BACKGROUND:

Have been involved in debate as a student, high school debater, college debater, high school coach or a college coach since the Nixon administration. Yes I actually cut Watergate cards. So pardon my smile when asked how I feel about speed etc.

PHILOSOPHY

Try to be Tab as much as possible. But like all judges I have some personal preferences listed below:

TOPICALITY

Is a voter, don't usually vote on it unless it is mishandled or extremely squirely. Make sure to have a violation, standard and voter in shell. Haven't previously voted on a RVI on T.

THEORY

Tend to look at in round abuse.

KRITIKS

They are fine, but make sure you understand the literature, spend a lot of quality time on the link and have a clear alternative.

PRESENTATION

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you are not clear, I will say "clear". Make a clear distinction between your taglines and and your cards.

OTHER ISSUES:

Will vote you down for being rude or sarcastic. Proper decorum is a must. I will vote against sexist, racist et al. arguments.

CONCLUSION

I was fairly succinct on this paradigm, so feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Also debate should be fun. A sense of humor is always appreciated.

Pronouns: he/him/his

I have been involved in some fashion with debate for the past 10 years. I am a graduate of Texas Tech University, where I competed in parliamentary debate. I went to Athens High School (TX) and competed in policy, extemp, and congress with a total of 4 UIL state championships.

I have experience with pretty much any type of argument you can think of; just don't assume that I'm well-versed in everything, please. I am of the belief that it is the role of the debater to communicate the nuances of their arguments and the broader implications that these have on the round.

Please note that ANY discriminatory/fascist/rhetorically problematic statements will result in the debate ending, an automatic loss, and a talk with you & your coach. Aside from this, I try to intervene as little as possible and I want to adapt to you instead of the reversal.

-I am fine with whatever arguments you prefer to read since this is your show and I am the audience. If you are into performance, cool! If you want to have a debate about stock issues to supplement your preparation for UIL district/state, I will happily judge a round in that fashion. More specific preferences are as follows:

- Warranting your argument + correctly applying it + weighing it = formula for a good flow and higher speaker points.

- Line-by-line... love it!... organization is absolutely necessary if you want me to see how your arguments interact with theirs. Efficient line-by-line will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

- Speed is fine-- if you are unclear or too fast I will call "clear" twice. After that, I will do my best to flow (no guarantee I am getting everything) and speaker points will go down. I don't think it's strategic to use spreading as a tactic to intimidate beginner/"slower" teams.

- I default to competing interpretations on topicality.

- The aff should consider collapsing in the 1AR/2AR for time. Maybe go for your best impact scenario and sit on that for a while instead of spreading yourself out for time.

- The above definitely applies to neg teams. Don't go for everything in the 2NR. The block is where I would prefer you start kicking out of things and starting some impact comparison... BUT I understand if you have me on a panel and you're unable to do that.

- Disad links/internal links should make sense. I tend to prefer high-probability, "low"-magnitude impacts, but if you warrant in your impact framing why huge war impacts outweigh, I will absolutely evaluate it.

- Good luck and most importantly: Have fun! :)

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

Howdy I'm Jayme (or Jam :^)) & my pronouns are she/they

jaymelynnem@gmail.com

Blanco HS (TX) 2014-2019

Texas Tech University 2019-2020

I debated UIL Lincoln Douglas for 5 years before debating parliamentary (specifically NPDA) for Texas Tech.

Tall Cotton 2024:

My preferences haven't changed much, I still want you to be kind and patient. I still want to see line by line clash (w/ signposting!!!) and voters.

include me on the speech doc PLEASE

Tall Cotton 2023:

be cool, be kind, be smart. those are my big things.

Mean debate is punishable by low speaks, show mercy and patience. We want to send our best representatives to Nats, and I'd like to see West Texas Charm on the main stage lol

I love framework, but I won't vote on it alone. Winning the value and criterion debate (unless you're very explicit in your voters) is not an instant ballot. I need impacts to be weighed USING the established framework. That is to say, if the Neg destroys the Aff FW, but the Aff can show how their impacts are more important under the Neg VC, they've got me.

