Debate Events:

I graduated from Plano West in 2018 and competed in my Junior and Senior years in PF and IX. I approve of wearing fedoras in round.

I'm not the picky type, so I'll just be going over some general things.

Treat me like a more lay judge, meaning you will need to explain things as if I have never been anywhere near debate in my life, and will need to be clear. Spreading should be minimal as if I can't understand, I will not be able flow it, and that certainly won't be helping your case. With that in mind, be loud as well. That tends to help with clarity.

Speaks: I'll be lenient for the most part, so expect high points, within the 28-30 range. Unless you're being uncivil, in which case, expect something lower.

As for things within the round itself, the usual will apply. Have warrants, don't fire off as many cards as you can without purpose, have warrants again and make sure you weigh your arguments.

Most importantly, BE CIVIL. Especially in crossfire, or you'll lose speaker points and potentially more.

Congress:

Direct me to the exit, because I probably wandered in by accident and am definitely lost and in the wrong room.

I did NDT/CEDA policy debate at UT Dallas and LD debate in high school.

Add me to the email chain: aishabawany98@gmail.com

If I am in your round, I will do my best to listen closely to every speech, argument, cx question/answer etc. made in round. I remember how horrible it felt when my judges didn’t listen or care despite hours of prep and hard work—I aim to not be like them. That means that while your speech and arguments matter, so does your clarity.

I am fine with speed.

Argument Evaluation

I believe debate is about the contextualization of evidence and your speech act of persuasion. I think the quality and explanation of arguments matters more than the amount of arguments. When you are extending/explaining your arguments, make sure to name/warrant the argument, not the author. It is not enough for you to just spread through a card and expect me to vote off of a tiny sentence in your card. You have to explain the warrant and how things function in relation to each other.

I do not like to do work in debates for debaters. II aim to be an empty shell that is filled with both teams' arguments and then to adjudicate without any bias-- a true clean slate. That means I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as it is explained to me well. The truth of different critical theories don't matter to me. If you're winning it, then I'll vote off of it.

Framework/K v K debates/Framework v. K debates/Topicality

I did run a lot of framework/T so I do enjoy watching that debate. Up to you though on what you want to run and how you want to do it. I'll evaluate it with the best of my ability. I'm predisposed to topical aff positions in policy because I have mostly debated with topical policy cases. That is not to say that I won't vote on them, just that I am not the best judge to evaluate K v. K debates. I never think you should run arguments you are unfamiliar with, so don't stop running those arguments, just make it easier for me to understand the method by which I should evaluate/weigh the round. Framework is always a voting issue and a criticism of the affs method to play the game of debate. I default competing interps. You need to win that your definition/interpretation/model in a t/framework debate is better for debate unless you give me reasons for why I should default to reasonability. Personally, don't think lots of fairness claims on framework are super persuasive.

Theory

I’m less likely to be convinced to vote off theory debates since there’s never substantial argumentation on that flow that’s ever created. I mean, read your condo bad, perf con bad, multi actor fiat bad stuff as time sucks or go for it if it’s truly abusive, but I’m not about to sit up and be like “wow! A theory debate! I’m so excited!” I would prefer to vote for you off of something other than theory arguments. (I believe you can do much better).

Kritiks

Ks need to have a link, impact, and alt (though you may convince me you don't need to have an alt). If you’re going to go for the K, explain the link, why they can’t perm (if they try to), why the aff can't solve/is bad (ex. policy failure, vtl) and other aspects of the K. K's in my mind are similar to disads, but just function on a different level with a more critical lens. To weigh the aff against the kritik/vice versa, you also should have some sort of framework method top level.

Please do not assume I understand what your argument is or what literature you are reading in your K is about. I am not a coach, studying philosophy, or on the cutting edge of K debate. I have a job and do other things in my spare time.

CPs/DAs

Counterplans are cool. They are important to test whether the aff is a good idea. For CPs, they should have a cp text and some sort of net benefit. In order for me to vote on any disad, I think you need to win a link (not a risk of a link, I mean a LINK). I don’t care if it’s generic (though I would prefer it not be), it just has to be a link, okay? I hope you have/know the parts of a DA, because if you don't have them all, idt I can vote on it.

