I have actively involved in Speech and Debate for the past two years. It was only this year that I took over as head coach after being assistant coach last year. I have judge rounds in Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Prose, Poetry, Extemp and Congress. With the understanding that each competitor is at different level and that we all have differing levels of knowledge using technical jargon is not high on my list of requirements. Sometimes its easier to say the simple way. Having said that if you are familiar with technical wording then please use it as you would. When it comes to your speed of delivery, please try to keep it at a conversational speed. I have been in rounds where the speaker was talking so fast that what was being said was lost. While I understand this is a good way to keep your opponent from keeping up, I think that in an event that is based around debating you need to speak where your opponent and judge can understand you. I have found that the best signal for me is to put my pen on the table. If I'm not holding it, I'm not flowing. My note taking can be moderate to detailed depending on the arguments. I tend to flow in detail and in addition to recording your arguments I will stop and add comments on why I think it doesn't work or if I have any suggestions to make it better. I will also leave notes on how well you spoke and ways to improve. I value both style and argument but I believe that the focus of the debate should be on proving your case - which is argument. However, you need to be organized and able to think on the fly to do this successfully.

Policy- I am a policymaker I am looking for one of two things either the best plan available from either team or if the neg does not have a CP from them to prove while the aff's plan will not succeed. I do not think that nuclear war is the most imminent bad thing. Is it bad yes - am I going to automatically say neg wins they pulled the nuclear card - no. Because sometimes the aff's harms are more immediate and need to be addressed first.

LD- As far as argumentation goes I lean progressive.

In round I expect debaters to handle themselves in a professional manner. I understand that things can get heated and that is okay as long as it does not devolve into arguing, name calling and a refusal to listen to each other. You may attack, and are expected to, each others case, you may not launch a personal attack against your opponent.

Conflicts: WHS '23

Loose Conflicts (Not insta-struck): HHS '23 // OCHS '23 // PTHS '23

Case Sharing // Questions: aidanbirjandi2@gmail.com

(TLDR at the bottom, but it's very brief and there's a lot to cover so at least read the bolded stuff pls.)

(To incentivize you to read the entire thing, I placed 8 emoticons of kitties throughout my paradigm. Can you find them all?!?!)

Hello! I’m Aidan Birjandi! (He/Him). Good job reading your judges paradigm! It's the first step to a win!

I was a 4-year LD/Congress Debater from Whitehouse High School in ETX. Currently I do Parli at UT-Tyler. I love love love the competition, and community within Speech and Debate- I wouldn't be here if I didn't haha. Debate is dying, so thank you for holding it together! If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out!

__________________

Forensics Debate:

Games-Player Judge, because everyone should be tab, and above all else, debate is itself a game. I love love love wacky arguments, feel free to try DeDev, Silly Ks, or other fun arguments as long as they make sense. Fairness violations, if legitimate, are huge for me and will outweigh anything else on the flow- within reason. Major fairness violations (round stopping) are often few and far between, so don’t grasp or make something out of nothing BUT are nonetheless a serious concern. If you suspect rule breaking (fabricated evidence / unauthorized use of technology) err on the side of caution and let me know immediately, I can't help you after the round. Education, while admittedly less important to me, is still a major voting point, so winning impacts pre-fiat is huge.

While speed is expected, spread within reason. Adhere to "Clear" or "Slow" the very best you can. Your speaks will reflect this. Accessibility is huge, so if you simply outspread your opponent, and they can't keep up, I won't feel comfortable voting on drops alone.

Like most judges, I have zero tolerance for hate, racism, or any form of bigotry. If your opponent specifies their preferred pronouns, try your very best to respect them. (Asking for preferred pronouns before the round will help!)

Speaker points shouldn't be your primary concern, but it's cool if they are! My formative years within debate were spent on a very lay very trad. circuit. Due to this influence, I tend to prefer slower, much more articulated rounds, but do whatever is your norm. I will adapt to you. My standard speaks are 28 for a normal round with standard mistakes and verbal clutter. Depending on your performance, my awarded speaks will be higher if you exceeded expectations or lower if you didn't reach them.