Love hearing impacts, love hearing line by line. LOVE hearing voters. It is always very cool when you tell me exactly how i should vote and what my RFD ought to be. Makes my job super easy, and your job (win) also easy.

I DO NOT flow CX. if you are setting up arguments in CX, if I don't hear them in the speech, they don't exist. CX is for you, not for me.

(But everyone is a winner when we all have fun, right?)

TLDR:

> not huge on T, will vote on it if i HAVE to

> If you know you're fast, I'm too slow for you. Other than that, I'm decent at keeping up

> I get lost sometimes, I don't want to have to signpost for you, and if I do I'll be upset. make it super clear

> i DONT know your K, but i love to learn

I still don't know how to write these so here's an update as of 9/26/21:

> im much slower than i remember being, but if you send me the speech doc i'll be happy to follow

> pls read what you want, but if it's complicated simplify it for me.

> I still don't really like T, but if you read it PLEASE slow down for the shell lmao. it's hard for me to vote on standards I couldn't flow

> top speed isn't impressive if I can't understand you (fluency mostly)

I don't know how to write one of these if im being honest so here are some bullets that might help:

> im not a huge fan of T. I get it, I appreciate it when necessary, but overall its not my thing.

> I have only started learning Ks in the last year, but I have a decent handle on how they function.

> the way I did LD was Value/Criterion but I appreciate the way it has evolved to be single person policy

> parli is policy without cards so I know a thing or two about policy args

> I'm generally decent at speed but I have trouble keeping up online sometimes.

Garland HS (2015 - 2019)

UC Berkeley (2019 - )

Current Conflicts: Garland (TX)

Pronouns: he/him -- I'll default to they/them if I don't know you

Experience:

My name is Khoa (pronounced Kwah, not Kowuh -- just call me by my first name plz). I did LD for Garland HS for four years and competed on the national circuit for two. I got a bid my senior year. I barely keep up with debate anymore, so just make sure to explain topic-specific acronyms and stuff. Oh and start at like 80% speed and work your way up.

Online Update:

Both debaters should keep a local voice recording during the debate! If you happen to drop off the call, then just keep going and send us a link to it after ur done with the speech. We'll listen to it during ur tech time. If you don't make a local copy, I'm not ok with u re-giving a speech / pausing mid-speech to fix the tech error -- so plz keep a local recording !!!

I'll call clear/slow a maximum of twice before I start to dock speaks.

TL;DR:

Flight 2 should have the doc sent as soon as the round starts. Also plz include the tournament name, round number, you and your opponent's school+code in the subject line.

Email (both of them plz): garlanddebatedocs@gmail.com, kpham1234@gmail.com

I've realized that I can get really bored during rounds. it is in your best interest to make sure that doesn't happen.

Claims that assert that debate is not a competitive activity are fundamentally unpersuasive to me.

Disclosure of first 3/last 3 of all broken positions is the minimum if you are debating in front of me. Failure to do so will result in your speaks being capped at 28 (and I will check), though I will still evaluate the rest of the debate normally.

I start at a 28.5 - and then work my way up or down. Probably won't give out a 30 but it's not hard to get good speaks in front of me. If I think you should break, you'll get >29 for sure.

In HS, I mainly read policy arguments with the occasional frivolous theory shell. I didn't dabble too much in phil or K debate. So in terms of stuff I'm most comfortable evaluating it goes something like: policy/T > policy v K > theory > phil > KvK > tricks

I don't like how the word "unsafe" has been used in rounds in front of me. I think it means something to accuse your opponent of making debate a harmful / violent place, and I take these accusations seriously. I will always intervene in cases of overt bigotry, but I will err on the side of letting y'all hash things out. But just as a side note, I don't think labeling arguments as racist with little explanation and then calling them "independent voters" is particularly persuasive (if anything it's the opposite, and I may start penalizing this practice if it becomes unbearable).

