lakeville Debate Team, Lakeville, MN: September 2016 - August 2020

NPDA/NPTE Parliamentary Debate, University of Minnesota: November 2016 - March 2020

Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate, JMM/Vel Phillips Memorial, Madison, WI: September 2014 - June 2016

Additionally, I serve on the PF Wording Committee for the NSDA. Your feelings on the current PF topic are partially my doing. If you would like to influence me one way or another, please feel free to email me or submit topic suggestions to the NSDA at speechanddebate.org/topics.

General Thoughts

This will be my 10th full year involved with speech and debate. I still absolutely love the activity, and I'm finding new depths to all aspects of speech and debate with each passing year.

Speech and debate is an inherently competitive activity grounded in vital critical thinking skills, including the skills of reading, writing, research, public speaking, logic, argumentation, and persuasion. The best competitors, no matter the event or arguments being made in the round, are excellent at all of these vital critical thinking skills, and more. The further away from being a competitor I get, the more I care about the educational and life-enriching qualities of speech and debate, and the less I care about the pure drive to win a tournament (though that still matters to me a great deal).

I have no strong preferences on the arguments that you make in the round, and I will evaluate any round based primarily on the technical skill exhibited by the competitors in the round. That said, I find it more enjoyable to vote for those competitors whose arguments are clearly excellently researched, written, and considered before the round.

My biggest non-negotiable rule is that you treat the community that you have voluntarily chosen to take part in with respect. Be kind to your opponents, your teammates, your coaches, tournament staff and volunteers, your judges, and (least importantly) me. While I firmly believe that speech and debate is vitally important, it's all an elaborate game at the end of the day, and I think you should treat the other players in the game as kindly as possible. If you intend on making the round unpleasant, either through poorly considered research skills, poorly considered in-round strategy, or poorly considered behavior, do us both a favor and strike me.

You should debate to win, and have fun doing it.

Debate

I don't think there is a big enough difference between debate formats to necessitate different paradigms for PF, LD, and CX. I think good debate is always good debate. Good debate should come from well-considered positions constructed from good evidence and presented in an entertaining, persuasive, and thoughtful manner.

Please create an email chain. Put bryce.piotrowski@gmail.com on the email chain, along with the corresponding Seven Lakes Google Group, depending on what format I'm judging: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes + sides of each team. This helps me keep email chains organized, which I frequently go through after tournaments to review arguments and evidence made at tournaments. Please create the email chain as soon as humanly possible, even (especially) if I am not yet at the room or if your flight has not started. Please be ready to debate at the round start time.

Evidence read in a debate should be able to withstand scrutiny well after the round is over. If you have read the above paragraph and are uncomfortable creating an email chain because I am going to "steal your prep" or "prep you out," I would invite you to consider what your ideal evidentiary standards in debate look like and whether the norms of distorting evidence beyond recognition, withholding evidence from opponents (even when that evidence is requested), being unable to produce the original copy or a cut card of evidence upon request, lying to opponents about evidence or source quality, or intentionally misleading opponents as to which evidence was read at a point in the debate truly lead to better debates, or whether they are a tool that you are attempting to use to gain a competitive advantage on questionably ethical grounds. If you feel called out by any of this, I'm a bad judge for you, and you should strike me.

At a minimum, you must follow the NSDA rules regarding evidence citation and its exchange. If you do not do that, I reserve the right to vote against you if I feel the violation is egregious enough, regardless of whether or not your opponents make an argument that you should lose because of your representation of evidence.

I would strongly prefer that evidence is read in the format of a cut card when first presented, and that you send a document containing all of the cards that you have read, in order, either immediately before or immediately after the end of your speech. I do not need anything that is not carded evidence other than plan texts or theory/topicality interpretations. If you refuse to share carded evidence with your opponents for any reason, including being "unable to find the card," I will vote against you -- that is a violation of the NSDA's rules regarding evidence exchange, and an exceptionally shady practice that I wish to punish with my ballot.

All things being equal, I would prefer that you read fewer individual cards and read more warrants from better cards. The trend towards reading a new piece of evidence every 10 seconds is antithetical to my request for well-considered and researched positions.

I will flow the debate carefully. Sometimes, I flow on paper, and sometimes, I flow on my laptop. My preferred rate of delivery is a quick conversation, but I can flow faster debates, and I will not feel bored by slower debates. My issues with rate of delivery typically stem from the fact that as rate increases, clarity often decreases, and I end up missing things. I will make every attempt to keep up with you and flow what I can understand from your speech. I will not read the speech document to fill in warrants or cards that I have missed. If you don't see me writing or typing for an extended period of time, it's because I can't understand you for some reason, and you should slow down or speak more clearly.

I would prefer to vote for arguments that in some way center a discussion of the topic. This is very open to the interpretation of the debaters in the rounds, and I will not dogmatically ignore certain content because "I don't want to hear it." I am frequently entertained and delighted by well-researched critical positions on both the affirmative and negative, huge extinction impacts, soft left high probability impacts, and everything in between. However, the more that your position could be copy-pasted from one month's file to the next, the less likely I will be to enjoy listening to it.

The above paragraph also encompasses my thoughts on theory, particularly in PF and LD. Most theory debates end up being tired and recycled, with debaters deploying these strategies with little regard for their applicability to the debate at hand. I'll vote on it, but I would be more enthused if you would pick a more interesting strategy, and your speaker points will probably suffer. That said, if you're reading theory in a way that contextualizes a specific violation to this particular round or position your opponents are reading, I will be far more interested in what you have to say. I have a soft spot for reasonability claims and creative we meet arguments from teams that may be technically losing theory, but probably have not done anything wrong. In short - if you have a different strategy, I'd probably prefer to hear that.

Topicality is different than theory, because it involves the affirmative's specific advocacy. I'm more than fine to listen to these debates. I'm a sucker for excellent, clever, and context-specific interpretations, and typically decide these debates based on questions of ground quality and quantity for each team.

Regardless of which strategy you choose to employ, you always need a link and an impact to win the debate. This also means that all advocacies, plan texts, etc., should advocate for something to happen and should defend the material consequences of that thing happening. Teams should debate the solvency of the advocacy more.

It will dramatically help you to spend a lot of time in the last couple of speeches explaining why the links and impacts you have chosen are the arguments that will win the debate, rather than just arguments that could win the debate, through evidence comparison, weighing, and impact calculus.

I will time the debate, generally on an analog timer that will beep when your time is up. I will flow everything that you say up until the timer beeps. You are free to keep talking after the timer goes off, but it will not go on my flow. If you keep talking for a ridiculously long time after the timer goes off, I will probably cut you off and act annoyed. I will also time cross-x and prep time. Please clearly tell me when you are starting and stopping prep time. Timer shenanigans will result in decreased speaker points.

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing the round's result (UIL, NSDA Nationals, etc.), I will disclose my decision and what set of arguments led me to that decision at the conclusion of the round, in as much detail as I possibly can fit into the time I have to render and deliver a decision. You are always welcome to ask additional questions at any time, as long as you're being reasonable and respectful.

Congress

Most of my thoughts on debate, above, apply here. Congress is best when speakers engage in a deep debate on the couple of issues of clash that are most obviously presented by the legislation that is presently being debated. Think of yourself as "working with" speakers on your side and "against" opposing speakers to advance debate on the item on the floor.

I am more interested in hearing the round progress as a PF, LD, or CX round would. That means the first couple of speeches should set up constructive arguments, the middle couple of speeches should introduce lots of refutation and extension of arguments that came before them, and the later couple of speeches should synthesize the arguments made on the item and paint a compelling picture as to why each side has overall won the debate. If we're getting to the 6th or 7th cycle of debate, you would probably do better to save your precedence for the next item up for debate.

In general, I think Congress should debate more bills and have fewer cycles of debate on each bill. I also think Congress would be way better if each chamber was run more similar to a speech tournament - with each round having 10 competitors, 1 or 2 adults serving as the PO and scorers, and each round having a single specified item that everyone gives one speech on. I think this would standardize the role of each speech across each cycle of debate, eliminate the randomness and unfairness of scoring a PO alongside speakers, and ensure all students were scored based on a roughly equal amount of participation in the round.

If you're the PO and I have to score you as a speaker: you'll start as my 5. A PO will improve if I think debate in the chamber is bad, they have clear and consistent procedures for recognizing speakers, questioners, and motions, and if they minimize delays to facilitate the most debate possible. The PO will be harmed if there are many excellent speakers, making it difficult for them to stand out, or their procedures are inconsistent or unclear.

Delivery is secondary to content, but can still influence your rank, especially when poor delivery makes it difficult to follow your content.

Please do not yell at or over each other during questioning.

