LC Anderson22

UT26

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of an ld/cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round

• for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

ie: do what you need to do, all topics can be super interesting, but make sure to always be aware of your surroundings and give proper trigger warnings

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

As a Speech & Debate judge, my foremost commitment is to foster an environment that encourages constructive discourse, critical thinking, and respect for all participants. To achieve this goal, I hold the following principles at the core of my judging paradigm while also considering the specifics of each event:

1. Fairness and Impartiality: I will evaluate all participants' performances objectively, without favoritism or bias. My decisions will be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and the effectiveness of the communication.
2. Respect and Civility: I believe that speech and debate should be a platform for diverse voices and perspectives. I expect all participants to engage in respectful and civil discourse. Discrimination, bigotry, or any form of hate speech targeting Debaters should address their opponents' arguments, not their character.
3. Adherence to event rules and expectations:

4. Policy Debate: I will evaluate teams based on their ability to present and defend a coherent, well-researched, and strategic argument. The quality of evidence, cross-examination skills, and teamwork will be crucial.

5. Lincoln-Douglas Debate: I will assess debaters' ability to construct clear and logically sound arguments while maintaining a respectful and ethical tone. Values and ethical principles should be well-articulated and supported.

6. Public Forum Debate: Debaters should provide well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. Clarity, persuasion, and the ability to engage with opponents' points are key criteria.

7. Extemporaneous Speaking: I will evaluate participants on their ability to deliver well-structured, informative, and persuasive speeches on current events. Coherence, evidence, and articulation of a clear viewpoint are essential.

8. Original Oratory: Speakers should present well-researched, persuasive, and engaging speeches on a chosen topic. Effective use of rhetoric, emotional appeal, and clear organization will be considered.

9. Dramatic Interpretation and Humorous Interpretation: I will assess the interpretation of literature, character portrayal, and the ability to engage the audience emotionally. Clarity, memorization, and the use of voice and body should enhance the performance.

10. Duo Interpretation: Duos should demonstrate strong chemistry, character differentiation, and a compelling narrative in their performance. Timing, pacing, and emotional connection are key factors.

11. Congressional Debate: Participants should exhibit knowledge of parliamentary procedure, articulate speaking skills, and the ability to engage in meaningful debate on legislation.

12. Feedback: I will provide constructive feedback to help participants improve their skills. Feedback will be specific, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. My goal is to contribute to the growth of all participants.
13. Adaptability: Different events may have varying expectations and criteria. I will adapt my judging to fit the specific event, always maintaining a commitment to fairness and inclusivity.
14. Professionalism: I expect all participants to conduct themselves in a professional manner, respect the venue, the time constraints, and their fellow competitors.
15. Continuous Learning: Just as participants strive for improvement, I also commit to ongoing learning and self-improvement as a judge. I will stay informed about current debate practices and strive to provide the best judging experience for all involved

Hi! My experience is with CX, but I have judged LD quite a bit over the past few years.

As far as cx goes, I am comfortable with any style of argumentation. I'd say I am a tab judge as much as you will let me be. I appreciate it when teams are doing the work for me. For instance, spending ample time on the framework debate and focusing on comparative analysis. If you don't do the work of essentially writing the ballot for me then I default to an offensive/defensive paradigm, so don't waste time on frivolous matters.

Note on speed: I will absolutely try to listen to whatever speed you are comfortable with, but I cannot promise I will catch everything. I am not the best at speed comprehension, so if you want to guarantee that I catch things then just slow down for it.

Please be kind and respectful.

I am open to any specific questions you have before the round starts of course!

Speed is alright as long as you are clear. I prefer that you emphasize the tags and author/date in some way. Speak louder, slower, label your cards A, B, C, or say "AND." Either way, I want to know when you are moving on to a new piece of evidence. The same goes for moving on to a new argument. Be kind to everyone in the round.

Overall, I would say that I am a tab judge but will default policymaker. In other words, read whatever you would like. I will adapt to you and the round that you want. If you give me no other lens to view the round, I will vote for whatever the best policy option there is, even if that is the status quo. That being said, I want to see good, warranted debate. Extend warrants, not just arguments. I want to see the 1AC and off case positions effectively extended. This doesn't have to be long. I would just like it to be there. I like offensive arguments. Defense is necessary of course, but I will probably not vote solely on a defensive argument. Good impact calculus and round summaries should start showing up in the rebuttals. This is a good way to simplify the round and tell me what you think I should vote on and why.

Topicality/Theory: I default competing interpretations. I want to see a good T debate, with a robust focus on standards. If you do not plan to do that, I would not go for T in the 2NR.

K/K affs: I am fine with K debate. I am probably not the most experienced in all of the literature, but I am decent with lots of the mainstream stuff. I want to know the solvency of the alt/aff. I want specific links. As with any argument, know it well and extend warrants with good analysis. If you do that, I will vote on just about anything.

