I debated for Churchill for two years, competing in PF and extemp. I vote based on the persuasiveness of your argument- that is to say, I prefer the technicality of the debate and who answered and won arguments over the truth of the arguments. I think PF should be judged based on persuasiveness and your ability to convince me of your arguments. I value arguments that are well-composed and can hold their own during clash.

I prefer direct argumentation during crossfire. Address your opponents points and show me why yours are better. During crossfire, please be polite. I dock points for rudeness, condescension, and aggressiveness. Blatant sexism, racism, etc. will not be tolerated. Remember that the debate also consists of your body language and how you compose yourself.

I understand that you have many things to say and points to address, but please do not spread. I haven’t debated in a while and I prefer you clearly articulate your arguments, especially tags. Especially in the final focus and summary, pick the arguments that are the most strong and be concise in telling me why they are better than your opponent’s and why I should vote for you.

I was a PF debater and I have no experience in CX or LD. I was taught pretty traditionally in terms of PF and that is how I judge. I was never taught things such as kritiks or theories, so please do not use them in your arguments.

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Boyd%2C+Megan

For email chains and/or any questions: mvboyd@sbcglobal.net

Public Forum

I am open to both traditional and progressive styles. My only preference is that you debate the style that is most comfortable for you.

Framing: Please give me lens through which to view the round. If you don't give me any framing, I'm either going to vote based off your opponent's framing, or worst case scenario something completely arbitrary. It's incredibly difficult to judge a debate with two entirely different impacts and zero weighing mechanism. Please, please, please don't waste your time reading me definitions for literally every single word in the resolution.

Theory: This is public forum, I truly believe you have no time to read incredibly progressive and complex arguments here. If you want to, I will listen. However, keep in mind I am now four years out and have not kept up with the literature. With that being said, basic arguments relating to topicality, reasonability, and competing interps are always welcome.

CP/K/Aff Advocacy: Sure. I personally think the time constraints of PF make it hard to do any of these things, but that doesn't mean you can't pull it off in an abbreviated sense.

Flow: Now for what you all really came here for, I do not expect the second speaking team to extend offense in the first rebuttal. If you have time to extend offense, more power to you. I understand that four minutes is an incredibly short amount of time to attack your opponent's case then literally defend against all their attacks. This was literally never an issue when I debated and don't know who decided the second speaking team has to work twice as hard to win the round. If you actually want to waste your breath calling out your opponent in your two minute speech for not extending offense I will literally sit there and stare at you until you actually say something worthwhile. Your summary is your second, and final rebuttal. I expect you to take 1 or 2 (3 if you're fast) of the round's biggest arguments at this point. The final focus is not meant for line by line debate. At this point, hand me clear voters and call it a day.

Speed: Chances are if you are spreading in PF you're literally just doing it for clout points you won't get. Mind you, I'm not saying you cannot speak fast. I understand how short four minutes is to get through a lot of information. Speak as fast as you'd like, but I will tell you to stop if I nobody can discern a word you're saying.

Speaker Points: I don't hand out 29s or 30s. If you're looking for presentation points, I suggest you go ahead and strike me right now. If you have a pretty voice, but terrible argumentation skills I'm not your girl. A 29 from me is rare, but very possible. My range is generally 27.25-29.25. I don't tolerate racism, sexism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, the list goes on. I will dock your speaks for those issues. If your opponent calls you out, you might even lose the round. If it's utterly abhorrent I will stop the round.

Lastly, I will not do any work for you. I'm not here to babysit you, or connect any dots that you may have missed. It is your job, and your job alone, to tell me why I should vote for you.

Congress Judge-I want to hear evidence in your speech. Your opinion does not usually impact the speech very much. Try to address issues brought up by other members of the chamber. Try to avoid rehashing positions unless you are giving very late speeches. I am fairly hard on the PO. I expect them to know the procedures and pay attention. Slowing the chamber down a bit to avoid mistakes is better than going quickly and making errors that get called out.

Speech Events-I am not a speech judge normally. I will fill in for OO, Info, and Extemporaneous Rounds as needed. Anything beyond these speech events, I have not judged or have less than 3 rounds total in my life. I will look towards the piece as a whole. A typical selection that is POI, HI, DI, or Duo/Duet will mean very little to me as I really do not have the background to judge if a piece is a great standard. As such, I will be looking for pieces that make me feel like the performance was a selection or segment of the real life situation that is unfolding. I have watched a few pieces performed that were so real, the actor could have been the author of the selection.

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

My high school debate experience is mostly UIL LD, UIL Policy, and NSDA (then NFL) PFD. Our team wasn't a powerhouse debate team by any means, but I feel we did as well as we did due to a focus on speaking style and presentation, clarity of a few select basic arguments key to each debate style, and the understanding that every round was an opportunity to learn and grow (no matter what the decision was). I competed in NPDA in college and have spent the last ten years as a bilingual elementary ELAR/social studies teacher.

