Words flow like a river, clear and true,

With a voice that echoes, and a message to pursue,

A battle of wits, a test of might

Give me a good debate, I'll judge you right

Quickly I’ll down, those who don’t speak

You are here to learn, so OPEN YOUR BEAK

I debated in PF for 4 years and did Prose for 3 years and was my school's team captain for both events :)

PF

1. SIGNPOST

2. Unless you are kicking case to go for turns/disads, Second Rebuttal has to respond to defense and turns that are read in the first rebuttal

3. pls weigh but don't start shouting random weighing mechanisms to me without clearly warranting

4. extensions are crucial!!!

5. collapse

6. summary and final should mirror each other

7. If you don't know what I'm referring to, don't worry! You can always ask me questions before the round, but essentially I want you to present your arguments convincingly and logically while adequately responding to the arguments of the other team

8. “If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20." -Cara Day

9. I don't have too much experience with progressive arguments and honestly have no idea how to evaluate them so...

10. also pls dont spread

everytime you make a taylor swift reference I'll bump your speaks by 0.1 each time (0.25 if its a midnights reference)

IES

I'm basically okay with anything you're comfortable with, just make sure you indicate your title/piece and keep track of your own time!

If you have any questions feel free to email me at niousha.bastani@gmail.com or just ask me before the round begins.

Technically experienced, I have a public forum background & generally prefer big picture weighing. Clear communication is important to how I view a round.

*Parent Judge*

In terms of speaking preference I would appreciate the delivery of speeches to not be rushed but rather clear and concise.

DO NOT SPREAD!!!

You will be keeping track of your own time.

GOOD LUCK!

I am a parent judge. 

Please speak in normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Please do not spread. Please keep it conversational. 

Thank you! 

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.

Background: Coach/Sponsor of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 2nd year as Coach/Sponsor, 9th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

Event Type: PF

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know about theories/kritiks. Personally I find that their usage in PF takes away from the actual debating itself. You're no longer trying to argue the topic at that point, instead devaluing your opponents by virtue of some predetermined angle that serves your own needs. Please save these tactics for a judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get lost in topicality (arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole).

- I do not need to be included on an email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will flow your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later.

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side, and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

i vote off grand cross

no english????????

click this

he/they

please include me on any email chains: trq.ebdavidson@gmail.com

Graduated from the University of Texas at Dallas and currently enrolled at Texas Tech University Master's program

Competed in and judged most debate events including LD and Policy but I have the most experience in Congress and Public Forum

Speed is not a problem for me however make sure you are still speaking clearly. I will not flow anything that is not verbally understood

All arguments must have a foundation of a claim, warrant, and impact otherwise you are free to structure your argument in anyway you feel is most appropriate

Debate is supposed to be fun and informative so everyone should aim to have a great time and be respectful. Morally/ethically inappropriate arguments will earn you the lowest speaker points possible.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself when it is not your turn to speak

I am a coach for Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart in Houston, TX. 

Background:

Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~35 Grand Finals, and chaired 12 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

I have experience in PF, Congress and Extemp. I use she/her pronouns.

Overall, just be respectful to your opponents and if anything is addressed offensively it's an automatic lose.

Debate

• I don't care if you spread but please make sure you are speaking somewhat clear. Just email me before the round begins: nehaharish2006@hotmail.com as a link/PDF/Word Document
• I'm fine with progressive arguments but make sure it's clear, if you choose to run it.
• I value weighing and warranting over anything. For example, don't just say: "they're evidence is biased", explain why their evidence should not be preferred compared to yours. Make sure to establish a clear link and impact throughout the round. Don't make me do the weighing.
• I appreciate jokes and pop references, I'm totally fine with it unless it is targeted towards a specific community (racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic and etc...).
• Keep it interesting, I enjoy intense and somewhat aggressive debates. This does not mean you should be yelling over your opponent, keep it classy.
• I don't typically give below 27 speaker points unless something is seriously wrong.

Speech

• I appreciate good structure.
• I appreciate comedy and pop references in speeches, keep me entertained.
• I enjoy a good performance but do not sacrifice a good analysis.
• I am looking for an honest connection to be made between the speaker and audience. Let your personality shine through.
• Please make sure to adequately answered the question and don't go around it. (EXTEMP)

Have fun and good luck!

Hastings Speech and Debate Coach- 6 years

Total years as a speech and debate coach-10 years

20 years Speech and Debate total experience as a competitor, judge, consultant, and coach.

Specializing in IE's and Speaking events, with experience in congressional and other debates.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, which in most instances choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

I'm a parent judge

- I have some basic experience judging CX & NPF

- Please go SLOW unless you flash blocks

- Please flash whenever possible

Basically: Talk slow or flash analytics, be organized when speaking, explain well.

I am a parent/lay judge.

I will vote for whoever presents high quality arguments in a clear and coherent way and is best able to persuade me. I will evaluate arguments based on how true I think they actually are, and overall presentation will be crucial in my decision. I appreciate debaters who emphasize important points and use persuasive techniques. My decision is also heavily influenced by performance during the cross-examination period.

If you want me to vote for you, please go slow (conversational pace). If you are rushing through the debate, it will reduce my chances of voting for you and hurt your speaker points.

I will take notes, but they will be brief and only consist of things which are clearly emphasized to me and points which I thought were very good.