I firmly dislike the current 'Meta' of debate. It encourages debating Topicality regardless of a violation, erroneous theory, tricks, and of course, abusive outspreading. If your K challenges this meta, I'll def be more interested in it as opposed to the millionth Cap K.

I am comfortable with most strategies, traditional and progressive, but I will (usually) not do the work for you. This depends on the complexity of your argument, so if you plan on running advanced philosophy, progressive, or theory arguments you must fully articulate what it is you are asserting. Specifics are given below:

Tech ———I—————— Truth

⣴⡿⠶⠀⠀⠀⣦⣀⣴⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⡄⠀⠀⣠⣾⠛⣿⠛⣷⠀⠿⣦
⠙⣷⣦⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠀⣴⣿
⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⠿⠋⠁
⠀⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢸⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀
⣿⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀

_________

VALUE/CRITERION ARTICULATION:

Value/Criterion (V/C) construction is an extremely big deal to me. While they must both stand on their own, removed from each other, their function in tandem is the crux of your argumentation. This is, naturally, my first evaluation before most other things within the round.

While impacts are a huge voting point, I am always looking for a dynamic and developed framework debate to understand the impacts of the round. Securing V/C FW is just as central to winning the round as securing impacts. No matter how good the impacts you have are, the framing, and perception of them is what sells them.

The value debate is supposed to be abstracted! The material consequences of the value come from its relationship with the criterion and case as a whole. Talk about values more conceptually rather than literally, it makes the debate both more dynamic and interesting!

With all that said. I hate basic values. While they work with most of anything, they're SO MEANINGLESS. Using a more specified value can be challenging to initially find, but the benefits are incredible! The trade off here is that you have to do more work, but I expect that from you! There is an infinite amount of values for you to run, so don't use the safe and simple ones over and over.

Basic Values (These are the worst):

(Human) Life // Morality // Democracy --> :(

Cool Alternatives:

Security // Mercy // Liberalism --> :)

_________

PHILOSOPHY STRATEGY:

• Phil Authors: I love love love philosophy in debate. Using a phil. author/theory alongside V/C framework will make it substantially stronger. I am most familiar with Locke (Second Treatise), Nietzsche (Beyond Good & Evil), Hobbes (Leviathan), Rawls (Theory of Justice), Mills (On Liberty), Rousseau (The Social Contract), and Kant (Cat. Imp./ Barebones Metaphysics), but run whatever you've got. BE SPECIFIC WITH YOUR CHOSEN PHILOSOPHY. If you’re using a specific philosophy to frame your case I expect you to both know the author and which version of their work pertains most directly to your case. Examples are given below:

E.X. 1.) Social Contract:

—> Default to Locke for Social Liberty / Property Rights / Materiality

—> Default to Hobbes for Human Life / Security / Basic Natural Law

—> Default to Rousseau for Human Worth / Intrapersonal Morality

ᓚᘏᗢ

E.X. 2.) Utilitarianism:

—> Default to Mills for Rule Util. (Legal Utility / Moral Rule)

—> Default to Bentham for Act Util. (Basic Social Utility / Maximizing Expected Well-Being)

_________

PROGRESSIVE STRATEGY:

• Ks in LD: I’m cool with Ks, especially wacky ones, but please please please have a good FW/UQ and a decent alt. The most important part of selling a K to me is to make it apply both to the resolution and the squo (or maybe even myself!). Get me interested, but don’t be nonsensical. ฅ^o ﻌ o^ฅ

• K Affs in LD: Much of the above applies, but you must must must establish why punting the topic is justified, or at least why you don't feel comfortable defending it.

• CPs/Solvency Alternatives: I’m cool with CPs, just adhere closely to the resolution and clearly define/assert what it means for both sides (have solvency lmao). Topic specific PICs usually work best, and yes PICs are cool, but only if they have reason behind them. Don't be abusive with it, Example: (We do the Aff in all states except the third Federated State of Micronesia until 3:47 P.M. on August 1st, 2025)

• Plans in LD: Not a fan, I'm not sure why you'd want to limit yourself more than the resolution already does, but run what you have and be as simple as possible. I haven’t seen these very often so keep it basic. You're playing a dangerous game with fiat especially in LD where the brightline for fiat is so obscured, so make sure you defend that you actually can* do whatever your plan may be.