Speech:

I do not have a strong preference on what you're bringing to the table with your piece, and I doubt that you're going to change much because I'm on your panel. That's more than fine. You do you, and I'll evaluate it and try to leave my thoughts and helpful feedback.

I come from a debate background, where truth often goes out the window and I'm evaluating arguments as close to a blank slate as possible. I will likely be evaluating the technical merits of your piece more than other judges you might have (e.g., blocking, precise rhetoric, structure of a body point, etc.) and using those to determine my ranks more than some big picture stuff (e.g., how did it make me feel, do I think your piece is 'important', etc.)

I am more familiar and comfortable judging public address events (Extemp, Oratory, Informative) than Interp. I have no theater or acting background. That said, one of my favorite speech events to judge is POI - it's all of the best parts of interp combined with the research and argument synthesis of debate.

If you're in Extemp, follow this checklist: explain why the question is important to ask, answer the question, explain why your answer is the best answer to the question and not just ananswer to the question, and make good arguments. Everything else is secondary.

TFA/ NSDA IE Coach:

24 years

Coached 2 National DI Champions: 2000 and 2012

Coached 2 TFA DI Champions; 1 HI Champion; 1 Duet Champion

Numerous Rounds at Nationals; several TFA DI, HI, DUO Finalists

UIL One Act play winning director ; State / Region competitors , 1st Runner Up, Samuel French Award winner

Current UIL One Act Play Adjudicator/ judging Zone through Region

UIL Congress State Coach in LD, CX and Congress 2019, 2021

UIL State Coach Prose

Professional Actor (AEA) for 25 years; BFA in Acting University of Texas, MFA in Acting the American Conservatory Theater

Even though I am currently coaching LD debate my focus is on IE'S

Medium use of spreading

Squirrel cases that don't make any sense at all.

Extemp: Speaking 60% Supporting material ,Organization 40%

Oratory: Speaking 60% Content 40% ( less debate style more universal content with some IE touches)

IE'S : YES to teasers, open minded regarding pieces. School approval only thing that matters regarding material.

HI: don't go too far away from author's intent/ but still be creative!

Thank you!! Break Legs!!!

Hi y'all! I did four years of policy debate in highschool, 2 as the 2n, 2 as the 2a. I'm not debating in college now, so the extent of my connection to the activity is periodic judging and chatting with current debaters.

For the purposes of email chain: spencer.powers726@gmail.com

Please ask questions before round if you have them. I’m probably forgetting something.

For NSDA nationals 2023:

Hello! Don't worry too much about the rest of this, it's mostly for policy debate and not public forum.

To win my ballot, make sure you include in your speeches a literal description of why you have won this round and why I should vote for you. Guide me through the process of why I should give you the win. Did your impacts outweigh? Can only your advocacy solve for the biggest impacts? Is there something about your advocacy that precludes your opponent's advocacy from mattering? Give me the full reason why I should vote for you, and you'll have the ballot.

PF Section:

PF evidence standards are not great. Paraphrasing is technically allowed in my book but you need to be very careful about it. Don't say the evidence says something it doesn't, or your speaker points will be bad. You should have quick and easy mechanisms by which your opponent can read the evidence you bring up in your speech. Arguments supported by evidence your opponent can't read will be understood as made without evidence. If you provide the full evidence to your opponents and me before your speech with highlighting of what you've read, your speaker points will be dramatically improved.

I will evaluate the debate by weighing impacts at the end of the round, comparing each team's solvency for their impacts as well as which ones are more important.How I determine which ones are more important is up to you.

Policy:

Sparknotes/before round:

-Less is more—I’ll evaluate a lot of offcase arguments but I will be sad if i have to use a lot of sheets of paper that get tossed in the block

-I flow on paper--I can understand you speaking fast, but I can only write down so many arguments so quickly

-You can run generic arguments, but I'm generally not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counterplans.

-NATO topic is weird. Don't know much of the consensus so far, but I spent a fair amount of time over the summer hearing people complain about lack of ground on both sides.

-K framework that takes away the plan is fine. Probably more receptive to it than most.

-I'll default to offense/defense framing, but you can persuade me out of that. Zero risk is hard but possible.

-Conditionality’s fine. 2 is probably a good limit, but I'm open to hearing both sides debate it out.

-Tech>truth, but if I can't explain the argument and its warrants it's not going into my consideration

-I don't take prep for flashing.

-I'll shout clear twice. For online debating, this is especially relevant. You are not going to be as clear as you are in an in person debate, so slow down.

-I tend to take a long time to make my decisions. Don't read too much into it, I just like to cover all my bases.

Full thing:

My goal as a judge is to let the debaters do what they do, and judge accordingly based on who most persuaded me that they are correct. "Persuasion" here may be a bit of a misnomer because debaters oftentimes think that their only goal is to sound pretty when the judge wants to be persuaded. Let me be clear: you should sound pretty, but I will be flowing and taking into account technical concessions as well. But the effect that technical concessions have on my decision will be dependent on how well you persuade me to vote in a direction. I am human, I have biases, and you should use your ability as a debater to make rhetorically strong arguments that make me vote for you.

Kritiks:

As a I 2n, I went for mainly very basic kritiks (as I was a younger debater at the time) such as capitalism and security. As I got older, my partner and I experimented with psychoanalysis, gender, and nietzsche. I have a strong familiarity with all of those kritiks, but my ability to understand them in the context of debate has declined over time without the frequency that competing with them brought. I have a passing familiarity with other kritiks, and will depend highly upon strong negative explanation on both the framework and alternative level to give you a win.

I have found as I have judged that I have oftentimes voted for kritiks that I don't think were very strong. I think this is a symptom of affirmative teams that struggle to explain why state policymaking is valuable and why their affirmative is good. I also think that negative teams have moved towards a "meta" of going for framework really hard, which has turned out to be quite effective for me. Framework really is the central question of the round, and I generally find myself not doing what most judges seem to be doing and kind of evaluating it on their own as "aff gets a plan and neg gets discursive DAs." I really will just let you completely void the plan or completely say Ks aren't allowed. But you need to work for it.

Do more impact work. Teams don't do enough impact work on the K. Aff teams should impact turn more. Neg teams should explain more impact work in general.

K affs:

Sure. I've read a few in my time. I strongly prefer them to be related to the topic, and generally look down upon affs that are critiques of debate in general. I think that having a predictable topic is good, and K affs that are closer to a traditional model of topicality will get more leeway with me.

I don't think it makes sense just to impact turn framework. How can you win if you don't have a counter interpretation? Defend a counter interpretation of the topic and explain its standards in relation to the neg's interp if you want my ballot.

Performance:

Sure. It should exist for a reason, otherwise you're just handing links to your opponent.

Counterplans:

I prefer advantage counter plans and PICs that remove something from the plan. Not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counter plans, such as consult, reg neg, delay, or any other procedural counter plan. Agent counter plans only make sense to me when the aff has a clearly defined agent other than "the USfg". I haven’t made up my mind on 50 states. Not a fan of word pics that don't change the function of the counter plan (No "The" PICs please).

If you feel up to it, you can still run all those counter plans I don't view favorably. Just know that I'll probably align closer to aff theory arguments against them if the affirmative decides to go for theory against you.

I don’t default to judge kick, but I will if you tell me.

Disadvantages:

Judging DA and Case 2NRs is difficult when people don’t do impact calculus. Please do impact calculus.

I’m alright with generic politics DAs. I understand that you might not have a specific strategy for every affirmative. But please, try to get specific with the link if you can.

Theory:

Cheap shots make me sad. If you want to go for one, shame me into voting for you because I will likely feel like I shouldn’t. I’ll default to reject the argument.

Topicality:

I went for topicality a lot, both in my 2NRs and my 1NRs. Predictability/precision standards are probably the most persuasive to me, followed by generic limits and generic ground. Remember to connect them to education (I mostly view fairness as an internal link to education) or I won’t know why to vote for it.

I default to competing interps, but I'm not very strong on that. Affs can win reasonability if they work to.

For the neg: I'm somewhat receptive to dubious T interps. Feel free to explain why your interpretation of the topic is so obviously true, even if the aff is also probably pretty easy to predict generally. It's about the interpretations, not the aff specifically.

Neg Framework:

I am more amenable to skills based/“State policymaking is really great actually” arguments than I am fairness based arguments.

I also think limits as necessary for effective topic education is a good argument. I like smaller topics.

Speakerpoints:

I've found that I'm very kind with speaker points. I'll try to turn it down a notch but I'll probably still be above average. Be kind, rhetorically effective, make good arguments, and make strategic decisions if you want to get high points.

LD Section:

Everything above is true. If you’re doing LD in front of me, you’ll have an easier time persuading me if you treat it like mini-policy. I have preliminary knowledge of Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, and some other weird philosophers but I don’t know anything about how they’re used in LD. LARPing is a good idea. I’m much more likely than any given LD judge to wave away theory arguments as a reason to reject the arg. RVIs are not my thing.