In my opinion, off cases are conditional, so there's a low probability of me voting off of condo unless you've been buried with off cases.

LD Frameworks/Value-Criterion stuff

It seems in LD that you need some sort of framework/way for me to evaluate the round. For framing, you need to have a value/criterion/ROB/ROJ that says that I should evaluate arguments by x. Plans are cool too. I ran different philosophical frameworks when I did LD and enjoy listening to unique ones and the way you justify your position through it. I don't care for disclosure debates in LD. I think disclosure is good in policy, but I honestly couldn't care less either way in LD. If you really feel that you were disadvantaged by not knowing what the aff was before round/previous 2NRs, then feel free to go ahead, but I won't be happy judging that kind of debate. I find those sorts of arguments boring.

General:

- Debate is a game.

- Tech over truth

- Presumption flows neg

- Let's all be nice to each other

- Simplify, simplify, simplify

Tab but lean policy maker - who's got the best plan to put forth / best to implement in squo (BUT IM STILL OPEN FOR ALL ARGUMENTS)

I do have a HIGH threshold for Ks, CPs however

Need you to tell me WHY I need to vote for you; give me impact calc or some easy mechanism to weigh the round

Want good clash in round, otherwise I'll tend to vote for the person who said the most impactful thing last

Speed is fine but need clear tags, I'm not going to do the work to follow along

Consider myself a tab judge, but lean more towards policy making style.

Fine with all arguments presented, but find that Kritiks/CPs can be easily lost in the round if you don't do enough work explaining/proving your case. As a result I have a high threshold for these (Ks and CPs)

Please slow down on tags/authors/dates

Fine with speed, but be careful that it doesn't hinder communication. If I miss a tag because you're going too fast it won't make it to my flow.

**For LD Debate, would appreciate slower speed (don't want to miss criterion/values/etc)**

Impact Calc/Framework goes a long way; if you're not telling me how to vote I will end up choosing based on my preferences of the round.

If you have anymore questions, please do not hesitate to ask in round before beginning.

I graduated from Princeton High School in 2006, where I competed in Humorous, Poetry, Duo, Original Oratory, and One Act Play. I competed for one year, my senior year, and double qualified to the 2006 NFL National tournament in Humorous and Duo Interp. I have been judging since Fall 2006, and have pretty much seen it all (except CX).

I'm primarily an interp judge, so first and foremost I want to make sure I can understand what you're saying. Are you speaking too fast to understand? Are you slurring your words? Are you dropping the ends of words, or expelling all your breath at the beginning of the sentence, and finishing flat? This may seem like it shouldn't apply to debate events, but think of it this way: it doesn't matter how good your case is if I can't understand what you're saying.

I do not disclose results or provide verbal critiques. Everything I have to say about a round will be found on your ballot. :)

I do not have a specific paradigm for any debate event, I do emphasize the items below however...

-Feel free to be unique and run anything you choose as long as it is factual, honest, and topical.

-Be respectful of your judges, audience, and probably most importantly your opponent
<do not make gestures via your vocalizations or physicality that could indicate a sense of disrespect towards he/she/them>

-Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype

-Speed is fine if you are CLEAR.

-Claims and Warrants are coactive.

-Road maps are ideal and a recap at the end makes me happy :)

***REMEMBER YOU ARE BOLD FOR COMPETING AND YOUR WORDS HOLD POWER***

Have an argument you can defend. Not just with empirical evidence, but with your listening skills. Throwing every argument up against the wall and hoping something sticks will not work or get me to vote for you. However, clear, concise voters that outweigh your opponent's, will.

I am a fan of debate, so I am willing to consider just about anything you want to present. If I have a bias, it is a poorly constructed and defined "K" argument. That should be pretty self-explanatory. So, I will not delve any further.

Finally, be respectful to each other. This is a learning experience for all involved. Knowledge with grace is much more impressive than power.