• Conditionality: Condo by itself is cool, and I'm 100% chill with you having one or multiple conditional advocacies but remember that your opponent can and will make offense on them. Just kicking out of your side of a DA/K/CP doesn't mean your opponent can't get turns and garner offense off of them. This does not reflect my view on the T-sheet.

_________

TOPICALITY/THEORY STRATEGY:

I was never that deep of a T debater, but with that said I'm big big big on reasonability. More on this below...

Reasonability ———I————— Competing-Interpretations

• T IS (usually) A PRIOR QUESTION. We need to understand the game before we can debate within it, so naturally it has to be the very first evaluation. However this becomes obscured when arguing a K. If you go for T in a situation like this, make sure you secure that its evaluation is prior to that of the K, if not, your opponent might win it, and the K itself would presuppose the T sheet as a whole. ^•ﻌ•^
• T IS (usually) NOT CONDITIONAL. I differ from many others on this point. A team is either topical or they're not. If you lose or kick out of T it will look very bad for my evaluation of you after the round. Don't make me flow a whole separate T sheet just because you wanted another argument on the flow. With the exception of specific circumstances, if you open up the T debate I expect you to go for it, at least in some capacity.

╱|、
(•˕ • 7
|、⁻〵ノ)
じしˍ,)ノ

_________

MISCELLANEOUS STRATEGY:

• PLEASE CLASH
• PLEASE SIGNPOST
• PLEASE WEIGH IMPACTS // TERMINALIZE THEM

• Don't card dump in the NR - not cool /ᐠ - ˕ -マ Ⳋ
• CX is binding
• I don’t care where you look during CX lol.
• Clarifications during preptime are cool. It's not binding, but be truthful with your responses
• I don’t care where you speak, as long as I can hear you.
• ᨐᵉᵒʷ
• I will most likely be timing, but it’s smart to time yourself (duh) and your opponent (keep them honest)
• Tricks: Really not a fan. Tricks abuse techy debate, which all debate SHOULDbe adapting to.
• Debate is a very stressful activity. Be kind and friendly to everyone no matter what happens within the round.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

My ballot is not a reflection of your skill or intelligence, it is merely a single decision within a single round. Use this to your advantage and learn from every single win or loss the very best you can!

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣠⣤⣤⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⢼⣿⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⣾⣷⠀⠀⢿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠈⠋⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠙⠋⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⢀⣀⣀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣷⣦⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⠤⢤⣤⡄
⠈⠉⠉⢉⣙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⣀⣀⣀⡀⠀
⠐⠚⠋⠉⢀⣬⡿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣥⣀⡀⠈⠀⠈⠛
⠀⠀⠴⠚⠉⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠢⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

PF/LD Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be sure to focus on cross-examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

On an aside, I do like debaters to keep it professional. I like it when people stand for cross-examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents' speeches but also to their team member's speeches.

Congress Paradigms

I look for competitors who are prepared to speak on any topic - especially if they have prepared to speak on both sides of the topic. I look for quality speeches that add value to the debate; if we're four cycles in and you aren't bringing new information, crystallizing information we've heard, or providing a new rebuttal then it's easy for your speech to get lost amongst the masses. Activity in the chamber is good - I'm looking for you to be engaged in listening to other speeches, asking valuable questions, and working together to run a fair and efficient chamber.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, and well-defined points supported by a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

General note for everyone - I have a really bad thinking face and I'm going to look confused and upset. I'm not - don't take it personally! It's just my face and I don't really have a whole lot of control over that. Plenty of times I've had my own students tell me they were sure I hated what they were doing and then I was very complimentary of their work. So I promise you my face has nothing against you! It's just a grumpy face.

add me to the email chain: alyx.debate@gmail.com

This is your round. Be respectful of bodies that are in the room and those you are discussing. I'm open to most arguments at any speed. I come from a policy and critical background. Do the weighing work so I don't have to, because I won't intervene for you if I can help it. The offense/defense debate is important, so think about your route to the ballot. This round can be a complete imaginary if you want, but not just for the sake of winning a debate round. Think about the critical implications toward/away from solvency. If you have more specific questions, you can ask prior to the round.

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

Director of Forensics @ Athens HS (2023 - Present)

DoD at Austin LBJ ECHS (2022 - 2023)

Texas Tech Debate 2019-2021 (Graduated)

Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019

whonea@athensisd.net

Please have specific questions about my paradigm if curious. Just asking, "what is your paradigm" is too broad of a question and we don't have time before a round to run down every little detail about how I feel about debate.

Speed - I think there is a place for spreading, I have judged and debated against some of the fastest debaters in the country. In a UIL setting, I would prefer you not to spread. I think this allows us to maintain the accessible nature of the circuit. For TFA, NSDA, or TOC debates, go for it. I think in any type of debate slow down for tag lines and key analytical arguments, especially voters in the rebuttals.

TFA STATE 2024 UPDATE: I feel like at this point in the season, judges should outline specific preferences that align with the topic, given they've judged a considerable amount thus far. I have developed a few of those preferences. First, because this is an economy centric topic, I need you to isolate a market indicator that should frame the direction of the economy. Whether is the CPI, Stock Market Projections, BizCon surveys, etc. Absent this specification, it makes it hard to judge econ uniqueness in debates. Second, the central T debate is Taxes v Deficit Spending. A lot more time needs to be allocated to the predictability standard when going for "you must tax". There are tons of taxes the aff could choose, only one way to deficit spend. Finally, is evidence recency. Though I believe dates on cards matter less than the warrants themselves, when debating the ever-changing economy, the most recent analysis is more likely to sway me. The same can be said for politics scenarios. We are deep into an election cycle, Super Tuesday is 2 days before tfa state. Please update your evidence.

TLDR: My overall judging philosophy can be boiled down to, I am going to take the path to the ballot that takes the least amount of judge intervention. I don't want to do any work for you, that means any warrants analysis/extensions. You do what you do best, I am pretty familiar with just about any argument you want to read. I will make my decision based on a metric established by the debaters in the round.

Policy -

MPX - I have no preference for types of impacts. Make sure your internal links make sense. Impact Calculus is must in debates. Also impact framing is necessary when debating systemic vs. existential impacts.

Affs - Read one..... Advantages need to materialize into impacts. Saying "This collapses the economy" cannot be the end all to you advantage. Explain why that matters. Whether its war, structural violence, etc.

K Affs - The K aff needs a point. Don't just read one to try and throw your opponent off their game. I like K affs and have read them a lot in HS/College. The aff should always have some FW/Roll of the Ballot for me to evaluate the round on. Also, if your kritiking the World, Debate Space, Topic, etc. explain the utility in doing so rather than taking the traditional route of reading a policy aff with a state actor.

Performance - The performance needs purpose. Don't just read you poem, play you song, or do a performance at the beginning and then forget about it for the rest of the round. Tell me why you doing what you did has significance in this debate and how it should shape my decision making calculus.

T- I default that the aff is topical. The neg has the burden to prove otherwise. I default to competing interps weighing offense in the standards level debate. I often find that competing interps and reasonability require essentially the same amount of judge intervention. Competing interps relies on a judges individual metric for "how much offense" is needed to win an interp, this is mirrored by "how much of a we meet" is needed to throw out T.

FW - Policy FW against K affs can be a useful strategy to have. However, i often find debaters constantly reading generic standards like Ground, Predictability without any in depth impacts to those standards. Have specific warrants about why them reading their K aff in that instance specifically is bad. You probably have little risk of winning a collapse of debate impact. K's have been read for decades and yet, here we are. Probably should go for a more proximal, in round education lost scenario.

DA - The more intrinsic the better. I will not evaluate links of omission unless it goes completely dropped. While I like intrinsic/specific disads i also recognize the utility in reading generics and will vote on them.

PTX - Needs to be very specific, we are in an election cycle right now. Generic election projections are unlikely to persuade me. Please make sure your evidence is up to date.

CP - I like counterplan debate. Make sure you pair it with a net benefit AND solvency deficits to the Aff plan. Additionally, spend time explaining how the CP resolves the deficits you say the aff solvency has. The CP needs to AVOID the link to the net benefit, not SOLVE it. If the CP solves the link, the permutation probably does as well.

K’s - Don’t assume I know your author. I have experience reading CAP (Marx & Zizek), Agamben, Foucault, Bataille, Baudrillard, Halberstaam, Butler. I have a preference for identity arguments when i debate but as long as your K provides a logical FW and competes with the aff it should be fine.

Theory - I have voted in and debated some of the wackiest theory positions. As long as you have good warrants as to why your interpretation is better than you should be good. Please do interp comparison between you interp and your opponent's. That being said don't get too out there with you theory positions. I feel like you and/or your coaches should know what is a winning theory position and what is hot garbage.

LD

I have the majority of my experience judging traditional LD with values and criterions. I prefer traditional LD debate and do not typically enjoy policy arguments being brought over into this event.

PF

My Experience is in judging TOC circuit level PF. Provide voters and impact calculus. For online debates PLEASE establish a system for question during Grand Crossfire. There have been too many debates already where everyone is trying to talk at the same time on Zoom and its frustrating.

Hello!

First and foremost I want to wish all competitors good luck and just know that it is an accomplishment to be competing no matter the outcome.

I am a Tab judge in all things. I judge based on the merits of your argument in the round so any team or person can win my ballot at a given time.

Congress:

I look for good argumentation within your speeches that includes facts and evidence that are pertinent to the content on the floor. Eye contact and professionalism are a must. I look for passion when you deliver your speech as you are working to convince your fellow delegates that your argument is correct. Better speeches are those that can interpret and use information from fellow members of the room to either turn in their favor or refute arguments. Make sure any claims you make in your speech are backed up by evidence and sound reason.

Extemp:

I look for you to use your time effectively and for you to have a structure to your speech. I want to see the evidence that you have for your topic applied to the points you are making. It is all about the application of your reasoning for me. Stylistically it's important to make eye contact and be engaging when you are speaking.

CX:

I am a tab judge who values direct clash in a round. I do not like spreading and if you are too speedy I will stop flowing your arguments thus even if it is a beautifully well-written and well-reasoned argument I won't count it for you. Clarity of spoken word is more important than massive amounts of information when you cannot actually apply it because you are speaking too fast by just reading a card. I do not like topicality attacks for the sake of a topicality argument. Let's assume we are all topical unless it is so egregious that it really is untopical. Impacts are important in CX as well as the application of your information.

LD:

Is a beautiful debate! I love a good philosophical/ethical argument that you support with sound reasoning. I am old school in the fact that I prefer less reading of evidence cards and more application of the information you present. Evidence is necessary for a good argument, but just spouting it without linking it to your value and criterion is useless to me in LD. Direct clash and attack of the AFF is necessary for the NEG! I want to see exactly why I should prefer one side over the other.

Interp:

For me, the key to a wonderful performance is a fully immersive experience. I want to see the emotions and character you are portraying not just in your words, tone, and inflection but in your body language. Make the selection come alive for the audience. If a selection changes characters or personas, I want to see distinct ways that you are bringing each one to life. Gestures and eye contact are important as well. I value a well-paced selection. Pacing can add intensity or emotion and it can often be a nuance that can cause someone to rank better than others.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 22 years and I am an NSDA Two-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

For CX and LD:

I am primarily Stock and Policy. I.e. Framework, evidence, why this outweighs, clash, etc. I'm not a big fan of Kritics, but it's a case-by-case basis, and I'll still flow it. Give Voters!!

Seating isn't too important, but I prefer Aff on my Left, Neg on my Right. (Your Right and Left respectively as you're facing me.)

Speed-reading is okay as long as it isn't 1000wpm. If you do spread, at least slow down for taglines.

You can keep your own time if you'd like, but I will be timing as well, and my timer is final. My timer begins on your first word. For Prep Time, I will give 30 second intervals unless told otherwise. Be sure to tell me to "Cease prep time," otherwise it will continue to run.

Please ask "Judge/floor ready?" before you start, I may still be writing or getting my timer ready.

Framework/going down the flow is important, and sign-posting is much appreciated. If you jump back and forth from On/Off case, I may get lost and mistake your attacks for your defense and vice versa.

Off-time roadmaps are preferred, but not necessary.

I personally will not join your Speech Drops or take a copy, what I hear is what I write. This is so I'm not reading ahead of what you say, or adding in any cut portions. You can still share your speeches with your opponents if you'd like.

I'm not great at disclosures, but everything will be on the ballot and hopefully helpful to your learning experience.

For Extempt:

One person in the room at a time. Hand me your topic when you're ready.

The timer begins at your first word. Starting from 7m, I will start hand-signing at 5m-1m, give 30s (horizontal, extended index finger), 15s (half, horizontal, index finger), then hand-sign again from 5s-1s. For practice tournaments, a 10 second grace period past 7 minutes will be given, but you will not be in first place. I apologize ahead of time if I'm too engrossed in writing that I forget to hand-sign.

My scoring criteria is as follows, in order of importance:

Speech. Introduction (Attention grabber, topic, answer, preview of key points), Body (Key points with sources to back them), Conclusion (Restate topic, answer, closing statements.)

Body language and voice. Any or lack of: swaying, stepping into points, hand gestures, eye contact, stutters, changes in pitch, rate, pauses. Essentially, confidence. If a notecard is being used, are you reading it word for word, or are you just glancing at it?

Time. This isn't as important, because if the rest is done properly, a 2 minute speech could be better than a 7 minute jumble of words. Was each point given an adequate amount of time? Was it over the time limit?

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

Background: I currently coach at Caddo Mills High School. I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I also competed on the collegiate level at Tyler Junior College and UT Tyler.

If you have any questions about a particular round, feel free to email me at phillipmichaelw91@gmail.com

For my general paradigm:

I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). When I am evaluating the round, I will look for the path of least resistance, meaning I'm looking to do the least amount of work possible. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be, I will default to a policymaker.

Speed is okay with me. However, as the activity has become more reliant on the sharing of speech docs, I don't think this means you get to be utterly incomprehensible. If I can't understand you I will call "clear" once. If your clarity does not improve, I will stop flowing. I also believe that debates should be as inclusive as possible and speed, by its very nature, tends to be incredibly exclusive via ablenormativity. If your opponents have trouble understanding you and call "clear," I believe it is your job to create a space that is inclusive for them. *Note: this is not a green light to call "clear" on your opponents as many times as you'd like and vice versa. Once is sufficient. If clarity does not improve, I will make notes on the ballot and dock speaks accordingly. Keep in mind that the best debaters do not need to rely on speed to win.

Please keep your own time.

I evaluate LD, Policy, and PFD through the same lens. I'm looking for offense and I'm voting for whoever tells me why their offense is more important. This doesn't mean that you can't run defense but 99% of the time, defense alone, will not win you my ballot.

As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. This means if you go for T and a disad, I won't vote on the Topicality, even if you're winning it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win? (hint: don't just say "That's abusive") Lastly, please extend an impact. Why is the way that the other team has chosen to debate bad? Please don't stop at the internal links, i.e. saying "it's bad for limits/ground/etc.". Tell me why that matters for debate.

Framework: I look to FW before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for (especially in LD).

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework/a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well-fleshed-out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Counterplans/Disads: Counterplans don't have to be topical. They should be competitive. Please don't read counter-plan theory on the same sheet of paper as the counter-plan proper. Tell me to get another sheet of paper. Your theory position should still have an interp., standards, and voters. Disads should be structured well and have case-specific links.

In LD, I don't think running counterplans makes a ton of sense if the Affirmative is not defending a plan of action (Hint: defending the resolution is not a plan). This is because there is no opportunity cost, which means the perm is always going to function. If you're going to run a counterplan, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you still get to weigh the counterplan against the Aff case.


If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.