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.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

I did high school and college debate and individual events. I judge speakers on both content and style. I also strongly dislike abusive tactics and expect speakers to treat their opponents with courtesy and respect.

My experience as a debater spans several years, across events including LD, CX/Policy, Congress, throughout both high school and collegiate national circuits; though several years removed from competing; consistently serving as a judge nationally, from NY to TX to CA.

Rules: They're necessary and well-defined, and formalizes debate procedures. The recent interpretations of procedures - regarding open vs. closed CX; CX during prep; file/data transfer consuming prep-time, etc. - may be applied to rounds only when all parties are agreeable to the proposed interpretations. If at least a single party to the debate disagrees, then the traditional interpretation of the debate procedures will be applied. Procedures provide structure, but shouldn't foster stagnation. Rules, like laws, may be viewed differently from person to person, over time. So long as parties are agreeable to reasonable rules adjustments, they may be applied. I view the role of the judge as mainly silent, but present/involved.

Opinions/Intervention: Neutrality, but knowledgeable! I evaluate information presented to me, with no bias, whatsoever. While I may have familiarity with issues and facts surrounding them, the job of the judge is to evaluate the arguments presented. I generally do not seek to subvert the job of any debater. It is the debaters' job to present cases and to rebut inaccurate information, and to contend with faulty arguments. While personal knowledge may cause me to disagree with that which is presented, it would be incumbent upon the opponent(s) to counter-argue the point. I would not impart personal thoughts; but would instead weigh arguments presented on the basis of what is known to me. If ignorant in an area, I'd rely upon debaters to make the most convincing arguments.

Spreading/Speed: Speed is no issue; articulation/enunciation is. Points intended to be made by debaters will simply be lost if not well-articulated by the debater. I will not rehash items to clear up uncertainties. It is not the job of the judge to figure out the debaters' statements. It is instead the job of debaters to present clearly their arguments such that the judge could properly evaluate the same. An indistinguishable statement is just as good as one never spoken.

Paradigm: Both theory and kritik arguments win favorable votes from me. I am rather neutral on the types of arguments presented. I see no degradation to the advancement of educational debate with kritiks, and, similar to my position on rules, believe that interpretations and approaches may be adjusted over-time and across individuals, moving from more traditional ideas of theoretical debate.

Evidence certainly helps, but should not serve as a debater's crutch. Some may present convincing enough arguments of pragmatism and suppositions that lack concrete evidence. Others may present heavily-sourced arguments, with the expectation that Politico, Fox, Washington Post, Harvard Review, etc. will carry the case for them. I accept that evidence is rarely truly pure. Meaning, for example, that where "a Reuters poll (may) shows XYZ..." that poll/study may be laden with implicit/explicit bias. So, it's the duty of the debater to not only research, but to also present crafty arguments that may not be solely dependent upon a sources. Recency may help when/where more recent sources offer better evidence on a topic; but credibility, is most important. Perhaps there's a more recent study that fails to account for the depth of a previous one. New does not always mean better.

Overall, my philosophy tilts more towards the tabula rasa school of thought. I am a neutral, largely silent, participant allowing parties to work through differences on procedural interpretations; and am open to different formats of argumentation, with no set standard; but, expect to be convinced by on party or another, no matter their style. However, there must be formality to debate. So, understanding the rules as traditionally interpreted and incorporating stock issues for a comprehensive and sound argument would help.

I am a parent judge, somethings I like to see are: confident speakers who project, don't spread, speak clearly, and be passionate. Also remember to be respectful to everyone in the round. I don't flow but I do make notes of the important points, so if you would like me to weigh something in the round be clear about it. I do read the news daily and know what is going, so don't make things up in round. Thank you for participating in this amazing activity, you will use the skills you learn in debate throughout your life!

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.