CX Policy Debate:

Overall, if you run something... know how to run it and run it well. Give me the who, what, when, where, how?!

AFF: Prove. Convince me that your plan is important and valuable in the debate and why I should prefer it over the negative.

NEG: Clash. Why is the aff bad? Why don't they solve? Why are their impacts unimportant, vague, not as good as yours, etc...

DAs: Impact Impact Impact!!!
K/CPs: Why is the alt (cp) better than the aff's plan? Why can't they perm? Impact if K/CP is ignored? (vice versa for aff)
Ts: Be reasonable. Use a T that actually applies to the case --- don't use an obviously generic T against aff. (I will vote aff on reasonability). Running more than 2 or 3 typically contradicts so tread carefully.

I will only vote on the evidence presented in the round. Assume that I know nothing of the topic or issues pertaining to the topic. If you use analytics, understand that they are not facts --- they should just reinforce your arguments and evidence. Running something in the 2NC (or later) will result in whatever that thing is being flowed to the aff --- that is abuse.

I'm not a clock, so please keep your own time. :)

If the questioning period gets too heated --- speaker points will be lowered.
If you are spreading --- be articulate. I will start ignoring gibberish --- this will impact your speaker points HEAVILY.
If you want good speaker points --- be confident, precise, articulate, and have good volume.

Have fun... yay debate!

Please go ahead and include me on the email chain: mdonaldson@connally.org. Quick note on prep time - please have your files SAVED to the flash drive or the email SENT prior to ending your prep. Be purposeful - don't waste anyone's time.

I debated at Waco: Connally HS from 2011 to 2013. We were a successful UIL team, but I understand that debate has changed since then.

I coached at Hillsboro HS from Fall 2014 to Spring 2016 before serving as the coach of China Spring HS from Fall 2016 to Spring 2020. From Fall 2020 to Spring 2023, I was the coach at Grandview HS. I currently serve as the Director of Communications and Director of UIL Academics for Connally ISD in Waco. I have had students medal at UIL State in interp, extemp, LD and CX. I have also coached TFA state and NSDA national qualifiers in policy debate and extemp.

Admittedly, I have transitioned to more of a tournament director/tab staff role in recent years as opposed to that of a judge. I still believe myself to be a capable adjudicator, but you might want to slow down some for me.

POLICY DEBATE:

I am a tab judge who will default to a policy-maker outlook if I am not given any other weighing mechanism or framework to view the round through. I am fine with any argument that you might want to run, just make sure that you are explicit with it and stay organized throughout the round. I like rounds that have a lot of DIRECT clash and have arguments that actually do something in the round as a whole. I don't particularly care for teams to throw out everything in an attempt to see what sticks. Try to be strategic. I will do my best to adapt to whatever strategy you want to use. I am fine with speed, but need clear taglines. I don't like it when debaters just read evidence nonstop - take the time to USE the evidence as a tool to persuade me of something. I understand the necessity of choosing to avoid underviews, but I'd like to see some sort of analysis at least at the somewhere in the speech - whether it be at the top or the bottom. I recognize that your authors are well-versed on the topics that they are writing on, but I really want to see that you recognize how those texts operate in the context of the arguments that you are making.

On a personal level, I really enjoy K debate, but I just ask that you do the work to really make the literature/overarching concepts accessible to everyone in the round (particularly coming out of the first speech). I also really like T debate, but I cannot STAND watching a messy T-focused round. At the end of the day, please don't feel pressured to run a certain type of argument or debate using a certain strategy based around my paradigm. I really do try my hardest to just adapt to what is happening in front of me.

