DUDA MS Tournament 2
2018
—
Dallas,
TX/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Lindsay Gray
J.L. Long Middle School
None
Natalia Albores
Hire
None
Last changed on
Wed May 1, 2024 at 2:00 PM EDT
Email Chain > File Share
Add me to the Email chain - alexbaez18@gmail.com
4 Years of Policy at the Law Magnet - and 5 years at UTD
I've judged a decent amount of tournaments last year, mostly Dallas Circuit and TFA Tournaments, also TOC Tournaments in Dallas.
This year I've judged over 15 tournaments, mostly TOC tournaments online and local Dallas tournaments.
Just about anything goes, I'll pay attention, but the onus is on you to make sure I know what you're talking about, don't assume I know about your argument as much as you do. I mostly judge clash of civ debates but I love judging traditional policy debates and K v K debates.
LD
Not as familiar with Kant, DNG, Tricks. Aff time skew is real tbh
Jennifer Barbee
Hire
None
Martin Bode
Seagoville Middle School
None
Tajuana Brewster
Harold W. Lang Middle School
None
Maya Budhrani
Irma Rangel YWLS
None
Kelsey Bullington-Hodge
Hire
None
Shawn Burns
Benjamin Franklin International Exploratory Academy
None
Benjamin Campbell
BOMLA
None
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 2:31 AM CDT
Clarity vs. Speed
Understanding of the arguments
Organized
Engaging and persuasive communication
Refutation that is relative to the topic
Teamwork
Haley Crawford
Medrano Eagles
None
Jamille Fields
Hire
8 rounds
None
Jennifer Finley
Hire
None
Trina Gamble
Hire
8 rounds
None
Evan Gilbert
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:30 AM EDT
isaiah1415@gmail.com
I did policy debate at Townview Law Magnet & UTD. Minor experience in LD & World Schools. Currently work with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.
Make the debate what you want it to be. I like creativity, think outside of the box, take risks, warrant everything.
Im not partial to anything, nor do I not like to see any particular arguments.
I will be listening to you, not reading your docs.
Feel free to ask me any specific questions.
Last changed on
Fri November 15, 2019 at 8:01 AM EDT
I tend to try and have a form of tabula rasa, removing my bias.
Ana Graciano
Irma Rangel YWLS
None
Celeste Graham
Young Men’s Leadership Academy at Fred F. Florence Middle School
None
Karen Graves
Travis Middle School
8 rounds
None
Kevin Grimes
Hire
8 rounds
None
Last changed on
Sat October 26, 2019 at 6:41 AM EDT
A few ground rules/suggestions
a) cx is open, but I expect you to take control of your own cx
b) you will lose if you don't give me a plan text
c) spreading is encouraged
d) rebuttals should be at least somewhat round specific
e) offensive language and arguments should be avoided
f) don't assume I understand your argument
g) a road map means the order of your arg ex: 1 off, case
h) I will not give speaker points based on your clothes or posture or whether you shake my hand
i) I will give speaker points based on your ability to think on the spot, extend and answer arguments, and explain your arguments in detail
Natalia Hamilton
Hire
8 rounds
None
DeVonte Hardy
Robert T. Hill Middle School
None
Musa Haroon
Dallas Environmental Science Academy
None
Nelda Hernandez
Hire
None
Ursula Hollingsworth
Hire
8 rounds
None
Bridgett Hudson
Ann Richards STEAM Academy
None
Taylor Iberosi
Rusk Middle
None
Camille Johnson
Hire
None
Elroy Johnson
Rusk Middle
None
Monique Jones-Stevens
Hire
None
elizabeth keehn
Hire
None
Leslie Kennon
J.L. Long Middle School
None
Dra’Yonna Kirk
Hire
None
laura lamb
HP Garcia MS
None
Cassandra Lizardi
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu August 30, 2018 at 4:51 PM CDT
1 year policy debate experience
2 years LD experience
I was a local debater. I coach middle school policy debate. I like framework and ks and policy arguments. I'm not good at evaluating theory arguments. YES. I will listen to and evaluate them but maybe thats risky of you. So just make argument interactions clear and we'll have a good time! :)
Kerri Macintyre
Sanger Preparatory Middle School
None
Brad Mayfield
Hire
8 rounds
None
Adrienne McCann
W H Gaston Middle School
None
Juan Mendez
Hire
8 rounds
None
Chris Mizeur
Irma Rangel YWLS
None
Olivia Northcutt-Wyly
Hire
Last changed on
Sun January 14, 2024 at 8:51 AM PDT
Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com
College: University of Southern California
Pronouns: they/them
ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy/CX Debate
I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.
Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.
KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.
Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.
Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Forum Debate
Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.
Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.
Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.
ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.