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 am a parent judge. I am a lawyer by profession, so I am very familiar with the black letter law of how these debates work and what each side has to prove in order to win their case. I have argued before a judge in actual trial proceedings.

I prefer no spreading by the students, as it can be hard to understand and follow for me. However, I appreciate the art of it, so if a student is most effective using spreading, then that is fine. I do not mind studying the documents provided. It just might take me longer to make a decision.

I do not disclose, as I tend to finish thinking about the arguments both sides made before I submit my ballot, so results are rarely immediate.

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

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

I look for confidence in speeches. And speakers' depth in the speech or debate. I would not advice spreading when I'm judging.

DEBATE: Make sure you carry your judge along in your debate, do not spread. Have a grounded argument with appropriate evidence to back it up. preferably I will be keeping time of everything going on, and I will stand on my time only. In PF, things like a coin flip will happen only when the judge and competitors have entered the competition room. keep questions appropriate and arguments respectful. Will be marked down if your speech lack's structure.

SPEECH: Big on blocking and characterization, clean pops and acting. In HI humor me, In DI engage me with a Dramatic story, persuade and inform me in public speaking, etc. remember when you mess up, keep going. In a tough room, it all comes down to who made it more believable.

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.

I competed in LD for 4 years at Clements High School and qualified to TFA State twice. UT’18

Argumentation:

·      I have been out of the game for a year so I’m a little rusty, but as long as you’re stating what your argument is and how it functions in the round, you should be good. I’m fine with good traditional frameworks, plans, CPs, DAs, GOOD Ks, and most other things.

·      Some things I’m not the most familiar with: topicality args, pre/post-fiat args, skep triggers. Again, if you articulate what these are and what you’re trying to do with them, I will vote on them.

·      Most stock Ks are fine, but I’m not too familiar with very philosophy-dense critical arguments, so be extra clear as to what you’re advocating or I’ll be lost. Be clear with your philosophy in general.

·      Don’t like pre-standard arguments too much as they’re usually blippy claims, but if you must run them, label them so.

·      I will vote on theory if there’s abuse in the round, but I don't feel that theory should be used as a strategy to win the ballot. I default to reasonability and drop the argument unless given a reason otherwise. I also don’t vote on presumption args.

·      Won’t vote on morally repugnant args (rape good, etc.)

·      Read what you’re comfortable reading! Just make sure I understand it.

Delivery:

·      Deliver how you’re most comfortable. Some strategies (e.g. standing up vs. sitting down) may affect volume and perceptual dominance, but it’s all up to you.

·      I’ve never been the best at flowing speed, so be sure to slow down during tag lines and authors. I’m fine with going fast but I’m nowhere near accustomed to the CX speed, so definitely no double breaths. I would say that my comfort zone is about a 5 or 6 on a speed scale of 10. Also, signpost effectively or you’ll probably lose me.

·      I’m really not a stickler on speaks; just try to remain fluent and perceptually dominant. That being said, unless you say something offensive, are rude, or lack composure and stutter like crazy during round, you’ll get high speaks.

·      I prefer clear extensions to help me weigh the round easier: extend the claim and impact and tell me why it matters in the round.

Miscellaneous:

·      Weigh your arguments! Make the decision calculus clear and well warranted and you’re Gucci.

·      Don’t presume I know everything. You should do the work for me.

·      CX is binding.

At the end of the day, I hate judge intervention. Debate is an activity for the participants to strategize and execute however they wish, as long as their arguments are courteous and sane. Just tell me why you’re winning the round and have fun!

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

I have been coaching speech and debate since 2000.

First of all, I believe that debate is a communication activity. Consequently, I will be looking for effective communication that includes effective eye contact, diction, inflection, projection, and gesturing.

Furthermore, I expect debaters to speak at a normal rate. If you spread, I will vote for your opponent. My reasoning:

• People do not spread in the real world.
• When you speak at a normal rate, you are forced to prioritize your arguments. Choosing arguments is part of the learning experience in debate.
• When people spread, their syntax frequently suffers.

Finally, I will not fill in the blanks for you. Even if I understand what you are trying to say, it is your job to say it effectively. Likewise, I expect debaters to clearly connect their evidence to the points they are trying to make. Be creative with your arguments, but it is your job to help me understand your arguments.

One last thing: I don't mind esoteric arguments, but I put a high value on practicality, especially when discussing real-world issues and policies. Sometimes, debate can seem disconnected from reality, and it shouldn't be.

been a debater at strake for 3 years I was both a first and second speaker I have 3 gold bids so I'd like to think I'm decent at debate

I'm going to be more of a tech judge

defense isn't sticky extend it if you want it to be considered

you must extend all parts of your case/contention in summary and final

need to frontline in 2nd rebbutal

pls collapse the round will get too bogged down if you don't

pls pls pls pls pls pls pls pls do comparative weighing it controls what I look to first and is most likely your best shot to the ballot

turns don't matter if you don't implicate them or give them a impact

if y'all both agree to have a lay round I'll judge that way

you'll either get 30 speaks or 25 only way you get 25 if you're some form of ism ex racism or if you're rude to your opponents it'll get docked

I don't evaluate cross unless its brought up in speech

you can curse if you want

progressive

I can judge shells but not any other progressive debate

shells preferences

any safety shell goes above any other shell don't try to weigh over it if they read it

the rest just weigh your voters better then your opponents and I'll probably pref it

don't read shells on freshman I think that's cringe and I will down you if you want to set norms tell them outside of round.