I really don't have a preference about a "type" of round that I would like to see, but I enjoy seeing arguments be contextualized in terms of the greater scheme of the round at hand. I like for debaters to make explicit connections between arguments in addition to making strategic choices when it comes to condensing down near the end of the round. I think there is a pretty big importance in both having strong communication skills/persuasive ability AND making it a priority to resolve all issues in the round, but there is definitely greater importance in handling all of the arguments - be practical: spending 5 minutes on 1 of 8 arguments and dropping the other 7 won't win you the round in most cases. To clarify - this doesn't mean that you shouldn't condense down. I would far prefer it if you did. I just mean that you shouldn't go for the "more is more" approach from the beginning. I want substance and quality over quantity for the entirety of a round...if at all possible.

To sum it all up: do what you do best and do it well. I am just as likely to vote for you in a round that deals with super focused, small scale impacts as one that deals with the most stereotypical terminal impacts that you can imagine. I am just as likely to enjoy the round that is as wrapped up in the stock issues as I am to enjoy one that is super progressive.

Have fun. Be safe. Make good choices!

LD DEBATE:

I don't judge LD as often as Policy, but I like to think that I can handle my way around a round. I was raised around traditional LD rounds but thoroughly enjoy the more policy-oriented approach that has started to worm its way into the event. My biggest suggestion is for debaters to use whatever style they are most comfortable with - I can adapt to whatever you do.

I am completely fine with speed as long as I can understand your tags. I like to see a lot of evidence in LD rounds, but analysis is definitely welcomed. I'm going to be honest: I LOVE a good framework debate in LD, but I am often left unimpressed with them. Basically - if you're gonna go for it....GO FOR IT.

I think that LD-ers tend to struggle with time management between the different positions that they are arguing. Work hard to stay on top of each of the arguments of the flow and try not to waste time by overextending yourself. Please be sure to highlight clear links in each of you arguments and try to sell a believable impact story. Perhaps most importantly, try to remember that your advocacy does not exist in a vacuum. Please give a detailed impact calculus throughout the round that highlights the differences between the world of the aff vs the world of the neg. Show me why you are winning!

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

I hardly ever judge PFD, so I'm not totally up to date with any trends. You can look at my other paradigms to see what I generally look for, but please be mindful of the time constraints of this event.

SPEECH EVENTS:

I prioritize answering the question/providing a clear thesis above all else, but speech structure and style matter a ton to me. I enjoy well crafted attention getting devices and place a lot of emphasis on quality transitions. Please work to contextualize each of your (sub)points in relation to your thesis.

INTERP EVENTS:

I enjoy seeing interpretations that are organic/genuine. Your character(s) should be discovering these words for the first time. Dramatic arc is a MUST - work towards the climax and show me how your character is changed by the journey that they take. Please avoid messy book work/physicality and watch for monotonous vocal patterns.

GENERAL:

I try to write a ton on ballots and work to give pretty detailed notes the moment that something happens, so if I'm not looking at you, don't think too much into it. I like to put things down that I thought were successful as often as I put things down that didn't work for me.

Please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round. It won't hurt my feelings.

I have been part of CX debate for 19 years. I debated for 2 years in high school and did 4 years of Parliamentary Debate in College. I have been a debate coach and judge in UIL and TFA for 13 years. I have seen debates in different regions of the US and have been exposed many forms and varieties of CX and have no preferences as to style or type.

My paradigm is open to any type of debate (tabula rasa), from stock issues to off-case arguments, theory and Kritiks. I like organization and easy to follow flows. All arguments should have both analytical and evidence based foundations as well as a measurable impact. The evidence should be balanced as far as quantity and date, quantity of evidence alone will not decide the ballot, but instead how the debaters use the information to prove their arguments or turn opposition points against them. There is not single issue to look for in a round, instead debaters point the issues that define the debate and argue for their importance or dismissal in rebuttals.

I enjoy quick paced rounds and don't mind spreading as long as the speakers are clear with pronunciation and enunciation. At the core, debate is not just for the experienced debaters instead a way to bring nuance and education to the masses through the exercise of argumentation, oratory and persuasive techniques. The average person should be able to walk into a debate with little information about the topic but leave the round much more informed and exposed to an organized and well elaborated evaluation about the resolution.