Currently, I tend to be a more traditional, “old-school” judge in all areas of debate. I never grew up with all of the excessive jargon and terminology so I would really appreciate it if you focused more on the substance of each argument and the bigger picture rather than expect to win on overly complex technicalities or applications of debate theory.

POLICY: I am not the biggest fan of speed for the sake of being fast. If you absolutely must spread, I must be given perfectly clear and enunciated (normal rate) taglines if you want me to flow your arguments. I am more of a policymaker/stock issues judge. I will listen to topicality, disadvantages, and counterplans on negative. I am not really the biggest fan of kritiks, unless you are confident that you can thoroughly explain them to a lay person. If you have any specific questions let me know.

LD: I am not really “progressive” when it comes to LD (prefer to hear value, criteria, contentions debate). I have voted on policy arguments such as plans, disadvantages, and counterplans (both debaters have to be on the same page) in the past though. I am not a fan of overly critical and debate-theory arguments in LD. If you have any specific questions, let me know.

PFD: I still believe that PFD should be judged as a debate “of the people” and like to see rounds focused on simple arguments based on simple interpretation of the resolution. I don’t like any LD or policy elements in CX and prefer debate jargon not really make an appearance (as people from the general public wouldn’t know these terms). Speaking skills and presentation play a big role in PFD for me. Rebuttal speeches are absolutely key for me in PFD and I am a huge fan of BOLD second speakers who go for only one or two thoroughly articulated voters in the final focus.

All of this being said, I obviously encourage all debaters to do whatever feels most comfortable for them and what they have been taught. I just ask that you be aware of my preferences and take the time to craft rebuttals and voters that clearly articulate why you deserve the round and clarify a purpose of the strategy you have chosen to use throughout.

Experience: Did PF @ Westwood High School for 4 years.

PF Paradigm: 
-I’ll listen to any argument you make as long as it is warranted. 
-Make sure you do impact calc and analysis because I don’t want to do any work for you. By the end of the round, it should be clear who is winning the round. If it’s not, I’m gonna do my own work and the round is out of your hands. 


Speed: Moderate speed is okay as long as you enunciate.

Speaks: Be clear. Be polite. Funny = better speaks. 

Other: For extensions, you have to extend more than just the tagline.

Make conversation with me dont be scared

Im always happy to answer questions before the round starts.

I do not favor spreading or excessive speed. speaking faster than conversational speaking rate is fine if necessary, but the speaker should still be clear and easy to understand. Be professional and confident at all times. remember you, are here to persuade me.

I prefer that competitors stay away from topicality arguments. If its a must address it and then continue to the topic. Debates that mainly focus on education and argumentation tactics are contradictory and a waste of time.

I prefer that clash remains clean. No eating up time with questions or answers, and please do not interrupt or cut your opponent off unless it is necessary for time purposes. I consider clash to be an important part of the debate because it demonstrates your understanding of the argument and your stance on the debate, and potential holes in your opponent's argument.

Overall, demonstrate to me a solid understanding of the resolution. I prefer structure, clarity and impact over all else. Make sure to emphasize voting issues by stating them slowly, clearly, and in a concise manner.

On the ballots I will try to be through, I will include things I feel each competitor did well and what I feel could use improvement. I will list my thoughts about different topics discussed in round as well as a flow of ideas that I felt held up in the round.

After the round is over I will happily give critiques but most of it will probably be on the ballot, however I typically do not disclose.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense.

 Background: I competed at Flower Mound High School for 4 years. I did every debate event through my career but spent most of my time doing PF.  I broke at State twice in PF and once in extemp, qualified for state in policy, qualified for nats in PF

General Views on debate: There isn't a type of debate that I particularly like or dislike as I feel a good util debate can be just as entertaining to listen to as a K heavy debate. I have no presuppositions as to what my role as a judge should be so feel free to read a role of the ballot. That in mind, don't be afraid to make arguments against a role of the ballot or provide a counter one. I will also try to disclose in every round.

Speed: Go as fast as you want but keep in mind my teammates made fun of me because I was awful at flowing. That doesn't mean I didn't hear what you said but just that I probably didn't get the time to pen it down. If I'm flowing on my laptop then this shouldn't be a problem but if I'm flowing on paper try to slow down for tags. I'll say clear if you need me too.

T/Theory: I loved Topicality/Theory as a debater so read them if you feel like there is abuse in the round, but if I think the shell was unnecessary you won't get great speaks.

Kritiks: I have read lots of K lit and love hearing authors like DnG and Foucault. That being said, I think many debaters are bad at running Ks so unless you are reading a generic cap K, think carefully about how well you know your arguments and how the K would function in the round before reading it because if it's done badly you will probably lose.

Da/Cp/ CX style args: Go for it. All have a place in debate.

Yes you can sit down and debate.


Things I don't like

• Presumption: I won't vote on presumption so don't bother running it. I assume there is always a risk of offense in the round and there is no such thing as terminal defense.
• Debaters not understanding their arguments: If you are going to read an argument, you have to know what it means and be able to explain it. This is especially true with dense philosophical arguments. I'm not going to do any work for you.
• Being racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc

Feel free to ask me any questions before round.