Zoda,+Greg

Debated 4 years in HS for Bishop Guertin Senior in my 4th year debating at Baylor University

__**Update 11/29/17 for the Longhorn Classic **__ So I managed to somehow go all year without judging really any high school and the LHC will be my first tournament back as a coach/judge. I haven't thoroughly reviewed everything I wrote here a few years ago, but the majority of it likely hasn't changed. That said, here's some things to keep in mind:
 * Please cool it on topic acronyms and terms of art, unless you think they are commonly-known. I've done some work for this topic but you should err on the side of caution when it comes to making arguments that would require a semester of exposure to the high school topic in order to understand. A sentence or two of extra explanation will go a long way.
 * This also means topicality debates are //fine// (I have nothing against it as an argument), but given my tenuous topic knowledge, I will have a very hard time deciphering impact framing arguments about which way the topic is biased, claims about where the core of the topic lies, and other nuanced, subtle phrasing distinctions. Kinda just proves that T debates need to be won using good impact-framing, which should be the case anyway.
 * The research that I have done for the topic has primarily concerned the racialized consequences of school desegregation, read mainly through Michael Dumas and, consequently, W.E.B. Du Bois. I find this part of the topic really interesting. This doesn't mean this is the only thing I'm interested in though, but that's a debate that I think is good to have.
 * K debaters that end up with me in the back should know that I am very familiar with, though also gradually straying away from, an okay amount of critical theory that comes from poststructuralist or postmodern traditions. However, I'm becoming slightly less sympathetic to and more skeptical of a lot of putatively white critical theory, especially when seemingly used to avoid questions of paradigmatic violence.
 * I've noticed a worrying trend of college evidence-sets trickling down into high school debate, leading to a bunch of stale debates involving cards neither team fully understands. I want to see exceptions to this trend and I want you to strive to disprove it. This does not mean don't read recycled cards, but it might mean don't use the same recycled tags/jokes/blocks that have been circulating online for the last few years. There's a difference between using open evidence as a resource, a creative inspiration, or something to recut and innovate upon, versus using it as a substitute for arguments. As a result, **less is more:** if you have to pick between explaining and reading, explain. I'm going to urge myself not to read your cards unless I think there is a sufficient amount of explanation derived from it.

Apologies if I sound like a grouch. Hope everyone has fun! The rest of the philosophy is below.

__**Majority of the Stuff**__ tl;dr: arguments are arguments - i've read everything from the politics disad to affs without plans - be the best version of you possible

Peers/friends who have greatly influenced my thoughts about debate: Mike Demers, Sam Gustavson, Sarah Lim, Ben Iuliano

I will always do my best to make the best decision that I can. I love debate and I respect its participants. I will not prioritize certain arguments because they let me leave the round sooner; to do so makes a mockery of the passion I have for this activity. That said, if I make a mistake that you think deserves to be pointed out, that's certainly fair game for post-round discussion.

Evidence and Tech/Truth
 * Debate should be in the hands of the debaters whenever possible. Given the differential nature of institutional capacity to produce evidence, I am much more likely to vote for fantastic explanation of awful evidence than awful explanation of fantastic evidence.
 * The above claim does not mean I want to have to sift through cards from blogs and tabloids. Good scholarship is part of being a good debater and thus influences how I see speaker points.
 * An argument consists of a claim and a warrant but a well-delivered argument consists of a claim, warrant, AND impact. Debaters that can see the forest through the trees will not only have a greater chance at winning but get much better speaks.
 * The boundary between tech and truth is frequently a false one. I view debate from somewhere in the middle, leaning closer to the tech side.
 * Evidence comparison is a staple of good debating and should be done by debaters (not by me after the debate). Comparison must be impacted in the context of the broader debate. I don't know why postdating matters until you tell me why it does.
 * I will try to only read evidence to validate the comparison already done by you in the debate.
 * Reading 50 cards that have less than 10 words highlighted should never be a thing (you know who you are).

