2018 — Grapevine High School, TX/US
World Schools Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
2/22 Update: Don't pref me if you aren't going to slow down! I haven't judged circuit LD in a bit, I've been judging a lot of World Schools Debate. Please don't go your top speed and please slow down on tags & author names.
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a "traditional" debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I teach at GDS in the summer.
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com.
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round.
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad when making a decision. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!
*Over 28 years experience coaching and judging all events at the state and national level
*Coached in Florida, Alabama and Texas
*Awards: 2nd Diamond coach with NSDA, LBJ District Coach of the Year, LBJ District Communicator of the Year, Alabama Coach Of the Year
*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal. If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments.
*Respect in the round is essential. I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.
*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate.
*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.
*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.
*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)
*Impacts are essential. I don't care if you don't tell me why I should
* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.
* The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.
*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.
*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.
*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.
*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, but I will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.
*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow
*Words matter; word economy is essential. Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points
-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis
-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely
-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact
-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.
-The more current the information, the better.
-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.
-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything
-Professional presentation is incredibly important.
-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.
-Tone should fit the topic.
-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.
- I NEED CLASH. This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech. Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives.
- When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments.
- Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated.
- When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better.
- DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
- I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
- You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.
Head debate coach at Strake Jesuit
I am a traditional judge.
Tanya Reni Galloway
I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students want to go CX style, so I say tabula rasa, and I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.
I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and happy them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.
I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rockstars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.
I have competed in every event under the "debate" umbrella EXCEPT for CX. To be clear, I’m not as technically proficient as a policy judge would be- you have a better chance persuading me than bombarding me with jargon. Refer to the categories below for specific events.Speaker Points:
Debaters start with 28 speaks.
How to Lose Speaker Points: I will say clear twice before deducting speaker points. During cross examination, attack the speech, not the debater- if you harass your opponent in cross examination, speaker points will be deducted.
How to Gain Speaker Points: Be a generally clear speaker. Slow down on tags if you’re spreading.
LD I spent a lot of my time doing traditional, "by the book" LD, but I’ve seen my fair share of progressive debate. Debate with the style that you're most comfortable debating, but know that I decide winners on who best carries as much of their case as possible to the end of the round.
Kritiks - I’m unlikely to buy alts that rely on the way I sign the ballot.
Theory/T- Basic understanding.
DA's - I prefer a traditionally structured neg case over DA’s.
PF Debaters should try and stick to an "ask-answer" format during grand cross. I know that grand crosses get messy, and debaters begin to argue and explain their case after someone responds to a question. If you begin to explain your case rather than asking questions, I will deduct speaks. Overall, I decide winners by whichever debaters appear more synced in terms of teamwork. That means debaters who extend their partner's arguments as opposed to only creating new ones will win over those who have their separate debates with the corresponding speaker on the other team. (I want 1st speakers to clash with 2nd speakers instead of speakers having 2 debates).
World Schools Debate I was on the NSDA Lone Star WSD team for 2 years. I understand that this event can be hard to fully grasp due to the focus on presentation over just argumentation.
1st speakers: Present your case. Do not read off the paper, especially if it's a prepared motion. I will be more lenient on impromptu motions.
2nd speakers: Pace yourself. Don't rush through offense or constructive, or else I'll deduct speaks.
3rd speakers: Set up the 4th speech's voters. Give me a hint at what I will have to be looking at in terms of clash points in the round. If you can do this better than your opponent, then you have a better chance at winning my vote. (Note: I'm a huge fan of the 3 question structure. Ask me about it before the round if you're not familiar with it.)
4th speakers: Summarize the voters as best you can. If you cannot give me decent voters, then I have no reason to vote for you.
Hello and thank you for taking the time to read my judging paradigm.
I have been involved in the debate community for about 10 years now, first as a competitor in high school speech and debate, then at Texas Tech as a Parliamentary debater, and more recently helping to coach high schools in a variety of events.
In high school, I primarily competed in Lincoln Douglas debate (where I was the state champion my senior year), as well as Public Forum, however, my experience competing on the Texas Tech Parliamentary debate team gave me more insight into the style of debate more commonly used in Cross Examination debate.
Public Forum and World Schools Debate: I believe that you should speak in a relatively conversational manner. This means no spreading for these two events. I also will note vote for a kritik in either of these events. Make sure that you clash with the arguments made by your opponent. I flow everything in the round, so interaction between teams is very important. Please also provide voters in your final speeches.
Lincoln Douglas: I tend to be a slightly more traditional judge, though I am not opposed to voting for more progressive arguments. I do believe that you should have a framework that includes a value/criterion or some sort of standard, and I am not fond of Kritiks in this event. It is possible you could get me to vote for a critical argument, but it will be an uphill battle for you. I don’t mind speed in LD, but would prefer if you not full on spread. I will tell you “clear” no more than 3 times in a round before I stop flowing. So many debaters try to spread and are terrible at it, leading to stumbling over words and gasping for breath. If you do this, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. I’m not fond of counter plans on LD either, I believe you should negate the topic, but once again, if you can sell it well enough, I will vote for it. The final minutes of the Net rebuttal and the entirety of the 2AR should be spent giving overviews and voters.
Policy: I consider myself to be a tab judge, meaning that I believe it is up to the debaters in each round to tell me what arguments I should weigh most heavily. In Lincoln Douglas and especially in Public Forum, I am not a fan of kritiks or counter plans, however this is not true for Policy. I think that you should debate in the style that suits you best, whatever that may be, so long as you can properly justify yourself.
I am by no means an expert when it comes to kritiks, so if you are going to run one in front of me in a Policy round, please make sure that it is well explained and justified. I am not opposed to voting for one, but you will have to do a good job of convincing me that it is relevant to the specific round.
In Policy, I generally believe that the affirmative side should offer a plan text, please read it out loud twice to make sure that I get it down correctly. The same goes for the negative if you are going to read a counter-plan.
If you are going to read a plan or counter-plan, please offer advantages/disads to support your side/oppose your opponent's.
As far as topicality goes, I believe that you need to prove that there is legitimate abuse in the round for me to vote on it.
Speed is fine, but please make sure that you are speaking clearly. I will say "clear" to each debater no more than three times per round, and if I still cannot understand you, I will simply stop flowing. Too often I see debaters try to spread, but who are not well practiced in it, and end up stumbling over words and being extremely unclear.
I think this should be obvious, but I do still feel it necessary to say: if you make any remarks that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, I will automatically vote you down and give you minimum speaker points. That sort of language cannot be tolerated in a debate round (or life).
If you have any more specific questions that I have not addressed here, please feel free to ask me before beginning the debate round.
I graduated in 2018 from Grapevine High school and I competed in LD on the local and national circuit as well as at UIL. I qualified for state in LD 3 years. I also competed in Extemp at UIL and World Schools at nationals. Our world schools team made it to double octos at nationals 2 years in a row.
I'd like to be included on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated both progressive and traditional LD so I am fine with any arguments. However, if you run offensive arguments I will vote you down. Make sure that you explain the arguments. I may not be familiar with your K lit or philosophical argument and explaining is just a good thing to do in debate.
I'm okay with speed but you need to be clear. Slow down on authors and tags and please slow down on analytics. If you think something is super important in the round, slow down and make sure I can hear it all and that I know its important. If you're unclear, I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing.
Theory- I don't like the strategy of just running theory because you think you're better at it than your opponent. I would rather abuse actually be happening when you run theory but I will still vote on it being run the other way if you're opponent does not adequately respond. So if you do choose to run theory you need to make sure its well explained.
Ks- I'm fine with Ks but make sure you explain it. Also, I really don't like alts that are just "reject the aff". I think those are silly
DAs- I'm fine with DAs
Make sure that clash happens in the round. Don't be debating on two different things. Make sure you weigh the arguments so I will know how to vote.
Be nice to each other and have fun!
Just stay true to the format. Dont make this a CX or LD round.
I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at email@example.com
You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.
For online rounds:
1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.
· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:
o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.
o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)
o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.
o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).
o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.
o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.
· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:
o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."
o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.
o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.
o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.
o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.
Ask me a question and I'll tell you no lies.