For congressional debate:

it is called debate not repetition. Clash is not optional.(there is a fine line between clash and disrespect, tread carefully)

I value the ability to adapt, control the room don't let it control you. Earn respect and you win the room.

if you cause the room to not move to previous-question, you better have the most important speech of the legislation.

if you volunteer to PO, have a very good understanding of parli-procedure

you know the rest.

For LD/PF:

keep spreading to a minimum (will say "clear" if needed)

keep the debate traditional

impact based debate

mhs '23/ut austin '27

1A/2N in hs (memorial qp!!)

gzqjudging@gmail.com

i go by grayson nowadays but call me whatever you want idc if you call me joyce or judge or whatever

any/all but usually they/them is preferred

i have an audio processing disorder. it's not so bad but if im not typing i probably am not flowing and you should send out your analytics. go unclear at your own risk. i actually fall on the side of "send all analytics" because i really do not think that people should be winning cause your opponent didn't manage to flow what you said (cause for me that happened but i… have a hearing disorder), but i get that not all people type them out. send whatever you have, that'd be preferable but it's not like i'm going to drop you if you don't.

top level notes:

i think there are really only 4 things about me that you probably have to know

1. on the topic of in-round behavior

1. i do not feel bad downing good debaters who are rude. if you are unnecessarily rude and condescending at any point in time it will make me upset to vote for you and you will almost certainly catch a 25 (or lower than what i would originally think you deserve). i think good debaters tend to get away with being super rude or condescending to opponents that are "worse" and i refuse to endorse that culture. i'm not going to expect you to be best friends but there's a bottom line lol. be reasonable and be kind

2. i'd imagine i'm much more sympathetic to ivis than your average judge. if you run anything exclusionary, even if your opponent isn't calling you out on it, i will stop flowing and submit my ballot! i will almost certainly not be upset about it. i think that debate tends to ignore the fact that some of the impacts are experienced by people in the debate space (bipoc especially) and even if your opponent is not someone who is necessarily affected, you should probably assume you're going to catch this L anyways.

2. on the topic of actually debating

1. i was almost solely an identity k debater in high school, but i went to policy-oriented camps (zag '20, utnif '19, utnif '21 yet again). i also read philosophy in my free time. i think this means i can evaluate most debates pretty well but i am probably best at judging identity k debates. i also come from the gonzaga camp of credentials matter which is the main opinion i have on larping

2. i did policy debate at memorial high school, competed on the nat circuit semi-regularly and did kind of decently my senior year. my partner and i were largely lone wolves for most of our careers. i was almost exclusively a 2N except for like 2 tournaments my freshman year and like one or two rounds my senior year. not 100% sure how this will affect my judging but it will almost certainly influence how i view 2Ns

specific arg thoughts:

tldr: i prefer k debate by nature of how i am as a debater but in no way does that affect my ability to judge, so run whatever you want (mostly)

larping

the only thing that you can probably not get me to buy is something that is just not true (irl) or is racist. i think when it comes to larping i am very much truth = tech because imo if it's not true, then it's not going to happen which means there's no point in me voting on it BUT if it goes completely dropped and i don't think i can make a satisfactory decision from the other flows i will probably switch to a more truth is less important mindset. i think i can eval these relatively well otherwise. if your author is some bro on the internet who thinks that the world is ending in 1 day i will probably be less inclined to vote on that.

kritiks

i am relatively familiar with most identity literature, and know more than enough to know if you're wrong. i am most familiar with [techno]orientalism, set col, and cap. i know buzzwords, but i never really got why you would use buzzwords instead of just explaining unless it was really necessary. take that how you will i suppose.

i think people should start reading the text of their cards more - this happened relatively often when i was debating my opponents' cards would contradict/disprove some aspect of what they were saying. just cause it's minimized to 1pt doesn't mean i'm not gonna read it lol

don't run like… an overview in front of me. i'd say this probably applies to poems and the sort too but i get how that's usually a part of the case. either way, i didn't know how to flow them in high school and i still don't know how to flow them. i never really saw a point unless it was explaining the thesis of the k, but you should not like. expect me to flow it lol. i'm not going to and i def will not flow it on another page

k vs k debates

i don't think i ever actually participated in a legit debate on k vs k lmao

i think idpol v. idpol k is unstrategic in most cases and relatively difficult to judge

cap k

on the cap k, things that i can relatively easily be persuaded to believe:

• materiality is good

• progress is possible

• state engagement good

on the cap k, things that you will have a harder time getting me to believe:

• communism/your alt is intersectional (ie: alt solves racism ????)

• state inevitable (for affs)

• "deconstruct from the inside" ???? idk i know i put state engagement good but it's more in the sense that i think you can probably make change through the state - i seriously have never understood how you can "deconstruct capitalism from the inside" without state cooption

on the cap k, things that you will almost never get me to believe:

• cap is the root cause of everything

• state is good for [insert minority group that the state is 100% not good for and has repeatedly shown that they are not good for]

otherwise, this debate probably comes down to methods more often than not, which tbh i tended to undercover and i figure people generally will. i fully believe that method v method debates are more than sufficient for good debates but i guess that's also open to changing.

k literature

my only preferences on literature bases probably only has to do with disability literature. i don't think you should be asking people whether or not they're disabled and will probably drop your speaks for asking, but i am also not really inclined to vote on disability ks, especially if you're spreading.

• as a debater with a hearing disorder, i struggled a lot in some rounds to keep up with my opponents, especially if they didn't follow the order set, spread through when they were changing pages, and when people refused to send analytics. having experienced debate's ableist aspects first-hand, i have never really been sure how reading disability literature is a solution to this. maybe i just don't get it, you can probably explain it to me, because i do get in terms of discourse how reading the k matters but if you're excluding people from understanding the k (whether that be through buzzwords, spreading, etc.) i don't really get how the k can solve idk just a personal preference – i have found disability kritiks i liked but if you're spreading everything except for the k about spreading it's like ???

k vs policy affs

i gotta say i'm not suuuper into state links unless your k is sketchy and there's a reasonable chance you couldn't find a link, i strongly prefer specific k links, but i get it. i was a 2n at some point too, i'm not going to be mad if your link is generic (with restrictions)

as a 1A, people extrapolating obviously generic state links in the block (specifically to cap ks) were the bane of my existence because i had to make entirely new offense like 99% of the time. i am h i g h l y sympathetic to 1As who have to answer that, especially if your 1NC card clearly has no part that talks abt your extrapolation, UNLESS it's a sketchy aff where there are probably not easily available links. even links to one part of the topic are better lmao (probably the best tbh, that's what i usually did with my sketchy k).

other than that i think these are probably the debates im most suited to judge

just k affs in general

i actually really enjoy k affs and one of the parts of debate i really enjoyed was coming up with a story for the aff. however, even as someone who ran k affs, i think many k affs fail to explain how their model of debate is good. you won't have a hard time convincing me that education is the terminal impact to framework but you should probably explain why theirs isn't good for education. i actually think i probably vote against framework more often than not, it's usually just not compelling enough to me because i think framework is often a way to not have to debate the substance of identity k affs (ie: a lot of people are uncomfortable with the fact that the world is in fact not good for a lot of people who live in it). disclaimer: go ham w it vs pomo affs lmao

t/theory:

i don't think i have any preferences when it comes to topicality, but i suppose this will be updated. theory is fun when you're not being annoying about it. if you just dropped 11 points on the states cp on your opp who doesn't spread i'm not going to flow 50 states fiat. if you put it at the top and don't extend it and read 12 other points i am going to be kind of upset ngl why would you make me type it then. time sucks bad !

framework/t-usfg:

there are strategic ways to about this and there are unstrategic ways to go about this. i am probably most inclined towards education as a terminal impact to framework.

like i mentioned at the top, the fact that i was from a small school (kind of) means that i am highly inclined towards structural fairness > procedural fairness and you will have a hard time convincing me that procedural fairness (see: you follow speech times) is still more important because it "rectifies in-round unfairness" or whatever. you literally get disqualified if you don't follow the rules – being inclusive is not why people follow the rules lmao

my personal pet peeve is when people don't send framework vs neg k. this also never happened unless i was reading a sketchy k ???? if you are reading it at least send your interp. i promise you will not lose the round because your opponents read it. i promise you you will lose the round if i flowed your opponent's interp and not yours

miscellaneous:

• i think debate is competitive but in no way has that ever meant "be rude" to your opponents. my strategy was to treat my opponents how they treat me. if they kept on interrupting me, i would do the same. i will obviously not penalize you for responding to aggression but as with everything else there is a line. aka: your behavior in and during the round will contribute to your speaks, generally speaking ability doesn't contribute much to how i decide speaks (think it's too arbitrary what a good speaker constitutes)

• it is not my fault if you don't send me analytics, are unclear, and then i miss something lmao. if you postround me about an analytic and i don't have it on my flow it is not!! my!! problem!!

• i don't think sending docs counts as prep and you don't need to count it but it's not like people can't tell when you steal prep lmao. i literally watched people steal prep. don't steal prep.

• i promise i just naturally look upset, i'm probably not that upset about what you're reading - although i am very expressive. will try to keep it to a min

• post rounding is chill i can't say i did it a lot but feel free to ask i guess but don't be rude. also feel free to email- i got really upset about rounds and sometimes wouldn't ask immediately, so if you email me im always down to help too!
  
  

other events:

ld: idk what tricks are and idk how to evaluate phil arguments even if i understand the content. if im judging ld err by my paradigm for policy

pf: err by larp paradigm.

As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance.

For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.

For Debate - LD I prefer a traditional format and value debate. PF I want to see clash, evidence and a clear job going down the flow to show rebuttals of arguments.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School

Hi, I am a parent judge. 

If I am judging LD or PF, you know the drill. Keep debates grounded. Presentation is REALLY important to me. I will pretty much default util and don’t care about framework, don’t center the debate around it a) I don’t know how to evaluate it and b) it’s hard to change my mind. Without proper comparison, I will vote for death/poverty impacts over economy. Extinction impacts are overblown and sound silly and I probably won't vote on them. No debate jargon (ex. fiat, frontline, internal link). Scope weighing is what I consider first but am open to others if you explain why they are better/metaweigh.

When you structure your arguments, don't phrase them like "extinction first framing: a) outweighs on magnitude b) kills chance for future reform, etc..." Explain them in layman terms: "compulsory voting causes extinction which is worse since it kills everyone - what matters more: our lives or our ideals?" Rhetoric and delivery are important to me, maybe even more than content. I’ll try my best to flow but may not catch everything so point it out if there is an issue.

If I am judging speech, you're fine. If you sound nice and your content is really insightful, I'll be happy.

If you are reading off of your legal pad excessively in your speech or bring up a computer/phone/ iPad, you will not get ranked high on my ballot. Use vocal variations. Be aware of body language. Act professionally in rounds. Be active in the round! Ask questions!

This is a debate event, where you speak. Your speech and rhetoric must be at the forefront of your competition.

"There are no new waves, only the sea" - Claude Chabrol

Your arguments must be concise and CLEAR. These are not practice rounds. Every round is a test that you face against yourself before you even begin responding to your opponents claims. Do you understand your arguments?

I will flow the round, but I will not flow for you, as in I will not make extensions unless stated, and I will not place arguments on the flow, you must tell me where to apply them.

SPEED: I can generally follow along as long as things are clear, but on a 1/10 scale, I'm at like a 5.

I am a policy maker at heart, I like to evaluate the arguments you make and then from there, I will look at your metrics. So please define your metrics for winning the round and tell me why your arguments are more substantial.m

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

Hey! My Name is Conor Rice

I am one of your traditional style judges! I graduated in the spring of 2020 during the pandemic. During high school, I competed in Speech and Debate as well as OAP. In my Junior and Senior Year, I went to TFA State and NIETOC for Informative Speaking. In my Senior year, I won a spot for the Gulf Coast Region to NSDA Nationals in Informative Speaking. At the end of my senior year season, I ranked 5th in the State points for Informative Speaking. Since graduating I do private coaching for speaking and acting events.

What I Look for as a Judge:

Speaking Events (OO, INFO, NX, DX, FX)

I look heavy on the content side of these speeches because good content is what makes a speech truly effective. I also do expect a performance of a good content speech is pointless if it is not well presented. I want to feel that personal reason why I should care about the topic. Bring me into the topic and hit me with the facts through an engaging speech. For INFO I want to see the true connection with the audience do not let your props become an obstacle.

Acting Events (Prose, Poetry, HI, DI, POI, DUO, DUET)

I want to see the story (beginning, middle, and end) of your piece and you truly feel it. The pieces that make it the furthest are the ones where you can see the person having fun and loving it. I want to be able to tell this piece is well-rehearsed and not thrown together minutes before the round. I love good blocking and choreography and will always highlight it in the feedback I write. I also look for the small details the attention to detail in the blocking. Ex: How you hold and pick up things.

Overall I want to see you have fun in what you present!

Sincerely, Conor Rice

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

Hello, my name is Tommie Sanders, I debated (CX) at Columbia HS (TX). I currently teach Art at Klein HS.

CX/Policy

Please include me on the email chain - tjsanders1@kleinisd.net - just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Overview

I debated in HS back in the stone age before everyone had a laptop. I write fast, and I type fast, however I need to be able to understand what your saying in order to write it down. Your speech and argumentation needs to be 100% clear throughout the round. If you give a roadmap please follow it, arguments need evidence and must be impactful to win. I do not have a preference as to the type of arguments you run, as long as you can back them up with evidence. 

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine as long as they are not vague or inexplicit. 

Counterplans

Counterplans are fabulous when they are unique and provide a creative point of view compared to the AFF.  AFF is responsible for determining if/why a counterplan should not be allowed, and providing adequate information to this respect. 

Speed

Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand what you are saying. You must be clear. 

Demeanor

This is an academic environment, respect is a must. If you feel your opponent is not abiding by this, explain your position adequately and why you believe it is a voting issue for the round. 

Director of Debate: Dulles High School (2022 - Present)

Formerly: Westside High School (2017 - 2022), Magnolia High School (2016 - 2017)

Every round I judge: esdebate93 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in Policy: dulles.policy.db8 [at] the google mail service

If I am judging you in LD: dulles.ld.db8 [at] the google mail service

I am a full time classroom teacher who oversees a large team and judges a lot. As a result, I can be a bit of a grumpy gus, but I promise that I care. I'm glad that you're choosing to be here and hope that you continue to make that choice. If you require accommodation or are uncomfortable with something that is happening and I'm not picking up on it, please let me know either verbally or by email. If you have any questions, just ask.

Non-Negotiables - The lightest consequence for a violation of these is me tanking your speaks. The harshest is stopping the round, reporting you to the tabroom, and contacting your coach. Anything between these two is on the table.

1. Safety, inclusivity, and accessibility are preconditions for us having an activity worth doing. Don’t be a bully, make threats, advocate/threaten self-harm, or engage in harassment. Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist. Respect people’s pronoun preferences, provide accommodation upon request, and be kind to novices. Wheaton's law is always in effect.

2. Content/trigger warnings should be given if you have reasonable suspicion that the material you are discussing could be triggering. The onus is on you to ask the room to read the position and give observers time to leave. Read something else if any of the people who have to be there (competitors or judges) objects.

3. Debate tournaments are long, difficult, and overstimulating for everyone involved, often due to factors beyond your control. That said, debaters regularly behave in ways contribute to delays and stress. Do your best not to do that. To elaborate: Get to round on time, have the email chain ready to go, clean up after yourself, and don't be obnoxiously loud and in the way of others.

4. Do not clip cards (cutting them in such a way that omits/distorts the author's original meaning, such as omitting sentences where the author contradicts your tag; complete cards are comprised of whole paragraphs; bracketing out offensive language does not constitute clipping) or steal prep (preparing materials or strategizing with your partner outside of prep, speech, or CX time). If you decide to stake the round on ev ethics you will win if you are right and lose if you are wrong.

5. Two teams are the only entities taking part in the debate. I will decide the debate based on arguments made within tournament set speech times and will submit a decision with one winner and one loser. I will not be making decisions about behaviors that occurred outside of the round or prior disclosure period.

Decision Making

I try to be a good judge for research driven, content heavy strategies and find the best debates to be focused on central controversies rather than edge cases. I will privilege technical execution in most instances; however, in close debates, truth is usually the deciding factor. My threshold for answering nonsense is low. Judge instruction on central questions you want the ballot to consider is super important. I want you to explicitly tell me what is important and why it is more important than other issues, but you should also show me that it’s important via choice, sequencing, and time allocation.

Evidence quality matters a lot, but you need to be the one doing the comparison in your speeches. If the spin is good and you don't challenge it, I'm not going to be checking for you. Liberal use of rehilights are encouraged since they help to adjudicate between competing interpretations of what a piece of evidence says.

I am attentive to cross x but will not flow it. It is your job to incorporate cross x moments into your speeches if you want me to flow it.

Speaker points start at 28.5 and move up or down from there based on a subjective, holistic evaluation of your performance. Will not disclose speaks.

Important Preferences

1. This is a research and communication activity, so you should be doing research and trying to communicate effectively. Too many debaters do neither, and I'm not a fan. Being well read, having a personality beyond doc botting debate bro, and trying to be persuasive will go a long way.