Speaking
 * Speed is measured by the number of arguments conveyed to me per minute. With regard to my flowing ability, err on the side of caution. Debaters are sometimes more efficient when they slow down.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sitting and speaking is fine so long as you are clear.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I would rather hear you be able to clearly deliver most of the words in your evidence versus get to flow you reading 2 more cards. I will attempt to flow the warrants of cards, especially in the 1AC and 1NC.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I appreciate speaking consistency and endurance. If you sound as strong at the bottom of your speech as you did at the top, that’s significantly better than starting off screaming before descending into a whisper. You should start slow and build speed at the beginning of your speech because it lets me get attuned to your voice.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Emphasis, pauses, and other rhetorical devices give your speech flair and help boost your speaker points.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You should be flowable not just audible. That means: pausing between flow transitions, making it clear where you are on the line by line, telling me when I need a new sheet of paper, and watching my facial expressions (I'm a pretty expressive person). Make it clear which parts of your argument should be on my flow.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Every debater has a persona in debate that will make them successful. Whether you are the smartest person in the room, are good at getting laughs, can dismantle people at cross-x, etc, find the ethos that fits you.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Alternative styles of speaking are fine. Whether that be spoken word poetry, singing, rap, etc, I’m probably down with it. Playing a video, showing pictures, playing music, etc are also all fine, so long as debaters are audible.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Judges sometimes (un)consciously make decisions immediately after the round and spend the rest of the time finding ways to justify them. That means that your likability and the connections you make with the judge are essential. Not only do ethos and pathos influence speaker points drastically but that means they could potentially influence a decision.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Please don't refer to me directly as “judge” (I have a name and it’s on your pairing). This does not preclude you from referring to “the judge” abstractly when making interpretations or role of the judge arguments, and this certainly is not a request for you to say my name every 30 seconds.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Decorum
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As I alluded to above, ethos is generated in a multiplicity of ways and some of these methods can be adopting a very aggressive or sassy persona in a debate. It is important to remember that there is a difference between using these personas and being an ass. That line is entirely subjective but knowing that, you should be self-reflexive in terms of how you act in debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">A politics of uncomfortability is certainly a legitimate position but this again diverges from simply being mean for the sake of it.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am generally not a fan of the “you used [word] – vote them down, judge” especially if it was done accidentally but I am easily persuaded if such an argument is utilized as a component of a broader kritik. Evident malicious intent obviously cancels out this claim and I can be convinced otherwise.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Impact Calc
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This is the single most important thing to me in the debate and the first thing I will evaluate when making a decision.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It refers to the ability to impact arguments rather than just terminal impact claims. For example, “What does it mean if you win internal link defense?”, “How should I evaluate try or die framing?”, etc are all questions you should be ready to answer.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Following a history of BG alums, I believe zero risk is achievable. Conceding distinct warrants connected to a claim are almost as important as dropping an entire argument, so long as those warrants are impacted in the context of the debate. In other words, when one has two warrants, they really have two distinct arguments that the othe team must answer. This is not universally true, but adhering to it will result in my reading less evidence.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The neg should go for "try or die logic is bad" more often.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Relying on solely the triad of timeframe, magnitude, and probability tends to produce shallow analysis. This is not always true but “Magnitude: OMG extinction! Probability: it's going to happen so 100%! – Timeframe: really really fast!” is almost always going to help you less than taking a step back and explaining logical reasons why your impact should be prioritized.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You should explain why your impact accesses theirs //and// why your impact is still more important even if both teams win equal risk.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Non-traditional affirmatives"
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Short version: I think these affs are legitimate but often poorly thought out; framework frequently seems like an unnecessary recourse but can be very persuasive
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You should know that I have never, in my career, felt the need to read framework: do with that information what you will.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Having a positive relationship to the topic is more educational than not but if you disagree, convince me I'm wrong.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I am familiar with a lot of high theory as well as literature pertaining to questions of identity (I also think that binary is a false choice).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">My choice to not read framework over the course of my career was more informed by strategy than by ethics. In other words, I'm not getting moralistic about your reading of framework but I think there are more strategic arguments to be explored.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Arguments with impacts based on fairness and dialogue are much more persuasive than "decisionmaking skills".
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Some of the best answers to framework are based in clever approaches to debate theory, not impact turns.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I can be convinced by either side that an affirmative without a plan should or should not get a permutation.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Roles of the ballot do not have to be arbitrary, but frequently are. In my mind, they define what voting means not what impacts to prioritize (that part is called impact calculus).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Case debate
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Truly a lost art and one of my favorite debates to participate in and judge.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You are doing it wrong if you are just reading impact defense.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2A’s consistently undercover case arguments. It’s up to 2A’s to not do this and 2N’s to exploit this.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Specificity wins these debates.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The neg should read and potentially recut affirmative evidence.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Excavating warrants from evidence is an important job for both teams.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Case offense! Case offense! Case offense!
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Aff specific stuff is always better than generic stuff.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I’m from BG which means I love impact turns.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Case K’s are strategic and never handled by the aff correctly.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If you think your overview on an offensive case argument will take a lot of space, tell me to flow it on a separate sheet.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The best case debaters are the ones that can recognize what is missing from a 1ac rather than solely taking the aff up on their own terrain.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Topicality and other procedurals
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I’m pretty ambivalent about competing interpretations vs reasonability. Reasonability should be defined by the aff and impacted in terms of aff predictability.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">T debates rely on ethos and confident statements (as opposed to qualified ones which use words like "probably") often more than any other type of debate.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Both sides must clearly articulate, with specific impacts, why their vision of debate is good, why the other side prevents it, and what the consequence of preventing it is.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Topicality is always a question of the plan text not the aff’s evidence. That said, I harbor an immense hatred for people that read what amounts to the resolution as a plan text. Specification debates matter substantially more to me in that context.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Tricks like “substantial checks” or “only our aff is t” are not very persuasive to me (or anyone).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">New affs might be bad and that argument should have a crafty interpretation.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I have a strange love for inherency arguments, especially when grounded in theories of cause, permanence, and minor repairs (I'm going to regret having written this).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Counterplans