Non-Negotiables:

- Do not be a bigot. I also have mixed feelings about death good .. like if this is ur sort of argument idk just be tasteful.

- Speech times, prep time, and speaker order are set by the nsda/tfa/tourney/whatever, and cannot be changed by students

- There is one person speaking per constructive/rebuttal. Cx is between two people. Prompting is fine.

- A debate happens in front of me. Don't justify a dance-off, a mariokart game, discussion etc. Only exception to this rule is if you're conceding the round - in which it's your best interest to tell me as soon as you can so i dont have to waste my time

- I am the sole arbiter of speaker points (i.e. don't ask me for a 30)

- I will not evaluate arguments that involve stuff that happened outside of the round apart from disclosure

- You cannot use ad-homs against ur opponent

- Any attempts to violate these rules will result in a L0 for the initiating team

Ev Ethics: (putting this nearer to the top b/c plagiarism is bad and some of u don't understand why ???)

- I will stop the debate if an accusation is made. Whoever is on the right side of the accusation gets a W30, whoever is wrong gets an L with the lowest possible speaks.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation, but you might as well go for the accusation because I will evaluate this debate like any other theory debate. That being said winning "miscutting ev good" is simply not true and probably an uphill battle in front of me.

- Please have complete citations -- I think this includes author name, qualifications, date written, and the title of the article -- if you lack one of these things you should make an explicit note of it in the cite! If you don't and your opponent points this out, I will prob not evaluate the card and ur speaks will suffer. It would also be in ur best interest to make this a voting issue! I am more than okay with citations theory even if the violation is just limited to one card.

- I won't flow cards written by high schoolers or debate coaches who do not have professional expertise in the field of study the ev comes from. I think this is an academically dishonest practice that is honestly just easily remedied with taking the extra 5min to find better ev.

- Don't clip cards! I'll read along in the doc if I notice this might be happening. If I notice this happens during prelims, I will wait for the debate to finish then give you an L and give you the lowest possible speaks at the tournament. If I notice this happens during outrounds, I'll probably just end up stopping the round or wait til the end to give you the L.

- Brackets theory is fine in front of me considering how egregious bracketing can get.

- If you miscut your evidence and i notice it, I will give u an L regardless of whether ur opponent points it out or not

Policy:

- I find myself voting aff more than neg in these debates and I think the main issue here is 1NC construction, not technical ability. I also think affs should be more comfortable waving away incomplete arguments / repetitive cross-applications, and will reward your ability to distinguish between an argument that is worth answering in the 1AR and one that is not.

- I am more than fine with impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR -- I don't understand how someone can make weighing arguments in the 1AC considering you don't know the 1NC (?)

- I'm more willing than most to read through evidence after the round, so don't be afraid to call out bad ev. That being said, if you call a piece of ev bad and it is very obviously good then I might not read the rest of the evidence u wanted me to read.

- Presumption goes neg unless the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR.

- I think condo is generally good, but winning condo bad isn't impossible in front of me if the 1nc is cheese.

- Squo is always a logical option if you defend a conditional advocacy, and I'm more than happy to judge-kick unless the aff says I can't in the 1AR. [contest this if you think it'll be relevant! i'm more than happy to ignore my defaults, though I don't find this mattering in many LD rounds!] The reason I do this is that I think no judge-kick is logically equivalent to treating perms as advocacies, which doesnt rly make sense to me.

- 1ARs should be reading condo bad, CP theory, etc. whenever they can. I generally lean neg on theoretical issues when the aff is unclear/new, but pretty much a blank slate for everything else. I think teams should also be using vagueness as reasons to err their way on questions of competition, solvency, etc., and would love sifting through these technical debates as long as done well!

