Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD:

Email- coledbranson@gmail.com

Competed in CX throughout the UIL circuit, Gig ‘em Aggies

Currently judging through UIL and TFA circuits

“Compete whether the outcome, from both you learn”

2023 - present. Judging in UIL and TFA Circuits

2021 - 2023 Seasons: Competed in CX debate on the UIL circuit

General: I am one million percent a stock issues judge (though, I am open to anything as long as you debate it well) Even though young, I have always been coached in a way where the stock issues of a round are the most important part of the round. This being said, debate in your style and I will adapt to it (yet, I do need to see a clearly presented flow). What I look for in particular is a clear concise idea/ plan that you can show me and put me under. I will look clearly for the stock issues and why they are important to the resolution. If you show me the proper framework under any argument, I will vote on it. You must have proper format and structure to your debate/arguments. I evaluate the weight of the issues at hand and am overall looking for a clear reason why one side should win. If you can’t debate the stock issues, you might as well take the loss and learn. Use the stock issues period.

Do Not: Be rude, unprofessional, or disrespectful ( I will take off speaker points) Do not try or attempt to cheat, it will get you nowhere in the contest. If you say “my partner will cover that in their next speech or my partner will get back to you on that… that is minus one speak. Have confidence, know your case.

Speaking:I am fine with speed as long as it is clear and concise. If too fast, I will call out for you to slow down(unless you don't want me to catch all of your evidence). I like to catch taglines, dates, authors so slow down there along with the stock issues and how they link.

T’s: In the round, I determine whether a T sticks based on its structure, If you don't describe the (interp, violation, standards, grounds, and voters) I will not vote or weigh the round on your T.

Disads: I have the same philosophy on these as T’s, show me how the argument links to the case at hand. When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Affs: Run whatever structure you want, just make sure to include a clear cut idea of the stock issues and READ TAGLINES. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

For anything else:

Ask.

As a CX Debate judge, I prioritize clear communication and respectful engagement over spreading. I value debaters who present their arguments effectively without sacrificing civility and decorum in the debate round. I encourage participants to engage in thoughtful, well-structured discourse that fosters a positive learning environment for all involved.

Jimmy Smith has over 45 years of coaching and is a 5 Diamond Key along with a very proud member of the NSDA Hall of Fame. Over the 45 years he has been honored to 9 students on the Final Stage with one National Champion. After retiring in 2017 Jimmy re-entered the classroom because to quote him, "this isn't work, it's fun"

I'm an old school policy/stock issues judge, who likes to see debate over the resolution, & prefers your speech speed to be slow enough to where you can pronounce every word clearly & I can understand you.