Hello whoever's reading this, how's your day going? Just putting a message up top here that I go by they/them pronouns. It's listed literally everywhere my pronouns are listed but people consistently get it wrong so here's yet another place to see that.
 

 Note for the 2022-23 season:I don't particularly care if camps or coaches told you to not label your flows in files, label them if your debating in front of me. I view debate as a communication game, if you read that and think that means obfuscating information to cause petty time skews is gonna earn you points in front of me, idrk what to say. I will not vote you down for not catering to this however, it will be reflected in your speaks that you read this and chose not to adapt and I will be likely to have a negative skew towards the rest of your arguments.
 Paradigm In progress, feel free to ask anything not yet answered here.
 Super basic stuff/Background:
 I debated for 4 years in Hs and I'm currently in my second as Central High Schools varsity coach. I have a pretty good grasp on most policy affs and generic negs for this topic but if your gonna run something super off the wall don't assume I'll have a pre-existing understanding, if in depth knowledge of a specific policy or literature is necessary for your argument to work then it's on you to explain that in round. I'm generally fine with any arguments, however, if you decide to be openly hostile towards other debaters I will give you <25 and likely vote you down.
 General Judging Philosophy:
 Debate is an educational game at the end of the day. In the spirit of this, I'm willing to vote for pretty much anything you are willing to go for. That said I also think debate is a great space for participants to develop their understandings of both policy positions and philosophical ideas. Basically im down to vote on anything that isn't Wipeout/Spark/Overkill etc as long as you want to do the work on it (you're not going to convince me mass death is good and any attempts will be reflected in the ballot).
 Debate is also a communication activity and your ability to effectively and clearly communicate arguments will matter in front of me. This gets covered more later but I do not flow off the doc besides checking cites. I will backflow if I miss arguments on the flow that I could still totally understand, I.e I wont punish you if I can't keep up with your spreading but I will if your spreading is unclear.
 If you want a one line paradigm I'm a pretty straight forward Offense/Defense judge, clash and top level impact stories is the best way to win rounds in front of me. <3 Judge instruction <3
 More specific Judging Philosophy:
 Judge Kick: I support it unless either side gives a reason not to. I ran too many conditional CPs/Kritiks in HS not to. That said affs if you have a good argument for the perm being 2ar offense go wild I'm not set on this opinion.
 - Tech > Truth 90% of the time. I think this just makes debate more interesting and fair as truth usually skews to one side of a topic. That said being right tends to make your argument more persuasive so its probably a moot point
 Speed - I debated relatively fast when I debated and as long as your spreading is good I will be able to hear it fine. My general stance is that speed is probably bad for most teams but if your clear and using the speed to genuinely get more argumentative depth into the round that'll be great. I will not flow off the email chain(authors note: I will back flow if I miss something because my flow is sloppy, if i simply can't understand the words coming out of your mouth I will not). As one final note on speed, reading 6+ off against new/inexperienced teams with the obvious intent to overwhelm them with evidence is not good debate and will hurt your speaks.
 Framework - Im fine with framework, I've run both sides of it. Im pretty neutral on it but if I had to skew one way it would probably be neg. My default threshold for framework is "Is the Aff in the direction of the resolution" but I'm open to pretty much any interp of framework as long as you can defend it. Realistically every framework interp is self serving I really only care if you can defend *your* self serving model as better than theirs.
 Kritikal Affs - I'm fine with these, think they can make for really interesting and competitive debates. but I also think they have the potential to be abusive and/or messy, plus like I said above I err slightly neg on framework and if you don't have a justification as to why you could not run a topical aff it's gonna be hard to win. Basically TVA/SSD is very persuasive in front of me. If you wanna win a K aff in front of me your resolutional claim and offense on what education you generate is gonna be important.
 Topicality - IMPACT OUT YOUR TOPICALITY, seriously. Proving your violation means nothing if you don't attach and win voters on the flow(I've been told this is a controversial opinion and Im a boomer for having it, so I've gotten quite a bit more leniant on T, but you still need to at least mention voters.). I'm shocked at how little I see definitions authors called into question. A bad author is 100% a reason for me to not accept a T def. Also I default to in round abuse > models for debate, but this is just my default position and I'm happy to adapt to whatever framing of the round you want to argue for.
 Actor CPs - I think actor CPs are usually non competitive and lack real lit bases. 50 States/Courts/Whatever actor you feel like is fine to run but know that I will be very easily persuaded by perms against these arguments. Their best used as a strategic way to point out flaws in the case or setting up weird 2nr traps.
 Theory (general) - I'm generally fine with theory args as long as they meet the conditions of actually having a definition, violation, and real impacts. I default to in round abuse>models of debate but am open to either. I tend to find that competing models debates lack clash a lot of the time but I'm open to being wrong. Getting up and reading just condo bad because we say so is not persuasive or helping you, theory is just like any other arg it needs to have structure and impacts. My partiality towards and experience with theory likely makes me more critical of bad theory args. Also spreading and theory don't mix great. if you want me flowing 20 in-depth analytical points on T, slow down, if not I won't apologize for missing them.
 Kritiks - I like kritiks, I don't like how they tend to get argued. TLDR is please give me specific links and an articulation of the alt if you want me to vote on it. The specificity of your arguments and how much you elaborate on them is gonna be big in front of me. Also like, probably don't read a K against an aff your author would support (looking at you biopower teams).Note for some K teams: If the aff drops your alt you don't have to read a ton of new alt solvency cards but Imo you should still be explaining how it solves. "It solves" isn't an argument
 Slightly more in depth K thoughts?? if your still reading you've got nothing better to do: Your almost always gonna be right on the UQ and Impact level, to the point most teams simply don't argue uniqueness on kritiks. Where teams lose is it in the Link and Alt debate. Your links need to be relevant to the aff not just the resolution. You can even have generic resolution links I just need some articulation of how X plan action makes the harms of the K happen. On the alt debate, I generally don't like reject alt but even if your running one you need to articulate, as early as possible, how your alt solves impacts of the Kritik (or the aff). If the aff doesn't cause the impx of the K AND the K doesn't solve I don't think you can win the K.
 PerfCon - this note basically exists to say I think perf con is a very real and legitimate argument. A team running a cap K alongside evidence/arguments defending the rights of states to drill oil for instance, should have to either justify the discrepancy or be subject to that contradiction being used against them. Also I tend to find Kritiks less persuasive when surrounded by 5 contradicting disads.
 Death/Wipeout good- Ill auto vote you down for claiming straight-up death good and will be highly skeptical if not outright hostile to claims bordering on death good.
 Anything not listed above you can assume im mostly neutral on. This is my second year judging varsity so most of these biases are based on either my experience debating or research/work I've done with my team and as such are subject to change. As a final note on my judging philosophy, debate whatever you feel most comfortable with in front of me. An argument I don't like debated well is better than one I do debated poorly. Plus we all have more fun if your debating what you actually enjoy debating/feel comfortable with and that genuinely supersedes pretty much everything else listed on this paradigm.
 If an email chain is happening I'd like to be on it at marshall.d.steele@gmail.com, I will only reference the email chain for card disputes and authors. P.s for anyone who read this far I'll up your speaks by half a point if you use a flash drive instead of email. No extra points for online debates until I come up with something equally banal as using a flash drive.