2. The documents you send during the debate are a reflection of how seriously you take your pre-tournament/round preparation. They should look good. Your cards should include author quals within the citation and you should highlight in comprehensible sentences.

3. I enjoy fast debates, but clarity, efficiency, and smart argument choices are way more important to me than speed. Please leave pen time when spreading, even if I am flowing on my laptop. If I can't understand or flow it, it won't factor into my decision.

4. Make complete arguments, meaning claim + warrant + implication. I would also suggest labeling, numbering, or otherwise compartmentalizing your arguments. Blippy and/or disorganized arguments are bad and I will not waste time or mental energy trying to parse them for you.

5. Have a strategy and execute it well. I love creative and innovative approaches, so don't be afraid to experiment; however, if your strategy is to bamboozle your opponent, you run the risk of bamboozling me too.

6. Gish-Galloping is bad. I will privilege quality and specificity of argument over quantity.

7. Clash is good. I am deeply unsympathetic to strategies that try to avoid engagement.

8. Line by line is preferable to long overviews. 30-45 seconds is the max overview l think has any sort of utility, provided that the focus is judge instruction or impact comparison. There has never been an instance where a separate sheet for an overview has been necessary or helpful.

9. Please, I am begging you, learn to flow. If you have to waste cx flow checking, speaks will drop.

10. Beyond these preferences, don’t overadapt. Debate is for debaters, so do your thing, do it well, and have fun.

Affs

You should have a clearly articulated relationship to the current topic, identify a significant harm or set of harms that is inherent to the status quo, and propose a method that solves or starts to solve the problem(s) you’ve identified. I am open to various approaches to satisfying these burdens but if I vote for you I should be able to explain my ballot in those terms.

Regardless of style, consistent and compelling narratives are key if you want to win while affirming.

Neg Case Debating

More case 2NRs, please. Your case pushes should include more than just impact turns/defense and cross applications from other pages. You should read cards/analytics that contest theoretical assumptions, claims of solvency, and causal claims. If the negative answers to the case are only cross applications from other sheets (I'm looking at you K debaters), I will be annoyed.

Framework

Both sides should have a clear model of debate (interpretation/counter interpretation) that they think is desirable. Creative approaches are welcome, but whatever you choose to do, you need to be prepared to defend your performance. Your model should account for the role of both the affirmative and the negative. Thinking about this through case lists that would be allowed for both sides under your model is a good practice.

I find the Limits + SSD + TVA = better clash/education/skills model of FW the most persuasive. Negative teams who make their explanation of this reasoning contextual to the outcomes the aff desires (better radicals, less gender/racial bias, etc.) will have an easier time than teams that go for fairness oriented models in most instances; however, I'm happy to vote for those as well. Again, do your thing and do it well.

Aff teams should be aware that I generally think that discussions about the object of the resolution are probably important. I do not think that USFG policy on that object is necessarily the best starting point. As such, you will have an easier time winning if you contextualize debates about the resolution within your theory of power and identify the better starting point prescribed by that theory. If I don't know how your model of debate solves/mitigates the impact turn to theirs, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

Kritiks

I am most excited to be in the back of debates featuring kritiks that are specific to the topic/aff you are challenging. I would prefer fewer offs so you have time to explain the K, as these arguments are often counterintuitive. Know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. Show me that you understand what you are talking about. If you're not winning your thesis, it is unlikely I will think that you are winning anything else on the K page absent really good arguments to the contrary.

Thesis arguments contextualize the link and link arguments support the thesis. They’re mutually reinforcing. When developing links, you should name them, theorize, link your theorization to the aff with a quote from the aff, and impact that out. Lazy link debating loses debates. If a link functions independently of your thesis, you should make that explicit. Don’t rely on me to implicitly follow your reasoning.

Examples are important at every level of these debates. Don’t just name check people, movements, and events. Explain their relationship to the argument. The earlier they show up the better.

Methods/Alternatives should do something that solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link debate. You should tell me what that something is and how it solves. I do not think this must necessarily be material change, a new paradigm or mode of relation is fine; however, it should make sense with regard to solvency claims.

The pre/post fiat distinction people try to draw is silly. Talk about your scholarship/research practices, their impacts, and weigh.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations because affirmative teams should have to justify their choices. Reasonability is an argument for the counter interpretation, not your aff. Your interpretations and counter interpretations should be topic specific rather than generic. They should intend to define and include/exclude a given aff or set of affs. T is fundamentally a question of limits; all other standards are secondary.

Disadvantages and Counterplans

Policy throwdowns are the kinds of debates where I am most likely to call for cards, as these quickly turn into card wars, and I am far from a topic expert. Please be ready to send a card doc including all evidence referenced in the 2NR/2AR. Know what you are talking about and explain your arguments simply.

Disads, ideally, are intrinsic to the action of the plan. Please have a cogent link story and do impact comparison. Uniqueness generally controls the direction of the link.

Case specific counterplans are better than generics. I lean aff on multi-actor fiat, consult, and condition. I lean neg on PICs. There is strategic utility to not including a solvency advocate, but literature should probably inform the ground for both sides.

Condo is good. You'll have to do a lot of work to get me to believe otherwise. Aff gets "unlimited" prep, permutations, and intrinsicness tests to balance against neg flex.

Counterplans v K affs don't make sense given my understanding of how counterplan competition works.

LD Specific Stuff

Everything above applies to LD. You should attempt to actually resolve arguments for me. Slow down on analytics, please.

Substantive phil debates are fun and I'd like to judge more of them. Syllogisms should be clear with an explicit relationship to how I weigh impacts.

I can't believe that I am giving this note to people outside a Debate 1 class, but plan texts must have actors.

Debates are evaluated at the conclusion of the 2AR or when I conclude that a winning NR/2AR is no longer possible.

Everything is open to contestation. I will not be evaluating AFC. If you want to include theoretical justifications for your framework, those are not good arguments, but they are acceptable since they don't insist that there exists an obligation to concede things. I think the distinction matters.

I will not evaluate theory of the frivolous variety. You will lose if you make theory arguments pertaining to your opponent’s appearance or mode of dress.

I’m agnostic on 1AR theory and RVIs.

IVIs are K links that function independently of the thesis being true because they also have procedural implications (ie use of exclusionary language). Anything else is just a lazy theory shell.

If you must read tricks, I am okay for substantive tricks with a developed ballot story; however, I would prefer not to judge these debates.

I specialize in individual events . I have performed each one and been coached from various collegiate and HighSchool champions . In I.Es I judged based off of a combination of speech tactics with an authentic connection to the literature they are performing.

I have experience in judging debate and the pointers that I give are based off of speaking ability and structure of a well formulated argument . I do have less experience with how exactly the order for a cx round is coordinated . I have no bias against judging debate I believe my history in speech allows me to understand how to truly form a powerful argument.

Judged speech and debate for 7 years now (since 2015).

CX & PF: -Don’t spread too much (I can follow spread just not throughout the entire speech)

-I prefer flex prep: The round continues throughout prep time. I give you the opportunity to ask your opponents verification questions during your OWN prep-time.

-I’m normally a Lincoln Douglass judge so big argument is essential. You can do line-by-line approach, just tie it back to your main arguments.

-You don’t have to ask judge ready, because.... I am. You can say “is everyone ready?” *look at your opponents* Cool? Start.

-Try to be civil

LD: -Don’t spread too much (I can follow spread just not throughout the entire speech)

-Be very clear on Value, Standard, C1, C2, etc.

-I prefer flex prep: The round continues throughout prep time. I give you the opportunity to ask your opponents verification questions during your OWN prep-time.

-You don’t have to ask judge ready, because.... I am. You can say “is everyone ready?” *look at your opponents* Cool? Start.

-Try to be civil.

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.

For LD and PF scroll to the bottom

Background ---

UH '26

Conflicted against Niles West, Seven Lakes HS, and Barbers Hill

Policy debater at the University of Houston 1x NDT qualifier

Put me on the email chain --- debatesheff@gmail.com

Overall perspective ---

Condo is good, and everyone but the affirmative can kick the counterplan

I will remain as unbiased as possible, I will evaluate the debate off the flow and as I was instructed to evaluate it unless these arguments are clearly harmful(slurs, white nationalism, homophobia, etc.). I want debaters to go for the argument they are most comfortable presenting, just know I am more comfortable in some debates than I am in others.

Most of my time in policy debate has been as a Policy 2A with some time spent being a K 2N. This means that I'm most comfortable for policy throwdowns and Policy affs vs K 2nrs.

I'm deaf in my left ear so please try speaking from my right side. I can only flow arguments that I can hear and if you are unclear I most likely can't hear it. Heavy emphasis on clarity, but go as fast as you like. I won't flow off the doc and will only read a card after the debate if told to; I would like a card doc at the end of the debate in case of this.