Lincoln Douglas:

LD is value-based debate. All arguments should ultimately support why a debater's value is both more important and more relevant to the resolution than the opponent's value, as well as demonstrate how the value is upheld by their side. The criterion should be an important weighing mechanism throughout the round, not a secondary value or a throwaway addition.

"Definitions upon request." - If they aren't verbally stated in the round, they don't count. Your opponent shouldn't have to waste their questioning time to get them, and I can't request them.

"Squo/util/hege/[acronyms that aren't specified and aren't common knowledge]" - Time limits make being brief important. I get it. But presentation matters, so don't let unnecessary word-shortening get in your way. And if I lose a few seconds of content trying to piece together what you might have meant, something's not getting flowed.

Kritiks, T-shells, and other non-traditional or CX elements of debate - If there's not a rule against it, and it makes sense to use it (and there's absolutely no traditional element that can work better), go ahead. But it needs to tie into your value and criterion in a meaningful and persuasive way (as do all things).

CX:

All arguments need to be well-organized and logical. Debaters need to explain why the results/impacts/disads they list are likely to happen and why they are positive or negative. Any argument or argument style is fine as long as debaters can establish the reasonability of it.

Policy Debate:

Policy Judge. I don't want to vote on stock issues; stop trying to make me.

'Presumption'

AFF you will lose if you

1) Can't prove burden of proof

2) Can't prove solvency (risk TBD in the round)

3) Your case gets turned and you fail to adequately answer it

4) Your case is outweighed and you lose corresponding framing and/or impact calculus

NEG you will lose if

1) the affirmative has a claim for solvency (risk TBD in the round)

2) The affirmative outweighs the negative arguments and you lose corresponding framing and/or impact calculus

Both teams can call abuse, you can severe, you can kritik, you can perm, I don't care what you do but if any of those standards are met you will lose as a team.

Ask me in the round for clarification.

LD:

Progressive, tell me how the round should be framed, you can take the debate in any direction I do not give priority to Value/Criteria over Contentions - I leave that to be decided in the round.

If I'm not given any framing I will default to assume that the value & criteria are the most significant issues in the round.

NOTE: If the rhetoric in the round is revolving around a "default" to resolution adherence I'm of the opinion that the side in affirmation holds a position of resolution adherence and the negative side doesn't thus in such rounds I will vote affirmative. Ask for clarification in the round.

---- I don't expect people to read my paradigm before going into a speech round, but I just have this here as a template for online ballots.

Extemp:

Topic

- Do you take a stance on the topic or provide a platform to inform upon?

- Do your points match the topic?

- Do you actually talk about the topic or do you just discuss related topics that you assume have a connection.

Structure

- Is there an introduction? Does the introduction flow smoothly? Does the intro provide an insight into the structure of the speech?

- Do you have primary points? Do the primary points have a sub-point structure?

- Do you wrap up the speech clearly?

- Do you give a call to action or a final note of clarity in your conclusion?

Warrants

- Do you provide sources?

Eye Contact

- (Online Debate) Do you look in the direction of the camera or do you look everywhere else?

Pitch/Tone/Emphasis

- Do you provide a varied speech or is it monotone?

- Are you loud enough?

Speech:

Category Adherence

Eye Contact (do you know the piece or are you reading it)

Dynamic/Tone/Emphasis

Stage Setting

Transitions (if multiple selections)

I judge Policy most often and more frequently PFD and LD.

I also judge interp. events.

Below are my paradigms for Policy.

Anything else; just ask.

Experience with Policy Debate :

Frequently judge Policy Debate Since 2016

Policy rounds judged in the 2017-2018 year?

30+

Approach to judging Policy Debate?

tabula rasa

Attitudes toward typical Policy Debate practices:

RATE OF DELIVERY

Rapid delivery

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

The more arguments the better

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
Resolving substantive issues and communication skills are nearly equal in importance

TOPICALITY - Willingness to vote on topicality:

Sometimes

COUNTERPLANS

Accepted and expected

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

somewhat acceptable

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Somewhat acceptable

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

I don't advise it

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Not recommended

LD DEBATE PARADIGMS:

Rate of Delivery:

A fast pace is acceptable, but please enunciate. However, LD is not policy debate.

