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!

Congress

Evidence should be properly cited, personal anecdotes or opinions will not suffice as evidence. When using previous arguments, it should be done to directly to refute or add to the the argument, not just rehash the same information again. Debaters should have a strong understanding of the arguments you make. I also expect everyone to be respectful in round, especially during questioning periods. POs should make sure they are not rushing to get through the session, which can result in mistakes. Clarity and strength of arguments count the most, but your presentation does factor in.

Teams are at liberty to debate in the styles they have been coached to perform as long as they are capable of defending their positions. Speed is fine, as long as it’s clear. I will listen to and evaluate both traditional and progressive arguments in the framework the debaters define. I prefer arguments to be specific and warranted, and for each team to provide effective comparative analysis giving me reasons to vote in the final rebuttals. I typically am familiar with most arguments on the topic, but refrain from technical high speed responses  and focus more on clearer more substantive explanations of your positions. Policy debates are easier for me to follow, but feel free to read kritkal strategies, just flesh it out a little more for me. 

I’ve been involved with the debate community since 1997. Most of my time has been debating and coaching in the South Texas border region. My interests are politics disads, gender, identity, cap, bio power, critical race Ks. I’m cool with T and counter plans. Theory needs to be slow and explained I won’t pull the trigger just cause to have a block. 

I’m a U.S. Government, Economics, and World Geography teacher. I'v been coaching debate since 2022 and have judged UIL and TFA events for CX and LD.

I'm a Tab Judge. I prefer to come to debates with a fresh perspective and without any preconceived notions. I rely on the debaters to make the necessary connections and persuade me why I should vote for them. I am open to all off-case arguments, but I am selective about Ks. I don't want them to be a time suck, so if you plan on running a K, make sure it's strategically planned.

I appreciate and welcome Framework arguments as they can be a great starting point for the round.

One thing that I dislike is when the neg runs "T"s of little importance only to stonewall the affs plan. Instead, I would rather listen to real disadvantages or counter plans. However, if it is indeed a good "T," I expect the aff to complete each step in replying back.

If you have any other specific questions just ask me!

LD -

Framework ( Value/Criterion) is important, but so is the contention level debate. I way both sides when writing a ballot. I think LD is primarily a philosophical debate. You do not have to prove how something will be done just that it should be done. Saying that , claims of impacts should be supported with evidence or reasonable logic.
Be careful with your terminology I am an experienced coach and I know the difference between a disad and a solvency issue.
‘
Be careful if you are going super progressive. I firmly believe you should “Debatethe resolution”,not some random issue that you feel is more important. The entire Speech and Debate community voted on theses resolutions, so if you think you know better, you should provide a very good reason.
I appreciate creativity in your arguments, but stick with the resolution.

Policy - Although I am typically a more conservative (i.e. Stock issues) judge I am open to all forms of debate argumwents . I vote predominantly on clash and impact. Stock issues are a must and that includes topicality.

If you make arguments they must be linkked to your opponents case. If the link iis weak, it is going to be harder to win your argument if your opponent points that out. Extend your arguments thruout rebutttals and that inludes the Affirmative case.

I am OK with K's as long as you provide a viable link to your opponents case. See previous comment regarding links.

I am ok with speed as long as I can understand you. dont yell at me and dont wisper eithe. I f I cant understand you I dont folw you. If I don't flow the argument, it never happened.