- Inserting ev is fine if and only if it would literally make zero sense to read it out loud. If there are charts, I still expect some kind of verbal summary.

K:

- Your K must disprove, turn, or otherwise outweigh the case -- otherwise I see no reason to vote for you. Stop relying on bad ROB arguments and make actual impact framing claims!

- The threshold of explanation for kritiks (especially the alternative) are gonna be a bit higher than you're used to if you read something other than cap or afropess. I'm a little familiar with DnG and Baudrillard, but I'd really appreciate it if you went 90% speed during the 2NR overview.

- I think 1NC CX is really important for K debates in front of me. I will handsomely reward K debaters that make an effort in good faith to actually explain what was just read.

- If the 1NC flags K tricks (alt solves case, turns case, RC, floating PIK, etc.) explicitly, then the 1AR has to respond to them. I'm actually more than fine with the 2NR being the first time I hear "alt solves case", but the 2AR definitely gets to respond to this implication (not the argument itself).

- Please put all your links on the K sheet. Reading links on the case sheet will annoy me unless they directly respond to the aff.

- If you say the words 'pre/post-fiat' I probably won't flow the argument.

Phil:

- I do not understand half of these debates. And of the phil debates I have judged so far 100% of them have been decided on extinction outweighs. You need to explain this stuff using words that are <10 letters long !!

- I read Kant a lot against affs that I didn't have prep against, but not much else. I also made a Hobbes file, but never broke it. Other than that, I don't really know that much phil.

- Analytic dumps are fine -- just go a bit slower on them (80% speed) so I can catch them. I don't flow (nor backflow) off the doc, so the risk of me not catching something increases the faster you go and the more tired I am.

- I default ethical confidence, but am easily persuaded towards a more modest stance. Also I have no idea what it means for an aff to "not defend implementation???" / what truth-testing means, and I think regardless of the framework u read u still need to mitigate the risk of the case (either through answering it or reading some sort of CP).

Theory:

- You always need a counter-interpretation, even if you go for reasonability. You should also meet that counter-interpretation. I'm more than fine with paragraph theory and honestly prefer theory to be read this way. No, you do not need paradigm issues, but if you think your opponent will challenge them you might as well start the debate early. I don't think you need a reasonability b/l

- I default drop the arg for everything except condo and T, but this is a very soft default. Saying "[X] is a voting issue" at the top of a shell is enough to change this default. Note: some of you have been abusing this to make very underdeveloped theory arguments in front of me. I won't be happy, and the threshold for responding to these arguments will be very low. Friv theory =/= underdeveloped theory

- The RVI is winnable in front of me, though I don't think its a very strategic time investment in most rounds. Have not voted on one thus far.

- I read friv theory sometimes when I debated. Just don't read it against novices and you'll be ok

- The 2AR doesn't have to extend substance if the 2NR is only T/theory. If the 2NR goes for both theory and some case turns then the 2AR obviously has to extend case.

- I really, really, really like disclosure. If your opponent hasn't disclosed, even at locals, feel free to read disclosure theory provided you also meet your own interpretation (and I will check). I came from a very small debate program and still disclosed open-source. If you're debating in front of me, disclosure of first 3/last 3 of broken positions is the minimum. If disclosure is read on you, you will probably lose if you do not disclose. I will happily listen to full-text vs open-source, new affs bad, etc. and evaluate them like normal theory debates.

Tricks:

- I debated in Texas, and no one ever really triggered presumption against me. I know what it means in theory, but if you're gonna do it in front of me, you should explain it a bit more than you're used to if you debate in the Northeast.

- I won't tank your speaks for going for them (especially if you go for them well), but these debates aren't really what I wanna listen to.