Average speaks for me is 28.5, speaks are based on argumentation and strategy choices. Will dock speaks if you are just like super unclear.

K Affs ---

I'm less comfortable with K v K debates unless the 2NR is going for the Cap K. I will do my best to evaluate these rounds, but most of my K research was based to go for Maoism. This means if i'm in the back and you are going for antiblackness against like a set col aff both teams need to do extra to explain this debate to me.

K v FW, I have no specific biases besides that I think affs should be in the direction of the topic and there are def better impacts to go for than fairness. I think the aff should have a C/I to filter offense through because at the end of the day this is a debate of competing models which means it's kinda hard for me to just vote on the FW turns because the aff doesn't have a model that resolves their offense and the negatives offense. 2NRs NEED a story of WHY debates centered around a fiated plan is good.

Ks on the negative ---

If you are a team that wants to go for a K in the 2nr here is a list of factors I will incorporate into my decision and some general tips for winning my ballot:

- Please contextualize the link debate. Link contextualization, in my opinion, is the skill which differentiates bad k debates from good k debates. I will flow in favor of an affirmative "no link" argument if you do not put effort into fleshing out the link debate. That being said, I don't just stop flowing if I can't see the link; I need the affirmative to make those arguments before I will take them into consideration.

- I think role of the ballot arguments and a general meta-framing debate is the easiest way to both win or lose my ballot. I am giving you, the debater, the ability to control the lens through which I evaluate all arguments. Arguments like the ROB are tools for you to powerfully influence the way I write my RFD. I am very receptive to these arguments.

- Cross-apply the k flow to case arguments being made. I have seen this done in a multitude of ways. If you aren't finding a way to do this, throw me some k tricks (like root cause or a priori arguments). I am very receptive to these arguments, and when performed with cleverness will earn extra speaker points.

- Clearly show me the world of the alternative. I've judged and been a part of a lot of cap k debates, but I still want you to explain to me what orthodox Marxism looks like if I write the ballot in your favor.

- I think Extinction outweighs is like critically under estimated by most K teams, if you think you spent enough time on it, you didn't.

- If you're going for framework in the 2nr I need a very clear reason why I shouldn't evaluate the consequences of the plan outside of fiat is illusory. I find reasons to not evaluate the plan very unpersuasive for the most part so if you're a team who really wants to go for framework, you have to put extra work into this level of the debate. I think getting links to assumptions is fine, but I don't really understand why to discourage bad behavior they can't have the 1ac.

T---

I default to competing interps, The 2NR needs a clear interp and well impacted out standards. I'm good for these debates, but the affs need a few things to win a T 2AR. T is a debate of competing models, so the argument that "we didn't do anything wrong in this debate" is a nonstarter. You need a clear C/I with clear offense against their interp. I see way too many teams giving purely defensive 2ARs, if you most of your time on like the PICs DA will do you much better than trying to slam reasonability in my face.

Overall, think in terms of impact calculus. Show me how the aff either harms, or doesn't harm debate.

CP ---

Default is judge kick, can be convinced otherwise.

Any like "cheaty" cps are fine with me, but I hold a pretty high competition standard. Pretty convinced by 2AR spins on the neg interp not having intent to define or exclude. Still possible to go for process CPs infront of me but be ready to convince me why generating competition off of the process of the aff is good.

DA ---

The most important flow for me when evaluating a DA is the link debate and then the impact calculus. Don't be afraid to run generic (or even non-topic specific) disadvantages; however, your success with those arguments is entirely dependent on your ability to contextualize the link for me. After the link is clear, provide me with a tool for comparing your impacts to the affirmative's impacts. I'm not picky about how impact calculus is done, but it is almost a requirement to win. If neither team provides some comparative impact analysis, I'll just default to magnitude. I love straight turn debates! By far my favorite debates to watch and be apart of.

Theory

If you run ASPEC/OSPEC I will likely cry. If you make vote in favor of ASPEC/OSPEC I will likely quite judging, pack my bags, move to California, start a surf punk band, go to rehab to recover from a harrowing addiction to peta bread, only to finally open a small shack that sells overpriced beads to disillusioned rich folk and tourists. I like the way I live. Please don't read ASPEC/OSPEC. If you decide to read [Insert letter here]-SPEC, don't make me vote on it, unless you have a strong desire to ruin my life.

LD---

Mostly the same for everything above.

K --- 1
Policy ---1
Tricks --- strike
Phil --- 3

PF ---

Defense isn't sticky

and paraphrasing is bad. your speaks will be capped at 28 if you paraphrase.

If you send a speech doc with the cards you are reading the lowest speaks you will get is a 28.7

I think paraphrasing is bad

Please extend offense

If you make this debate as close as possible to a policy round, I will be very happy.

hi, i'm andy, i currently debate for bellaire :)!

kds52345@gmail.com - feel free to email me if you have any questions

background:

congress | lanier ms - 3 years | bellaire hs - 3 years

general:

tech > truth - but don't push it, it has to be within reason

argumentation > speaking - speaking is cool and gives you some bonus points, but argumentation >>>

signposting - congress: i personally don't signpost but feel free to if you like | pf/ld: pls do

warranting - pls warrant, don't just use logic and then call it an analytic or read empirics that don't tell me why that adds anything to your argument

• you're the debater, therefore you have to do the work
• if you don't say it (clearly), i don't flow it

speed - out of 10 i'm maybe like a 6-7, so i'm ok with some speed, but not too, too much - if you really want to use speed, then send a speech doc pls

isms - if it ends in ism, it probably isn't appropriate - debate is a safe space :)

if you can make me laugh i'll bump your speaks/bump your rank

if you need any clarification on my paradigm, just ask before round :D

congress:

warranting is #1 - if you don't warrant then i don't really care about what you have to say

• i'm kinda tech compared to most congress judges - i value the flow over everything else

speaking - most people, at least regarding elim rounds, should be decent speakers, i use speaking to differentiate in terms of your role as an advocate, but i will not consider speaking above argumentation, because above all else, this is a "debate event"

roleplay - you are a LEGISLATOR and an advocate for the people, so play the part of one :)

i don't really care if you sound absolutely amazing, if you don't interact with the flow, i won't rank you

• interacting with the flow comes with actually refuting/weighing/warranting

refuting - no name dropping - don't just tell me rep/sen x is wrong, tell me what they said, how they got there, why it matters, and how your argumentation interacts with that, and WARRANT it

weighing - give me options, tell me why option x and option y are better/worse than one another, use some metric so i can eval

cx - don't use this time to make an argument, use it to point out flaws (you only have 30 seconds! :0)

rhetoric - either hit me hard or make me laugh and i'll up your rank, but have some substance too, not just poetry

style - if you aren't naturally funny, pls don't try to be, do what works best for you, but don't try to become someone you aren't :)

pf:

tech > truth - unless it's blatantly abusive (i.e. the moon landing was fake)

i will vote on anything that is not overtly abusive, but if you are asking me to eval a very technical theory round, i am probably not the judge for you

• abusive: don't do things like run disclo theory on your opponents when they're not allowed to disclose
• anything along the lines of this will not be reflected positively on my ballot, be fair to your opponents
• if you are good enough to win with a technical argument like theory, then you should easily be good enough to win on a traditional case

defense is NOT sticky - extend into summary if brought up in rebuttal

weighing is awesome - but warrant your weighing, don't just say "outweigh on x mechanism", you gotta warrant why your weighing is true

all new arguments must be made before second summary

signpost - something before your speech like "order is our case, their case, weighing" and during your speech like "onto weighing" or something would be much appreciated :)

i HAVE to see a clear connection along your case - you have to be consistent in your direction from constructive to final focus, if you collapse on something, make it clear, but keep your defense/offense consistent to what you have chosen to prioritize - don't try to do everything, consolidate and go from there

if you read empirics/cards in general and don't tell me what it means (building links), then i won't eval it

• it's your job to tell me what every card, warrant, extension, etc.

it should not take you more than 45 seconds to find a card, every 15 seconds after that is -0.5 point

i start at 28 spks and go from there

don't make me be that judge that has to intervene. it will be reflected badly upon both teams and i really won't be happy.

ld/policy:

treat me as a pf judge

interp:

i have no idea what i'm doing

good luck and have fun :D!

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows the judge [me]to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

A little bit about me:

Former LD’er in high school.  Today, I am an intellectual property attorney.

What I consider important:

Affirmative:  Make arguments to support your entire burden.

Negative:  if the affirmative fails to meet their burden, it’s important that you recognize it and make the argument.

Pay attention to the arguments your opponent makes.  Address their arguments.  Silence is acceptance.

Good luck.  

I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly in order for me to follow your arguments. I applaud those that have logical arguments rooted in evidence. Be very careful of exhibiting microaggressions. It will not bode well for you. 

