Harvey,+Miguel

TLDR version: I'm fine with anything, including arguments that say the things I'm fine with *aren't* ok. I don't default one way or another on most arguments. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive.

A little about myself: I was an Illinois/circuit policy debater in the mid-90s, judged and consulted on the Austin and TFA circuit in the late 90s and early 2000s, then left debate for about 15 years. I graduated from Texas and then Georgetown Law, and quit being a lawyer so I could return to what I love and coach debate. I became the head coach at Connally in Austin in 2015. You can call me Harvey or Miguel or whatever.

Generally, I don't think it's my job to tell debaters what to do; rather, it's the job of the debaters to tell me why to vote a certain way. I'm fine with anything so long as it is properly reasoned and explained. Tight, organized debate on the line by line makes me happy. Messy garbage annoys me. I'll call for evidence if I need to, and especially if it is powertagged. I always disclose unless I'm told not to and try to either write a long ballot or give a detailed oral or both.

Debaters shouldn't lie or act like jerks. While I get that debate is ostensibly a competitive activity, this is supposed to be educational, collegial, and fun. Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. I don't like to intervene, but blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial or sexual violence, and there's even a slight question as to whether it might be a trigger, please ask your opponent.

Please don't make me keep time. I'm terrible at it.

Specifics: Speed: Fine. If you are not clear, I will say "clear" once.

Kritik: Fine. I have a basic understanding of most of the literature and a more advanced/nuanced understanding of critical legal frameworks. If you can understand it, I probably can as well. You don't need to be a kindergarten teacher about it, but don't think my basic understanding of Butler, Kant, Ahmed, Deleuze, Rawls, Levinas, anthro, or whatever will excuse you from explaining why I should vote. Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't think this means the aff needs interp-specific offense in a T debate that they are winning, but if the round collapses to theory and I don't have a specific RVI or offensive justification for voting it's probably a good idea to at least give a cursory impact or framework extension somewhere else on the flow. I don't default to drop the debater or argument - I want to hear that debate (or not, if that's not your thing). I love a well thought-out, reasoned theory debate. I was a T debater in high school. I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious.

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (V/C), policy-oriented, phil, critical frameworks, performance, narratives. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing.

LARP: Fine. Plans, counterplans, PICs, PIKs, disads, solvency dumps, whatever. Argue it well and it's fine. I'm skeptical of severance perms.

Condo: Fine, although I don't think conceded offense on kicked arguments just goes away because the argument is conditional.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: YES. I will listen to disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for non-circuit debaters that don't know or use the wiki. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped. Please include me on email chains.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever. I make my debaters stand because it helps with volume and clarity. But do your thing, it won't affect speaks. Maybe look at me every once in a while, your call.

Flex prep: Fine.

Performative issues: I am a little bit skeptical of white debaters running afropessimism or similar arguments, particularly against debaters of color, but will not tell someone they can't. That said, if you're a white person debating critical race issues against a person of color, or a man advocating feminism against a woman, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. You specifically need to tell me why your extinction scenario is more compelling than someone's dog achieving self-actualization. Say it with me: Harvey does not default to util.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Being a tabula rasa-ish judge, I will listen to arguments that any of the stuff I accept is not OK, albeit skeptically. I don't vote against a "traditional" value debater because they're "less progressive" or "less cool" or "memes" or whatever. Every person in our community has value.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">All speeches aside from the 1AC should begin with a roadmap, and I expect consistent signposting. If you want me to flow an overview, tell me where. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Most of this is LD-specific, because that's the pool to which I'll generally be assigned. Policy debaters, most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I was a good policy debater, and I get how it goes. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Please ask questions in-round if I can clarify anything, and don't be afraid to engage and ask questions after the debate. It is endlessly annoying when a judge dismissively tells debaters they should have read the wiki paradigm.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">And goodness gracious, have fun! Debate is fun. Make puns and stuff. Be friendly. Do your thing.