K affs/T-USFG:

- Your 1ARs against FW or T-USFG must have a counter-interpretation that articulates a vision of the topic! Counter-defining terms of the resolution is a good idea in front of me. "Direction of the topic" or "Your interp plus my aff" are 99.9% of the time non-starters (these counterinterps would make zero sense for a policy aff). If your K aff has nothing to do with the topic, you probably shouldn't read it in front of me since I have a hard time justifying voting for an aff that negs have 0 ability to predict.

- I think that even if your A-strat is to go for impact turns you still need some sort of counterinterp to provide uniqueness for them.

- Fairness is definitely an impact, and I will happily listen to other impacts like topic ed, skills, etc. I don't think I'd be persuaded by impact turns to limits.

KvK:

- I would probably not be very good at adjudicating this.

Vs Novices/Traditional Debaters:

- Just don't be a terrible/mean person and you'll be okay. At bid tournaments, you will be okay going full speed / just winning the round decisively. I will heavily reward ending speeches early, please do NOT take 6min for your 2nr if there is a conceded position!

- If you're debating a novice/traditional debater at any non-bid tournament and you do the following I will guarantee you a 29.5:

--- Reading at most 2 sheets

--- Going 50% speed

--- Making sure they have access to the speech doc

--- Not reading theory (you can read T)

--- Winning the round decisively with no 2NR/2AR outs for your opponent

--- Finishing your speeches early (pls!!!) I might give you a W30 if the speech is < 2 min.

LD Paradigms

I debated in high school LD for four years, primarily on the TFA circuit, with a couple national and UIL tournaments. That is to say, I'm familiar with most forms of argument. I will flow just about any argument as long as it's warranted. Framing and impact calculus are important to me. Tell me how the round ought to be weighed. Otherwise, I'll default to utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.

TL;DR-- I'm fine with any warranted arguments, framing and impact calc are important.

Background-- I debated high school LD for four years, also doing some extemp and occasionally congress. I have participated in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and national circuit tournaments, though my own style most aligns with that of TFA. That being said, I am probably familiar with any style of argument you might present me, and if I'm not, I'm fairly open minded-- explain it to me, warrant it, and tell me what it does for the round.If the logic flows, I will flow it.

I'm overall tab. I'll vote on arguments I don't like if they make sense and are winning, that being said, I have some preferences like anyone else.

Framework-- I appreciate strong framework in the round. I want you to tell me how the round will be weighed and what the purpose of this round is, how I will decide the winner. If your opponent challenges your framework or you are proposing a competing framework on the negative, I want you tojustifywhy your framework is the best way to evaluate the round.

Framework does not exist in a bubble. Impacts and stock arguments ought to be viewed under the framework and connected back. Make it clear to me at the end of the round how your arguments connect back to the framework and show how you win under framework. Example: if neg shows we end up in a nuclear holocaust under the aff, but agreed to a framework that we decide the round based off of "stealing is bad," I will vote on an aff that shows the aff world still reduces stealing more.

I don't mind what framework construction you use: value/criterion, standard, role of the ballot, plan text, or something I have never heard of. Just justify it and evaluate the entire round through it.

If neither side gives me any framework, I'm forced to choose how the round is viewed, and will generally default to a material utilitarian cost/benefit analysis, but I really don't like to do this. Tell me how the round is weighed.

TL;DR--framework will tell me how I view the round. Justify your framework. I will weigh all (non-apriori) arguments through the framework, but I'm not going to extend arguments for you.

Theory-- I get tired of theory (particularly given its a priori nature), but I understand the occasional necessity of it. When you read a T-shell, be ready to justify it and actually explore your warrants. If you read 5 points in the underview and one is "no RVIs," I'm not just going to drop your opponent because you come back your next speech and say "They had an RVI but I said no RVIs." You'll have to actually elaborate and explain why something like RVIs are bad if you want to extend that (and particularly with points on the underview, I will hold you to a rigorous standard, as I get tired of people spiking the whole alphabet on underview in bullet points), and explain to me how dropping them solves the problem. Once again, warrant your arguments.