Looking forward to a great debate on the fundamentals of the topic. 

Former TOC debater. It has been some time since I have been in the community. Relatively tab, so long as you win framework. RVI and T should have more work put into it if you want me to vote for it. Don't clip cards, especially with K, I will know. Be nice, especially to your partner.

As a debater, I hated when judges would intervene to make arguments for how they thought the round should have gone or what they would have said if they were in the debater's shoes. I strive to not do that.

I also do not for the most part call for cards, and in general I will privilege what you say in round versus your digital cards as well as what is said in CX. 

Updated: 09/10/23

Debate:

Please preflow before the round starts to expedite the round especially when it's flighted

I won't disclose unless I specifically say at the beginning of the round

LD Debate:

Argumentation:

I value your ability to communicate your arguments the most out of anything else in round. Students often have interesting arguments whether progressive or traditional but if you struggle to communicate those arguments effectively, you'll lose me. It isn't my job to fill in the gaps of arguments and make links for you, if the arguments themselves aren't fleshed out and conveyed in a manner that makes sense it isn't my job to do it for you.

!!No Frivolous Theory!! - I think this makes for a bad round, if there's legitimate abuse within round that's the only time I believe theory should be run.

Speed:

If you intend on spreading, I request a speechdrop, otherwise I won't be able to keep up.

Line-by-line vs Big Picture:

I'd prefer a balance of both, I want you to go line-by-line on the most important arguments but overall crystallize and provide the big picture for me.

Speech:

What I look for:

-Speeches that flow well from point A to B, which means ensuring you transition well and organize your ideas well

-I prefer an abundance and variety of sources to be used which I want your own analysis of as well (especially in extemp)

-I value your ability to create a speech that's informative, flows well/is organized well, and has an abundance and variety of sources over your ability to speak well - but good speech should be written well and performed well, but if I have a preference then it's: well-written speech > well-performed speech, because the first shows me depth and substance that the latter doesn't

Three main things I evaluate

1) Framework and pre-fiat arguments

2) Evidence Comparison: give me reasons to prefer your evidence especially to set the record straight about something.

3) Impact Calculus

Topicality is something I will vote on

Kritiks must have an alt. it must be clear through Cross X and Speech what the world of the alt looks like.

IE: I believe that whatever you can bring to your speech or performance that is unique and authentic, while drawing an audience in to be fully present with you displays a certain kind of creativity and skill to be appreciated.

Speech: Structure and content are in focus with an appreciation for originality when possible.

Interpretation: Flow of storyline, depth of character, authenticity, as well as the minute details you’ve added throughout your piece displays how much effort and thought have gone into your performance.

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent. Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas. I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied.  Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals.  Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.  Flex prep is fine.

ask in round

I have experience with traditional PF, Congress, and Extemp Debate.

General stuff:

• substance is always more important than presentation
• tech is more important than truth in most situations (within reason)

Don't

• be disrespectful to your opponents
• speak at a speed where you can't get words out clearly
• engage in any type of unfair debate tactics, which includes but is not limited to: gish galloping, misrepresenting your opponents' arguments, placing unreasonable burdens on your opponents, not responding to your opponent's questions, and shady evidence ethics

Do

• signpost
• weigh
• back up your claims with evidence (and be able to quickly access the original source if it gets indicted)
• explain your evidence and why it matter

If you have any specific questions I haven't covered here, feel free to ask in round!

My name is Cathryn Watkins, and I'm currently the Assistant Debate Coach for Clear Brook High School.

For extemp, I don't have any stylistic preferences. I enjoy individuality, and would like to see each student's unique speech style rather than ascribing to a specific speech pattern. Regardless of delivery choice, students should enunciate clearly and project their voice to ensure they are heard and understood. Speeches should be balanced between evidence and commentary. Evidence provides the backbone of an argument, but commentary makes the evidence concrete and meaningful. You need both in your speech to be effective.

Oratory and Info are heavily reliant on aggregating data, and I expect the evidence presented to be thorough. I want the topic presented to be unique. If a subject has been presented multiple times already, students must find a way to make their information impactful and stand apart from other performances. Overall, I look for passion in speech delivery. If the student does not seem to care about their topic, how am I supposed to care about it? Again, I enjoy experiencing each student's unique style of delivery, so I have no delivery preferences.

Interpretation events are centered around how well the student marries author's intent with their own experiences to create something new from a piece. Teasers and introductions should be created to maximize audience interest and familiarize the audience with the subject matter. Without an effective beginning the audience doesn't know where the interpretation is going, which could cause confusion. Blocking and movement should always be intentional and used to create meaning. Random movement without a connection to the interpretation will only distract and confuse. To the same extent, curse words can be powerful but if used too often become a distraction as well.

Debate rounds are, at their core, about respectful discourse. The ultimate goal for me is to persuade me to agree with you over your opponent. I do not have any preferences about the structure of debate, but I do not appreciate spreading, especially when students speak so quickly I cannot understand what is being said. If I can't understand you, you lose my vote.

Disrespect, in any form, is not received well from my perspective, particularly when one side is behaving with integrity and respect and the other side is not.

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.

PFBC2023@googlegroups.com

thanks ruth

debated 4 years for Seven Lakes, 3x TOC, 3x nats

tech > truth, do whatever you want as long as its not offensive, have fun

GENERAL STUFF

preflow before round

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u spread: send speech docs (put in chain--don't put a locked doc). however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow--i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go ultra fast(but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be implicated in rebuttal to be voted for

i have a pretty low threshold for what i consider turns--but 10 word blips labeled as one wont be voted on

i don't believe in uniqueness + probability + clarity of link/impact weighing but if its the only weighing i get ill evaluate it (the only time probability weighing exists is when the link chain is conceded)

comparative + meta weighing is very good

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics, otherwise, i default first (i am open to any alt presumption if this becomes a debate)

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

EVIDENCE

carded warranted ev > warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev> unwarranted analysis

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or just cause

i don't accept cards that aren't cut

miscut ev gets speaks dropped and is knocked off the flow

SPEAKS

based off strategy & speaking

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

normally pretty high

EV CHALLENGES

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

PROG

pretty comfortable with theory, some ks(ask me before)

THEORY

if i believe there's an actual violation that endangers people in the round, the shell doesn't matter to me atp, ill just down the team

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

running theory just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

don't read paraphrasing overviews, just run theory atp

Top Level

He/Him/His

sri pronounced "sh-ree"

Westside '22 | UH debate '26 | TFA out rounds, been to some bid rounds, but more recently ndt qualifier

I was coached by Patrick Fox and Eric Schwerdtfeger -- look to these paradigms for... ideological lineage I guess? also UH coaches rob glass, michael wimsatt, richard garner, james allan, etc.

Note for Lakeland: I have judged very few rounds on this topic but coached it during the summer --- don't know how these args developed over a year of debates the onus will be on y'all to level down the jargon and do a bit more explanation. This likely means increased scrutiny of your evidence so that I can best understand what you are trying to say --- so make sure you put your best cards out there.

send a card doc please --- if you aren't sure what this means/how to do this let me know. I use the doc at the end of the round to check evidence quality and compare evidence. Update: evidence rocks. I will have a higher standard of ev quality (that's obviously secondary to the content of the speeches, but the evidence that actually says the thing will be rewarded in terms of speaker points and my confidence in a risk of your offense) In incidents I hope to avoid, I will use it to evaluate an evidence ethics argument.

quickest overview of what follows: do what you want and do it well, don’t be evil, I was mostly a k person in high school but made a 180 p recently

ask questions before start time --- i'll try to reach room asap so when I am there get questions to me, especially if anything below is insufficent

add me to the email chain or email me with any specific questions or gaps in my paradigm -- please do this to ensure pre-round preparation is (sufficiently) contextual to my judging --- yadagirisripad@gmail.com --- yes to being on the email chain

I mostly read critical arguments, but am confident in my ability to evaluate policy, theory and topicality arguments. a little bit more confident evaluating phil arguments (LD), still a risky choice however. Update: I go for the politics disad now, so do whatever.

I will start speaks at 28.5 and go up and down from there (down likely means you have done something terrible)

I need a full claim warrant and impact for every argument -- i wont vote on assertions absent warrants --- the burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder

I will not flow off of the doc --- but will prolly follow along to check clippling

To win your debate explain why you win and/or why your opponents lose if i think what you say is true or truer than what your opponents say then it is likely how I will decide who wins.

eDebate

cameras dont need to be on, mine will be on if I am ready, you should still ask if I am ready once my camera is on, record only with the consent of everyone in the room//virtual space [even if it is your own speech], but i am fine with it unless I say otherwise

Dont's

1. Endangering students in this space through your behavior or arguments you read enforced by an L25

2. Ask what was read in the speech after it is over -- use CX or prep time for this --- this will affect speaker points. Also lol just flow better, this isnt just a skill issue but indicates that you dont respect your opponents enough to seriously process what they are saying. It's also just a bad look. The exception is in situations with tech issues or unclear portions of a speech

Do's

1. judge instruction

2. clash

3. line by line

4. read arguments on the case page, impact d is cool but solvency takeouts, case turns, or impact turns, are where the fun debates happen. Update: the 3rd and 4th parts of this list might be too big of a burden but please try your best to start solvency arguments in the 1NC.