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Please slow down when reading the text or emphasize the parts that are different than the affirmative.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Please explain what the counterplan does at the top of your extension of it.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Aff-specific or comparative solvency cards will always be better than generic cards.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debated equally, agent counterplans are probably competitive but I could be convinced otherwise.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debated equally, process counterplans (or others that compete on certainty and immediacy) are probably not competitive but I could be convinced otherwise.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Multiplank advantage counterplans are awesome but planks should probably not be conditional.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Counterplans cut from aff evidence are sometimes strategic.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Crafty internal net benefits make for good debates.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Case specific PICs are awesome and competition is dependent upon the round and the plan text. In a vacuum, I think textual and functional competition combined is the best standard but I definitely think functional competition is better than textual competition.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I dislike word PICs especially if the word is not in the plan text/advocacy statement. This view changes if changing a word drastically changes the way the plan operates; these PICs are some of the best.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Debaters should treat counterplan solvency not as a “yes/no” question but rather as a question of risk and debate accordingly.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I don't know what "necessary vs sufficient" means if you don't explain it to me.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In my mind, presumption shifts aff when the neg introduces a counterplan/kritik. You could convince me otherwise, but in my opinion, it is very hard to quantify change unless we are talking about a PIC.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The aff needs to explain the implications of any particular solvency deficit or it becomes much harder to weigh.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Disads
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Yes.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Link probably controls direction of uniqueness but I will not make a judgment in either direction until explicitly told to do so.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Intrinsicness is very convincing if grounded in a theory of opportunity cost decisionmaking and a question of what role the judge takes.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Kritiks > to prevent a complete lack of clash.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Yes you can read them. Yes I know a lot about them. However, greater knowledge on my part equates to much higher standards for you to live up to. I probably am at least tangentially familiar with anything you will read, but you should assume I have no prior knowledge.
 * The fields I have the most knowledge of and interest in include: critical international relations theory, critical environmentalism, and poststructuralist theories of race, gender, and queerness (and likely, their structuralist counterparts).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I do not think kritiks need to have an alternative but that means you need to win framework.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">K tricks can theoretically be independent reasons to vote neg but you must explain why that is true and impact it like any other argument.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Specificity is incredibly important for all judges. This can take the form of aff-specific evidence or aff-specific explanation but this is an absolute __must__
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Turns case arguments are intuitive and the aff is terrible at answering them.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The majority of work should be done on the line by line instead of massive global overviews.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Theory
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">You should slow down on all of these arguments.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Conditionality is up in the air for me. I have won debates on 1 conditional option bad but I have also won debates whilst reading 3-4 conditional options.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I could be persuaded that multiple conditional worlds garners the aff the right to advocate a perm. I could also be persuaded that such an argument is a terrible idea.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I tend to think agent counterplans are usually good especially if they are within the USFG. Could be persuaded otherwise.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I generally think that process counterplans and the like are cheating but you could persuade me otherwise.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">PICs can be good especially if they are very specific to the affirmative and have an internal net benefit.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">International fiat is up in the air for me. It is probably fine if you have evidence in the context of the affirmative.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Multi-plank counterplans are fine but conditional planks are sketchy.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Floating PIKs are probably cheating but the aff needs to call the neg on it early; I may have a higher threshold than some for what determining what makes it "floating".
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Except for conditionality, reject the argument not the team is my default unless told otherwise.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Speaker points
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This will probably be very arbitrary so I won’t set up a scale because I probably would not follow it. I’ll have my reasons but they may not correlate perfectly with points.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Making fun of some of my friends (stalk my Facebook if you have to) will get you higher speaker points (it has to be funny though).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When debating a team that is younger/less experienced than you, I think it's extremely admirable to be considerate of that rather than trying to pummel them into the dust for the sake of your own ego.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cheating
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Clipping (stopping somewhere before the end of a card without marking it), cross-reading (skipping lines in evidence), or evidence fabrication (making up evidence) will result in an immediate loss and 0 speaker points. I will call you out if I catch you.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Allegations of clipping or cross-reading will require evidence (usually a recording – for this reason, I am always fine with the round being recorded) and the debate will stop immediately.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Skipping a couple words by accident or speaking style is acceptable but if it looks blatant, I will side against the accused. Yes that is somewhat of an arbitrary line, but these situations are almost never the same.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**//__Marking speeches__// __must //either be done by the speaker as they are reading or be written down by their partner//__.** You must say what word you marked the card at. I will record it on my flow. I will ask you what cards were marked at the end of your speech and if you misrepresent where you marked a card, you will done
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">When a card is highlighted in multiple colors you must say which you are reading either before your speech, after your speech, or following the cites of relevant cards unless it is indicated in the speech doc.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">False disclosure is not necessarily cheating but they can be made into a compelling voting issue.

Miscellaneous
 * I don't take prep for flashing/emailing so long as the time isn't egregious. I time prep most of the time, but it would be beneficial if everyone else did too.
 * When an email chain is being used, I would prefer to be included on it but I typically won't look at the speeches until the end of the debate.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I hope everyone involved has fun! Debate is an activity that I love and I will reiterate that I will do my very best judging y’all!