Connie Parker
W H Gaston Middle School
None
Bridgette Paul
Greiner Middle School
None
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 2:16 AM CDT
Email Chain: linhpham1998@gmail.com
or Speech Drop: https://speechdrop.net/
I competed primarily in CX debate in high school at Irma Rangel YWLS, competing in local, TFA, and UIL. I have some experience in PF & Informative/Persuasive. I have continuously worked with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance since 2016.
*Please note I am coming off a couple of years hiatus so I am not as "up with the times" as I would like to be and haven't caught up on any camp/summer files.
I tend to analyze the debate as a stock issues/ policy-making judge, but not exclusively. Feel free to take creative approaches as I am still open-minded. Although I have my paradigms, you should still do YOU and do what YOU think is best.
Try not to run too many off as they tend to get convoluted and lose importance. Kritiks/ K-Affs are not my favorite but if you run it, keep it straightforward. The same goes for T/FW. I love a good DA and CP debate. You can call me old-fashioned and boring.
Keeping the debate structured and clean is the way to my heart. (ie.. signposting and road mapping) If you even have to question it, clarity is ALWAYS a must. If you sound like a buzzing bee, then most likely I am not listening and am most definitely not flowing. Line-by-lines tend to correlate with good clashes... Good clash = good debate. Make it clear what the net benefits are and do some impact calculations... Essentially, I appreciate debaters giving me their RFDs- I think it provides great self-reflection/analysis and makes things clear for me as your judge.
*Goes without being said, but keep your times and each other accountable. I do my best but I tend to be forgetful. :/
Feel free to approach me and ask me anything else.
Be nice and cordial. Condescending language/behavior will not be tolerated. Respect the debate and each other.
Cannot wait to see what you got and learn a bunch from you guys!!!
Julie Phillips
Sanger Preparatory Middle School
None
Daniela Portillo
Irma Rangel YWLS
None
Timesha Reed
W H Gaston Middle School
None
Kaya Reingold
Hire
8 rounds
None
James Renfroe
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed February 3, 2021 at 11:03 AM CDT
I am a tab judge. Email for link is soccergoaliejames@gmail.com
I am fine with anything but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:
K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. If the alt is just a rejection of the opposing team I am less likely to vote for your K.
T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality. If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. T's have a tendency to irritate me if it is obvious they are topical. If you make a topicality as a time suck I will be less willing to give you ground for other theory arguments based on fairness.
DA - Really vague links irritate me, but you can lose the terminal impact and still have a risk of the DA succeeding.
CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.
Case - I find oncase really important, and needs to be stressed on both the aff and the neg. Case specific impacts on either side can easily sway a round
Speed - I am fine with speed, however I much prefer quality of arguments as to why they are logical rather than extending impacts that the other team did not hit as well.
Last changed on
Fri April 3, 2020 at 5:15 PM CDT
North Dallas High School
dallasrivas4@gmail.com
I am a JV debater at my high school.I will be Varsity next year.I made it to state(But got postponed)
I have only debated CX but I get the concept of LD
# of OFF cases < Significance of OFF CASE
Speed < Clarity
Tabula Rasa
*Speaker Points*
Be clear,slow down on tags
Organized speech
*Impact calc*
Probability is preferable
----------------------------
The debate should form itself
----------------------------
K's are totally acceptable but not my favorite(K's must be presented very clearly)
DA are Great
On-case should win solvency
CX-Open
Gabriel Sanchez
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT
Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas 2016-now
Email: gtwin98@gmail.com
General:
Don't assume I know all the nuances of your arguments. Needless to say, you should probably explain your argument anyways. I evaluate all arguments.
Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are fun.
Topicality: I enjoy good T debates. Unfortunately, T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins.
DAs: DAs are also a core debate argument. Specific DAs are always a plus. I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I think an aff can win on defense alone if they making arguments about why having to have offense is bad.
Counterplans: Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.
Kritiks/ K AFFs: Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I have no problem with teams running untopical affs as long as they can win that it’s good to do so.
Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.
Jose Sanchez
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri October 30, 2020 at 10:50 AM CDT
I consider myself a tab judge (but lets be real tho, it's 95% based on offense/defense).
Preface: I am still adjusting to online judging/debating, so I encourage you ask questions, more than anything. Also, my email is JoseSanchezCerrillo@gmail.com if you have questions or creating an email chain.
I debated policy for 4 years on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits and I have been debating for UNT for 3 years now. I have experience with a variety of arguments, but don't assume I know what you're talking about.
Generally, I am fine with most arguments - unless it's something explicitly violent/exclusive whether it be racist, homophobic, etc. Nonetheless, your "round-winning" argument needs a voter. Why is the argument (DA, theory, advantages etc.) you have presented a reason why I should vote aff/neg at the end of the round.
I am also not a fan of speed when used to exclude your opponent, and thus am lenient - though still need to be persuaded - towards some 'speed bad' arguments. In other words, every debater should be on the same page; it is a problem when, for an intentional reason, they are not. Personally, I do not have a problem with speed so long as it is clear and articulate.