Side note-- if there is one place I err from being totally tab, it may be on certain theory arguments. I will have a very high standard to buy very exploitative arguments like NIBs or disclosure theory, so really think about if those arguments sound reasonable and if you can firmly prove them and how they help the debate.

K-- I have read a good bit and debated even more, so if I can't follow your Kritik, that is a problem. Make sure you understand the material you are citing and you can explain it well. I'm happy to vote for a valid Kritik, maybe even a K-Aff occasionally, but I'm not going to vote for an argument I don't understand. If you fly over my head and your opponent's head, you're not winning this argument.

Let me re-iterate, Ks are fine and I'm familiar with most of your run-of-the-mill stuff, Nietzsche, Wilderson, Marx, Kant (if you want to do some old-school deontology), and I lovephilosophical arguments in LD. But communication and understanding is important. I want to be sure the argument is warranted, and that you actually know what you're arguing. A good standard is to just check occasionally if it looks like I'm following.

TL;DR-- Ks are fine, make sure you and I know what you're saying. If I look confused, that is a bad sign, but if I'm engaged, you're doing fine.

Stock Issues/Case-- Once again, the way I weigh this all depends on framework. I am happy with any warranted arguments here. Make sure that your impact makes sense under the framework (the bees dying is horrible, but it'll be hard to convince me to weigh that in a round framed on Social Contract theory). I first vote on a priori issues like K and theory, but I love a good stock case with clash, and love to hear engagement with your opponent. Don't be afraid to kick moot args in the round, but be sure to extend voting issues.

Topicality-- Tell me why your resolutional interp best serves the round and how your opponent has compromised it. Basically, most of what I said about warranting and a high standard under theory applies here too.

Misc-- If you have some radical style of argument, that's great, I'm all for it, I love novelty. Just make sure it makes sense and walk me through it. I'm fine with flex prep and new cards as long as it's not the last two speeches. If your opponent drops something, tell me what that means for the round, what they agree to, and how that hurts their arguments. Just saying they dropped does nothing but make sure they don't extend it. I won't flow new arguments in the last 2 speeches and won't flow after you've been called out for a drop (don't worry, I keep a thorough flow. I know when drops are real or BS and won't drop an arg just because your opponent says so. Point out when they do drop, though) unless you can extend an answer to the harms from the drop off another arg or something.

And don't just cry abuse if your opponent does something bad. Explain what they violated, why that standard is important, what the harms are, and how that should affect my decision. Even if you don't run it as a T-shell, explain it to me. I'm not going to just take you at your word without warranting on abuse arguments 90% of the time.

K Affs? Fine. CPs? Cool. A traditional aff framed on deontological ethics? Also fine. I really am happy with most any argument,as long as it is warranted.

TL;DR-- explain weird args, flex prep is fine, new cards are fine in the 1NR, explain what drops mean, don't be abusive in final speeches.

CX Paradigms

I primarily judge LD, but I have judged CX several times. Most of my paradigms for LD hold for CX as well, but for a CX round I especially want to see effective sign-posting, extending, and a clean flow. I don't necessarily expect as much gritty work on framework in a CX round, but weighing is still important. Show me why you won the round.

If you have any other questions, about my opinions on args, style, my background, etc, feel free to ask before the round. I'm happy to explain. I'm fairly chill.