Weight of Criterion During the Round:

Heavy

Technical Language:

Acceptable

Final Rebuttals:

Includes voting issues and given line-by-line

Winner of the Round:

Dependent on who won the most arguments

Other items:

Please use the analytical and empirical evidence to support your arguments.

No new evidence/cards in the 2NC.

I want to do as little work as possible in the round. Tell me where and how to vote, point out drops, etc. Otherwise, I default policy maker. I'm fine with any and all arguments, but I do not have an extensive lit base. My only stipulation is I have a high threshold for T and Theory arguments, so if you run then make sure they're solid. I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear, but I will not give a verbal 'clear' if you become incoherent. I'll stop flowing and make it obvious I'm not following along.

Any other questions I'd be happy to answer in round.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

I debated for four years at Wylie High School (currently a student at UT Austin) in Lincoln Douglas and Policy on several different circuits, so whatever style you debate in is alright, though I tend to prefer faster and more intense rounds with a lot of clash.
Philosophy: Tabula Rasa
Short version: I consider myself straight tab with a tendency to vote on whatever the debaters emphasize as the most important with a default to policymaking if necessary (and stock issues if it really comes to that). I’ll vote on essentially anything except offensive/morally unacceptable case turns (i.e. racism good, genocide good, etc.), and I have a high threshold on T and Theory.
Long version:
General: I won’t make arguments for you, have clear extensions with warrants, don’t just shout authors at me and expect me to remember exactly what they said. I’ll vote on pretty much anything as long as it’s well-warranted, but I’ll default policy-maker if needed. It’s okay to be somewhat aggressive but don’t be openly rude (that’s not helping anyone within the debate or out).
Speed: Speed’s not an issue. I’ll stop flowing if you’re not clear.
Prompting/Open CX: Depends on the circuit since they all have different rules. UIL: No prompting, no open CX; not my rule, it’s theirs, so if you prompt, I’ll have no choice but to give you a drop. NFL/NSDA: at the discretion of the teams and/or other judges (in the case of a panel). TFA/TOC: go for it; if one team is uncomfortable with it that’s at your discretion, you do what you want in terms of prompting; don’t try to make it a rules/voting issue because it’s legal and if you go for it you will not win. Other circuits: I probably will be more lenient in unclear settings, so if the rules are unclear, I'll treat prompting as acceptable.
Rules/Violations: In the case of accusations rule-breaking such as use of cell phones/internet or card-clipping, the round will be stopped and the tournament director will be contacted, so don’t go stopping a round on a false alarm or worse trying to make rules a debate argument; this is above that so take it seriously.
T/Theory: Like I said, I have a high threshold. For T, don’t run a generic T as a time suck; it wastes time on both side and drains the quality of the debate, and I will know what you are doing and I will not like it). Running theory is fine but I likely won’t vote on it unless it is the focus of the last speech, so unless you plan on going all in on theory in the 2AR, it’s better not to waste your time.
Framework: Framework debate is fine by me (and sometimes necessary to a well-organized round); it’s not a voting issue itself, but allows a lens as to what the voting issues are, so don’t go completely in on framework in your last rebuttal, but rather use it to frame your arguments as the most important in round. Remember, framework alone will not win you a debate.
Case arguments: In a policy round, case is essential on both sides, so make sure you spend enough time developing your case in the 1AC, attacking it in the 1NC, and making extensions. Obviously you don’t have to spend a majority of your time on case, but make sure it’s addressed since it is the reason for all of the arguments made in the round.
Disadvantages: DAs are usually necessary (especially in a policy-oriented round), so generic DAs are fine as long as they’re unique and you have a good link. Also, don’t just run a bunch of DAs at the beginning of the round and go for all of them; a few well-developed arguments is way better than not narrowing down enough for the rebuttals.
Counterplans: CPs are fine (condo, dispo, any status is okay). Make sure you have a clear CP plan text; if not, it’s not a CP and just a fancy and terrible case argument that will not win you a round. I don’t have a preference on whether or not they’re topical, but make sure they’re competitive (but if it’s not it’ll usually be taken care of in the perm debate).
Kritiks/K affs: Ks are find and I love K debate, so feel free to run whatever (as long as you have warrants). Discourse/Language Ks are fine if there’s a link, but I prefer you run ones that have an active effect (i.e. Gendered Language, Ableism, Race, etc.) rather than spending your 2NR on a grammar K about the word “the” in the resolution. Philosophy Ks are fine and encouraged, but make sure you know how to run them, and be prepared for a framework debate (it might be good to run a K framework shell in the 1NC on top of the K proper).
Perf Cons/Multi-Worlds: While I’m fine with perf cons and multi worlds, avoid going for multiple contradictory arguments in the 2NR (for perf cons you shouldn’t be doing this anyway), or I’ll err aff on contradictory arguments. Also, don’t cross-apply arguments across contradictory arguments; it makes no sense and is heavily abusive.
Happy Debating!