Block: Please split the block. I do not like new in the 2NC. New defensive arguments aren't a huge deal to me, but I will not flow new off case.

Off case: Unless you have a crazy on case strategy, I will probably need some off case arguments. DAs, CPs, Ks, anything.

Aff: make sure you are extending the 1AC. I like to see a team that really knows their aff inside and out. It is great when you use 1AC warrants to answer 1NC arguments. That is high level debating. While overviews/aff extensions are important, I have seen too many 2ACs and 1ARs where the line by line is completely neglected in favor of the overview. Balance is important. I am fine with any kind of aff, any kind of impacts. Run what you are most comfortable with.

Debate is supposed to be fun. As a judge, I will listen to any argument that is most fun/relevant/important to you. Just be prepared to debate it well. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a first year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions below. I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't)

For docs, please use speechdrop if at all possible. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

-----------------

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

----------------

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches. Tricks suck. If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

-------------------

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

------------------

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

-----------------

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

---------------

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

I have qualified for TOC, NSDA Nationals and competed at NIETOC, and TFA State in Extemporaneous Speech (DX, IX) and Congressional Debate. I've dabbled in PF and read a lot, so I feel comfortable judging :) I'm currently studying Political Communication at UT Austin where I'm also a part of Moody Honors College. I'm a current competitor on the Texas Speech Team!

First, EXTEMP:

I have some specific guidelines that I like to see in Extemporaneous Speech, however, as opinion on Extemp is highly subjective, I try and keep an even baseline when judging speech structure with a high emphasis on personal artistry when judging speaking style.

Speech Structure:

1. Please start out with an effective AGD (Aim to be creative, I enjoy risk taking) and immediately link into your source and significance. - Please attempt to provide a significant statement that established the premise of WHY YOU CARE in your speech, show me that you understand the impact that your SPECIFIC argumentation and reasoning has. Please provide 1 Source in your introduction to qualify the context!
2. Provide your Question VERBATIM (Scoring decision has high emphasis on whether or not this is done)
3. When previewing your point, please establish a clear roadmap, clarity will help you and I understand where the speech is headed
4. Points should be well laid out with effective taglines (I personally prefer quick, snappy taglines that are easy to remember)
5. Confidently speak on facts, however, please do not present faulty information (I will be checking for sourcing if a statistic is presented)
6. ENJOY THE POSITION OF PERSUASION! (You are here to convince me to believe in what you believe, please explain analysis thoroughly!)

Speaking Style:

(As I place a high emphasis on individual speaking style and artistry, my critics on public speaking abilities focus mainly on mechanics)

1. Avoid fillers as best as you can. (While this is a tough one, please attempt to cut out your use of nonsense words - AH, UHM, OH, etc.)
2. Body language should demonstrate a sense of confidence, focus on assertive posture with clear and purposeful hand-gestures.
3. PLEASE UTILIZE SPEAKER TRIANGLE (For those that aren't taught this, with every transition in your points, attempt to move in a triangle motion, side, up, back to opposite side to convey transitioning in your speech)
4. Use academic terminology BUT DO NOT use phrases or terms that you do not know the meaning of. (I am big on this, please speak to me as you are an educator on the topic - educators cannot teach me something if they do not understand it themselves)

Second, Congress:

Nuance to argumentation becomes more important to me as the round moves on, aim to be distinguishable from the crowd in your initial

1. DO NOT USE bottled AGDs, I can tell. Make sure to maximize the endless opportunities of the AGD to apply topicality to your argumentation and stance.
2. An active debater will always rank higher, and aim to be present in every aspect of the round (especially within clash, try to affirm your side too to maximize activity in round)
3. Be kind. Congress can bring the worst out in really lovely people, and treat everyone with respect, scoring will be greatly impacted if you fail to do so.

Third PF:

Clash is where I determine who wins the round when two quality cases are presented. Attempt to extend arguments whenever concessions are given.

Presentation is huge for me, here are some notes if spreading:

1. If you are NOT FLUENT, don't spread
2. Try to incorporate healthy pausing, let me digest your sentences
3. Try to slow the pace down during final focus, I will be paying attention to presentation style during this time more than during the round as this is when your rationale is on display and I need to catch every word.

Respect is key. Do not speak over one another, and minimize negative non-verbal communication (i.e. laughing, rolling eyes, etc.)

Have Fun and stay engaged (if you're bored then I'm bored)

katarina.f.raich@utexas.edu

Johnathen.standifer@leanderisd.org

But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward, don't be petty for your prep.

Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school, and run a PF team now as a coach.

I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it.

I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.

Don't just throw a trick in the first speech ignore it 'til the end and tell me to vote for you, that's boring.

Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.

MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite.