Congress:

Be Respectful- Do not deliberately attack a person or their identity in bad faith, however while some may have opinions and arguments that you disagree with personally that does not mean you are being attacked.

Be Logical- Make it make sense. Stay on topic and don't just throw in extra information we don't need, or you won't use. Diction, your word choice matters so make it count. Convince me that you are right.

Be Confident- Fluency, tone, expression, and pacing. This isn't a race, and it isn't a library.

Secret fourth paradigm- Add something new and relevant when you speak or challenge what has already been said.

LD:

Delivery-It is hard for me to listen if you speak really fast, so I prefer a slower delivery, if your speech is unintelligible then I have nothing to judge you on.

Criterion and Value-Judging your arguments will be based on this. If you want me to use yours over the opponent's convince me that your value and criterion is the proper one to use.

Evidence-Use evidence when making claims, but feel free to use rhetoric to make your arguments.

PF:

Don't make arguments or use evidence you don't understand.

IE Speech:

While I understand that you may be very passionate about a topic, please approach it in an age/school appropriate way. Unnecessary shock factor is just that, unnecessary. With that in mind, don't be afraid of sensitive topics that are naturally shocking. For example, DO NOT Reanact an active shooter event. However, you could do a protrayal of the thoughts or feelings of the event, not the actual event itself

For all events creativity is key just as well as relevance. This is your performance, make it unique to you.

Hi! I did speech and debate throughout high school from 2019-2023. I did TFA PF and Extemp, UIL LD and Extemp, and NSDA Extemp. Most of my accomplishments were in Extemp but I also understand the technicalities of PF and LD.

.

General: PLEASE be respectful to your opponents and your teammates. Outright hateful comments and bigotry towards others will not be tolerated in round and will affect my judgment.

Debate:

PF:

-I like to judge off my flow, so please go down each argument instead of jumping all over the place, and announce when you do jump somewhere.

-While I can keep up with speed moderately well I was not a Policy kid, so please do not spread to fast. In PF I would like to see a certain level of lay appeal.

-I will evaluate K's, framework, and other similar strategies. If it's something that your common parent judge has not heard of please ask me before you run it. I don't believe tricks sway a round too much, so I will likely not consider them. I will evaluate theory but I'd prefer not to, at the end of the day I always prefer you respond to the topic. If you are running this kind of stuff I would have a backup PF-centric case.

-ALWAYS extend and weigh until the final focus. Even if you believe you won an argument in summary I want to hear you give a brief reference to it in your final speech. Extending the argument will increase the chance I will evaluate it.

-Impacts are crucial to me in round.

-Don't steal prep it will be noticed.

-I'll let you know when the time is over. After around 5-10 seconds overtime I will likely ignore any arguments brought up in that period.

.

LD: Everything referenced above applies to LD as well. I will be a bit more loose since I know LD is a bit more technical though.

-Please stand up when you speak.

Speech (yay)

Extemp:

-I will tolerate small variations but please stay in line with the general extemp structure.

-If you go past 7:30 I will likely not give you the 1.

-I like to judge equally between style and content with a small preference towards style. If two people gave an equally good performance I will break the tie by choosing the person with the most responsive content.

-Please do not spin or play around the question, I'd like you to answer it directly and effectively.

-Please be an advocative speaker. The topics you discuss are impacting people at the end of the day.

My name is Luey Garcia. I am currently studying law at the University of Texas, so debate is sort of my life now. I also competed in policy for 4 years, heard just about every type of argument under the sun, I'm familiar with all the terms, so go for anything that you might want to do.

Argue as if I have never read the news, and know nothing before the round. Evidence within cards should prove your tags. Bring me the arguments, explain them well, CLASH with your opponents and show me how you beat them down the flow, and I will appreciate that very much. Argumentation as to why your opponents' arguments fail to adequately answer your points (and why that's important) will always prevail over just telling me they "completely dropped" something (which is usually untrue).

-Don't be offensive.

-I expect analysis on all cards provided. I am not in the business of analyzing your research for you.

-I'll let you know if you're going too fast or if anything similar comes up.

-Feel free to ask me questions before the round starts if any of this is unclear.

My name is Luey Garcia. I am currently studying law at the University of Texas, so debate is sort of my life now. I also competed in policy for 4 years, heard just about every type of argument under the sun, I'm familiar with all the terms, so go for anything that you might want to do.

Argue as if I have never read the news, and know nothing before the round. Evidence within cards should prove your tags. Bring me the arguments, explain them well, CLASH with your opponents and show me how you beat them down the flow, and I will appreciate that very much. Argumentation as to why your opponents' arguments fail to adequately answer your points (and why that's important) will always prevail over just telling me they "completely dropped" something (which is usually untrue).

-Don't be offensive.

-I expect analysis on all cards provided. I am not in the business of analyzing your research for you.

-I'll let you know if you're going too fast or if anything similar comes up.

-Feel free to ask me questions before the round starts if any of this is unclear.

I was a CX debater at UTSA in the late 1980’s. I’m just now getting back into debate through coaching.

I am comfortable with fast speeches if they are clear, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. I have no qualms about voting for a policy that would normally be considered "absurd" as long as one of the teams can prove it in the round.

I have a low appreciation for evidence spewing. I shouldn't have to read your cards to understand what you are running. Also, don’t take cards at face value. Some evidence may sound better but are you sure it’s quality sources, etc.

I am familiar with many philosophers, but my ballot is determined by how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence, theory, etc. Be conversational and persuasive. I want to understand what you understand the debate to have meant.

I don’t favor technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round, especially if you dropped it too. You have to remain consistent: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round. However don’t presume to tell me how I should vote. Tell me how you win the point, not what you think *I* should do.

Be polite before, after and during rounds to partners, opponents and me. This means I don't want accusatory CX questions.

This is a speech event, so I am also looking for poise, confidence, eye contact, humor, etc. if you want big points.

I competed in Debate because I enjoyed it. Don't kill my love of debate because you take yourself or your opponents too seriously. Let's have fun.

Hey Guys, I'm Akshath I've been involved in debate for over 3 years, I was heavily involved in policy but have decent experience in other forms of debate. Please include me in the email chain, my email is akshathprasad05@gmail.com. Spreading is fine, just make sure the taglines are loud and clear for me to follow, but it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. Please please please read analytics very very slowly and clearly so I can understand, if you don't I simply will not be able to flow them. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow if any or given. I have a decent knowledge of this year's topic. I am a technicality over truth judge and I definitely play impact calc into my AFF voting decision. Think of me like a blank slate, it is the debaters' job to educate me with all the information.

Like any other judge, I love well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments, quality over quantity any day.

Topicality: I was never too much of a fan of Topicality, if you are a team that goes for T please explain it thoroughly and why I should vote for it, walk me through the T's. Make T arguments interesting, and take it to another level.

CPs: I love a good CP, CPs are game-breakers to me and I will very much vote on a CP if the NEG can easily explain to me the Net Benefit and the Mutual Exclusivity. Perms are great responses from the AFF, Explain to me why the CP can be permed and if the NEG is not able to explain why the PERM fails, AFF wins CP.

DAs: Just like CPs I love a good DA, emphasize the Uniqueness, link, and impact, extend the DAs throughout the neg block, and keep on pushing them. If the AFF is able to provide a solid non-uniq argument or no link, AFF wins DA, but once again the neg needs to find ways to counter this. I prefer specific links to the DA over broad links.

Ks: Ks are very interesting to me because if the K is solid I will easily cast my ballot for the neg, prioritize the framework and the role of debate and focus a lot on the theory aspect. Frame the debate space around the K, but if the K is too sloppy and not properly organized and read I will most likely not vote for the K. I love a great K. Expand on the Alternative and the link, please please, please. I love Roll of Ballot arguments when they are connected to K's.

FW:Arguably the best part of the round, is framing the debate round in the same way as your arguments. emphasize ROB

Condo: not really a fan of

For PF, keep it as the event was intended, which is less CX and more general debate. Speed should allow even a novice debate participant to keep up, but does not need to be as slow as a general speaking event. Make sure that you stay civil, as debate in general is intended to make sure that you are learning civil discourse and not just how to argue with someone.