K v FW - I am most familiar and prefer arguments based in critical race theory and performance. I find these debates tend to be more educational and engaging. However, that is not to say I can't be swayed by policy-focused arguments (refer back to offense/defense). On FW v K debates, like with T, are almost always based off the "standard" debate. Explain to me what are the benefits of your discourse and/or performance and why it should be preferred.
T/Theory - I defer to competing interps esp if no other framing is presented. I find that a lot of these debates are muddled at the top-level. Just like winning other T/Theory args, you need to convince me that your model/definition of debate is best - this should be your standards debate.
K - I'm not as knowledgable on the white boy goo that is Baudrillard, DnG, Agamben, etc. but will definitely vote on them if you convince me otherwise. Also, make sure to contextualize the critique to the affirmative. The difference between a good v. bad K debate is that the latter lacks contrast to the affirmative. Tell me why the alternative produces a preferable option to the world of the affirmative.
I'm fine with CPs and allat, you need to have a net benefit and mutual exclusivity. DAs, case turns, etc. - any offense - can win rounds, but, just as with other arguments, make sure to impact them out as to why they win you the round (like some impact weighing/framing).
Rafael Sanchez
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 11:35 AM EDT
Debate Experience
Law Magnet High School: 2012-2016
The University of Texas at Dallas: 2016-2019
Assistant debate coach at Coppell HS: 2018-now
sanchez.rafael998@gmail.com - I would like to be on the email chain :)
Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are best when they are debated correctly.
Topicality: I enjoy T debates. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.
DAs: DAs are a core debate argument and I love judging DA(& CP) v. case debates. Specific DAs are always a plus, but obviously that's not always possible. I tend default to an offense/defense paradigm.
Counterplans: A well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.
Kritiks: I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the more popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. But be aware that if you are reading more PoMo/high-theory args, you might have to explain the arg a bit more.
K AFFs: I have no problem with teams running untopical affs but this doesn't mean that I wont pull the trigger on FW, you still have to win the affs model ow the negs model of debate.
Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard.
*Note for online debates: I'm very forgetful and my keyboard is loud af, so if I forget to mute, remind me to mute myself if the keyboard noise is being bothersome.
Jorge Saucedo
Hire
8 rounds
None
Ji Shin
E.D Walker MS
8 rounds
None
Meagan Smith
Spence TAG Academy
None
Bernadette Valles
Hire
None
Klaudia Vega
Rosemont MS
None
Michael Vera
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat September 16, 2017 at 7:57 AM EDT
Law Magnet ’16
The University of Texas at Dallas ’20
General:
Don't assume I know all the nuances of your arguments. Needless to say, you should probably explain your argument anyways. I evaluate all arguments. I think like most judges I like to believe that I evaluate debate from an unbiased position.
Specifics:
Case: You should read it. Lots of it. It's good, makes for good debates and is generally underutilized. Impact turns are fun.
Topicality: I enjoy good T debates. Unfortunately, T debates are normally really messy, so the team to really put the debate into perspective and be very clear on how the two worlds interact first generally wins. If you're looking for a judge willing to pull the trigger on T, I'm probably a good judge for you.
DAs: DAs are also a core debate argument. I am a big fan of politics DA. Specific DAs are always a plus. I default to an offense/defense paradigm but I think an aff can win on defense alone if they making arguments about why having to have offense is bad.
Counterplans: I think counterplans are a fundamental part of debate. Well thought out specific counterplan are one of the strongest debate tools that you can use. I will vote on almost any cp if you can win that it is theoretically legitimate and that it has a net benefit.
Kritiks/ K AFFs: Over the past couple years I have opened up towards the K a lot. I have a pretty good grasp of a lot of the popular Kritiks, but that isn't an excuse for a lack of explanation when reading your argument. I refuse to do that work for you regardless of my previous knowledge. I have no problem with teams running untopical affs as long as they can win that it’s good to do so. However, I will vote on framework if the aff/neg wins it produces a better model for debate.
Theory: I have no problem voting on theory if it is well warranted. I honestly believe affirmative teams let the negative get away with a ton of stuff, and shouldn't be afraid to not only run theory but to go for it and go for it hard. I am unlikely however to vote on cheap shot theory arguments \ were little to no warrants are presented example “condo-vote strat skew and education”.
Things that are good and you should probably have/do
Impact Comparison
If...then statements
Confidence
Flagging important issues in debate
Jokes
Respect
Good/Strong CX questions and answers
Things I kinda believe
Tech over Truth
Smart Analytics can beat evidence
Uniqueness probably decides the direction of the link
Uniqueness can overwhelm the link
New 1AR arguments are probably inevitable and good to some extent
Prep time stops once you save the speech to your flashdrive
Virginia Virden
Hire
None