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

Policy Debate - I'm open to both traditional and progressive styles, I enjoy all kinds of well-constructed, interesting, arguments that young students are learning and able to articulate well (including theory and kritikal arguments). Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with. Hyperspreading (giant gulps followed by high-pitched, rapid, stutter-inducing speech) is heavily discouraged due to my hearing impairment - depending on whether or not i can understand you, it won't necessarily cost you speaker points - but I'm a flow judge, and if I don't flow it then it didn't happen. Roadmapping, sign-posting, and internal organizational labels are heavily encouraged - and will be reflected in increased speaker points - and ensure that what you say makes it onto my flow. I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument but it's not required. If you have time it's a nice communication moment. Arguments should be fully articulated (in other words, include analysis on your T standards and voters, impact calculus, and solvency frontlines. The quality of your evidence and your demonstrated understanding of the evidence and how it impacts the arguments in the round are more important than the quantity of evidence that you read. Having said that, YES, you should have plenty of evidence supporting your case/positions, just remember, I am not judging your ability to read allowed, I'm judging your ability to understand and critically evaluate what is being read allowed. I've been judging CX Debate for 32 years, competed in CEDA and Parliamentary Debate in college, and have been a certified teacher/debate coach for 23 years. I enjoy Policy debate. Refutation should be well-organized and include sign-posting so that I know what arguments you are responding to.

LD Debate - I competed in LD Debate in High School in the early '90s. I have a Degree in Philosophy & Political Science from Texas Tech University (emphasis on political and social ethics). I have judged and/or coached LD Debate for 32 years. I enjoy a mix of philosophical and pragmatic argumentation in LD. Your framework (Value/Criteria) should include explanation of your Value and analysis of why I should prefer it as well as a clear, well-explained criteria for evaluating whether or not you have achieved/increased access to your value. In other words, don't just work on the contention-level debate, do the work on the value/criteria as well, if you want my ballot. Cross apply all organizational preferences from the CX debate paragraph here. (See what I did there?) :D

CONGRESS - Remember that you are operating as a member of the United States Congress and make arguments from that perspective. Arguments should be well-constructed and supported (like other debate formats) and should be responsive to the previous speeches on the item being debated (except for the author/sponsor, of course). There should be absolutely nothing even remotely resembling "spreading" in Congress. Speeches should be clear, passionate, and well-spoken. Your ethos in Congress includes your personality as a speaker, in addition to your preparation/research. I have been judging/coaching Congress for 23 years. Attach your refutation of previous arguments to the speaker who made the argument you are refuting, when possible. Show respect for your fellow congress persons when debating, avoid personal attacks.

Public Forum Debate - I prefer not to judge this event and I don't coach it. But if I am judging it, it shouldn't look like a policy debate round because then I will be annoyed at all of the tournaments struggling to make numbers in BOTH policy debate and public forum and the entire round I will be thinking about why we added another debate event that is just splitting the numbers and is looking more and more like the original debate event... So, no spreading, less evidence cards, more analysis and clash of arguments. Speak like an orator, not like an auctioneer. Thanks. And show some personality.

World Schools Debate - I enjoy this format, it's new (to me) and fun and emphasizes a holistic rhetorical strategy, including strong argumentation and persuasive speaking style. I also like that the topics change each round, it's a challenge event that really tests the students' ability to analyze a topic, work as a team, and effectively persuade an audience. I have coached NSDA teams at nationals, but I do NOT coach this event on my own team as a regular thing and I don't judge the event often. When I do, I like to see polite, organized, logical speaking and personality from the speakers. Humor is appreciated, where appropriate.

ALL DEBATES - ALWAYS BE HUMBLE AND KIND. Rolling the eyes, huffing, cutting people off rudely, yelling, etc., will not be tolerated and will be reflected in significantly lowered speaker points. Avoid villainizing, condescending to, or underestimating your opponent as a rule. Remember the rules of evidence governing this activity. Avoid asking "where did your evidence come from" when it's included in the speech or the case materials to which you have access. Flashing/file sharing should not take an inordinate amount of time and may be included in your prep time. If you can't get it shared by the time CX following your speech is over, it will cut into your prep. Stronger arguments look at the root of the opposing positions and attack there. Weaker arguments deal with dates of evidence. I have instructed in CX, LD, and Congress at camps in Texas over the past 18 years and have coached UIL State champions in Congress and LD and UIL quarterfinalists in CX; TFA finalists and NSDA semifinalists in Congress. If you have questions about my thoughts on anything and it's not covered here, just ask.