Post-Addition: Extemp and Congress
Even though extemp is a purely speech event and congress is a mix of a speech and debate event, but my philosophy will likely be the same for both: content and speaking skills are weighed equally for me in these events. In extemp, good analysis of the topic through REAL sources is just as important and presenting this analysis in a sophisticated and relaxed manner; in congress, clash between speeches and addressing fellow representatives/senators is important to keep the debate fresh, as well as presenting your analysis in a proper fashion. Any other questions can be directed to me at Evan.Lope13@gmail.com.

________________________________________________________________________

Paradigm from 2017 through February 2024.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD June 13, 2022

A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

When it comes to Debate, I like to keep an open mind. Feel free to give me any sort of argument that you would like to run as long as you understand it and it is coherent. Speed is not a problem for me. My main focus as a judge is making sure the concepts being debated are understood and the round has educational value.

General CX/LD/PFD Preferences:

Professionalism and civility are required and weigh heavily in speakerpoints

Standing CX/Crossfire; seated Grand Crossfire; look at judge in CX/Crossfire

Don't use open CX/Crossfire as a crutch (I will dock speaks if it's clear one partner is doing all the heavy lifting)

I may critique after round, but only if both teams request. If I do critique, I will generally not disclose and I will keep it brief as I write a lot on the ballot for the benefit of your coach.

My view on speed (spreading) is that I will flow it, but a speaker should not sacrifice articulation for speed. If articulation is an issue, please slow down as I have some nerve deafness in my left ear, so you must be clear. However, PFD is an event where spreading is highly discouraged.

I'm a rule follower, so if there is a tournament prohibition on open CX, email chains, prompting, etc., don't do it!

CX Argument Preferences:

I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments

I will consider and vote on:

- Disadvantages almost always (i.e., if properly weighed against Aff advantages/turns)

- Counterplans almost always (however, must show solvency for Aff harms and not link to any DAs/other offense against Aff)

- Kritiks rarely (i.e., if properly weighed; compare worlds). Alt needs to compete. "Reject" isn't sufficient.

- Conditionality arguments sometimes (e.g., unless team offering argument argues otherwise, I will assume an unconditional status on all augments offered)

- Theory sometimes (particularly if there is clear evidence of in-round abuse such as over-limiting topic, denying fair ground, etc.)

- Topicality sometimes (e.g., if clear in-round abuse; over-limiting topic)

- Inherency sometimes (i.e., if plan is already in status quo, then no reason to vote for Aff)

- Solvency/Workability almost always (i.e., a plan that doesn't work, doesn't solve for status quo harms/claim advantages and thus doesn't provide a net benefit)

LD Argument Preferences:

If you run policy/critical arguments, I tend to vote as a policy-maker (see CX paradigm above). Traditional Value/Criterion arguments are also fine by me in LD.

I most want to see in a debate round a few, well developed, substantive arguments.

Empirical examples are as important, if not more important, than reading "unique", esoteric cards.

PFD Argument Preferences:

While I am a coach, this event was designed to be accessible for "lay" judges, so please adapt accordingly.

Empirical examples are very useful and don't necessarily require a source, if general knowledge.