4. not do the dont's

Evidence Ethics

Here is what i think is an issue: clipping, articles inside articles, cards ending in the middle of the paragraph, but usually misrepresenting evidence through heavy bracketing, paraphrasing and rehighlighting can do this. This is not something I want to end the round on but to ensure the perpetrating debater recuts the evidence into something usable you can stake the round on it.

some more things

It is difficult for me to evaluate someone's character from the parameters of a debate round, however, a serious issue with the behavior of a debater will result in me contacting an outside entity. I will intervene if necessary

Insert rehighlightings -- read the rehighlighting if the tag doesnt communicate what the rehighlighting says --- to clarify I dont need you to read the exact wording of the rehighlighting but at a surface level tell me what the rehighlighting says and it's impact --- if that's done, feel free to just insert the rehighlighting

Locals

I will likely be judging at a lot of these and if you are reading this, we are off to a good start. Please read the section that applies to your event below and the type of argument you may be reading

Traditional Debate is good, If you are a traditional debater here is what you need to know

CX -- read your affirmative and look at most of the things below it probably applies to you

LD/PF -- read your cases and engage your opponents; at the end of the debate give your voters and ensure that they are contextualized to the debate that occured

CX//I am hoping to be in this pool

Topicality

I default to comepting interps. I'll hold the line against the aff as long as your speeches have a clear explanation of what each model looks like, which is better. and why. Please, define the right words in the 2AC dont make the mistake of reading the wrog counterinterp

Theory

I default to reasonability (but less of a default the more I speak to former LDers)

I have preconceptions that can be changed

a. disclosure is good: unchanging, steadfast opinion with few exceptions

b. condo is good: will vote on it if dropped, atp you just have to implicate it as a reason they should lose and why they shouldnt get new 1AR answers

c. judge kick is bad, good --- update: just found out what this actually meant

d. If there are any other preconceptions you need to know feel free to ask me at any point before the round

Disadvantages

win a link, an internal link chain, and preferably one impact scenario + also uniqueness, every part of the story is necessary to make it a coherent 2NR

if this is the 2nr I will decide by testing if the above burden is met and by weighing impacts -- please do this for me

mitigating aff offense will help me here

weighing the aff against the disad will help me here

if the disad turns case that would be awesome and severely mitigates the 2ARs weighing of case against the DA

Counterplans

Dense counterplan theory is difficult for me to understand so clear explanation would be appreciated. Update: I think i get it now

Impact out the solvency deficits on this page clear explanation of the net benefit

the 1nc only needs the text but i expect the block if its going for the counterplan to prove competition plus a net benefit otherwise it's a nonstarter for the 2NR

I am ok with 20 condo planks and you can kick out of individual planks

2NC planks and counterplans obviously allowed

dont drop condo, 50 state fiat, etc. will hang my hat on it absent a 1AR that doesnt extend theory sufficiently

Kritikal Affirmatives

understand what your evidence says

your 1AC should have theoretical consistency that means don't double turn yourself but feel free to read whatever critical niche you'd like

Don't lose to presumption -- your aff should do something, refuse to do something, or impact turn doing something --- if you cannot beat back the presumption push I will vote negative on a risk of offense but evision a ballot onjust presumption. Please take this argument seriously

Impact overviews are just as necessary as in a topical aff, I will not fill in any gaps for you

framing is important -- how should i view your argument against your opponents or vice versa.

Look at the framework sections

Framework

Look at the K aff section

please weigh impacts

good framework teams will make their blocks interact with aff offense on the framework and case page (clash turns case) I enjoy framework now

clash and education are impacts

fairness is an internal link but if it is just a game maybe nothing else matters? If you win that its just a game that shifts my preconceptions

what should debate rounds look like or what should they not look like?

what is the case list and neg ground?

compare models please -- framework is how you frame your work so your job is to tell me which frame is better

The truth testing framework presumption argument thing is persuasive as well as impact defense to aff impact turns

SSD and TVA are also v strategic

limits DA best internal link to clash imo because predictability is significantly hedged against on a truth level by disclosure checks + K Affs have been around for a while

The Kritik

I am ok with overviews but like any judge I would prefer work done on the line by line, but I understand the necessity of the overview --- efficiency here would be appreciated

the framework 2nr against a policy aff needs to win a reason why their model of debate is bad or why yours is better and win a link to their assumptions, justification, etc. whatever your interp is. I think its strategic with most K's and i am familiar with the way this 2NR works so please go for this if it's what you are ready to do.

The links should have an external impact that means they can turn case or implicate themselves in something like extinction or even subject formation -- this should be parsed out on the framework page

An alternative isn't necessary for the 2nr i'd like to see it in the 1NC though. it should solve the link(s)

If the floating pik isn't clear by the end of the block it's not a floating pik

any familiarity I have with xyz should not implicate your argument choices because I won't fill in any gaps for you --- explain the K better. This is not an onus I only put on teams going for the K however if you do not know what gordon says a surface level 1ar extension will be punished equally

perms are legitimate but usually cowardice, lmk if the negative deserves it, If their is no explanation as to what it looks like i will assume it means nothing

LD//I am less happy that i am in this pool

I did LD my senior and sophomore years

the closer this debate is to CX the better

refer to my CX paradigm where topcality, theory, K, framework, and policy stuff apply

Speaking with former LDers means I think i can better evaluate things like skep or the resolved a priori, but obviously risky considering my cx experience

RVI's -- maybe, why do you get it?

1AR theory -- yes

these change with the debate on the underview lmk why i might be wrong

PF//I am sad that i am in this pool

I debated in PF for a couple of tournaments

The closer this debate is to traditional LD the better

Do not read the kritik in PF -- it's usually really poorly explained and underdeveloped in such a short event -- I think this is an enormous disservice. If you plan on reading the kritik be conscious of these time constraints and ensure that you know what you are saying

I am good with theory stuff I think this is strategic and valuable in an event like PF where paraphrasing and refusing to share evidence is still common practice.

Please disclose -- If you disclose on the PF Wiki I will grant the team 1 extra speaker point that is .5 on both speakers -- Use an email chain or speechdrop.net if necessary, not sure if flash drives are still in use but that would be a great alternative if none of the above work.

If you read the above progressive arguments disingenuously I will notice and dock speaker points.

Traditional Arguments are the way to win this event.

The affirmative and negative case must have evidence that all debaters can access i.e. author name, qualifications, publication date, article title, if its from a book, chapter number or name//title, and if its a website a url.

Read arguments you understand and ensure you explain your offense when extending the case page

Defense is not sticky (I get nauseous whenever someone says it is) I will flow each speech and I need to see the argument clearly extended in the necessary speeches for me to vote on it

Anything else PF specific please email me using the email above if i dont respond please make sure to ask before the round starts.

My paradigm

Debaters should:

Speak very slowly.

State the resolution, as that is what is being debated

Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.

Speak very slowly.

Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.

Be nice to each other.

Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.

Speak slowly.

Speakers should:

Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.

Present evidence/sources

Don't go too fast, especially when competing in virtual/recorded tournaments, but this is important in others as well.

Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.

Interpers should:

Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.

Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?

I hate PC but I do my best to judge the performer not the script.

Updated -Nov. 2021

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity). My coaching style is focused on narrative building. As a debater I mainly relied on clean line by line extensions and sought out ways to sever my opponents' links. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. Big Picture, traditional impact calculus is preferred, but I am open to more progressive approaches to debate. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.5. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. "Framework" in PF is not necessary and I think it takes away time that can make arguments more substantive. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links. It's lazy, for example, to run a Cap K shell, and then assume I will extend the offense just because I am familiar with the argument. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. Too many rounds would an team ask for a card, and it ends up not being paramount in the round. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm:

I'm used to high speeds in LD rounds, I'm usually annoyed when you stumble or don't articulate while spreading. I think if you choose to spread, then you should be good at it, so I will not say "clear" or "slow" if I can't understand you. I will just not flow your arguments. You are welcome to send me speech docs (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) but I won't fill in gaps in my flows after the fact. This is unfair for debaters who are able to convey themselves clearly on the flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing. I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because there is not enough substance in theory debates. If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I am likely to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are have very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions. I don't like to vote on Topicality because its usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

-

As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.