While framework is not essential, it is often helpful in close rounds.

Congressional Debate Argument Preferences:

Speeches:

Structure and content are both essential. In each speech, there should be a clear intro with statement of position on resolution and preview of main points. Main points should be supported by the type of evidence you would expect a member of Congress to rely upon for a speech before the House/Senate. Responses to fellow members and a discussion of how the legislation would impact one's "constituents" are part of the "debate" aspect of this event. Walking transitions between points and when answering questions is expected.

Parliamentary Procedure and PO duties:

Efficiency, use of proper voting procedures and correct motions to move along debate are an obligation of ALL members of the chamber and should not have to be repeatedly prompted by the PO. The PO's primary duties are to keep speech time and recognize speakers/questioners based on a strict, impartial adherence to precedence/recency. Do not run for PO if you do not feel prepared to execute these duties. Serving as PO is never a guarantee of breaking; a PO's performance is weighed against the PO expectations outlined above.

About me:

Member of LGBTQ community

Pronouns: Prefer he/him

Licensed Texas Attorney

BA/MA in Communication Studies, Texas Tech University

Doctorate of Jurisprudence, Southern Methodist University

Former Speech/Debate Coach at Prosper High School, Prosper, TX

About Me

I debated at Wylie High School for 3 years, (2010-2013) one in public forum and two in policy with congress and extemp throughout. I primarily competed on the local level (mainly UIL with some TFA) and I have been judging since 2013.

I am not a full time coach and do not keep with debate so do not expect me to know the latest trends in debate or have knowledge of the topic, history, law, current events, etc. In fact, for the most part, I don’t do any topic research to avoid bias…and because I’m a terrible combination of lazy and busy. To be safe, allow the round to exist in a vacuum and assume I know nothing. I will do my best not to intervene on the ballot.

Policy Debate Paradigm

Rules

I have no choice but to follow any rules the tournament may have, no matter how much we all hate it. But, if it's pretty clear that breaking the rules was unintentional, I'll try a warning and/or speaker point deduction. If it comes to a disqualification, I'll inform you immediately and give the option to continue the round or stop.

If it’s clear you’re intentionally breaking rules (such as clipping cards or evidence fabrication) it’s an automatic loss and minimum speaks.

Before the round, both teams should verbally establish and agree on:

1. How evidence will be provided (USB, on paper, email chain, etc.)

2. When prep ends (when the speech doc is done, when the flashdrive leaves the computer, etc.)
3. Utilization of speed – I am absolutely against teams losing solely on being outspread.

4. Whether or not open cross-examination, extended cross-examination, prompting, flex prep, ins and outs, etc. are permitted (as long as the tournament allows it).

I consider this the establishment of the rules of the round, and I consider breaking of these rules cheating, which will result in an automatic down and minimum speaks if it is called out in later speeches, or if it’s in the 2AR, I’ll just vote on that.

Organization

Signposting and roadmaps are a must. I’ll still try to flow arguments that you don’t map out or signpost, but if I miss them because I’m lost, don’t be surprised. Also, please tell me if you feel that I should flow part of an argument on a separate sheet of paper such as framework, a link argument, impact, etc., and if you’re not clear, I’ll say “clear” as many times as I have to.

You also don’t have to use all of your speech or prep time if you feel like you don’t need it. I can almost guarantee you that we’re all hungry and/or tired.

At the end, or even during the round, I may call for evidence so don’t start closing documents or putting away files after the 2AR. For paperless debaters, chances are I will be asking for a copy of the speech doc before each speech.

Other

On dress, I know the “standard” for debate is fancy suit and tie stuff, but I really don’t care. Do what you have to do to be comfortable as long as it is legal. Also, technology’s not 100% reliable, so I can easily forgive a few malfunctions here and there.

If other judges in the room have a more strict way of running the round than I do and they really don’t want me running it my way, I’ll have to let them have their way.

General

Any argument goes, just give me a reason to vote, a mechanism to weigh, and make sure everything is clear to me.

I default to policymaker, which is the standard plan versus status quo or policy alternative, if not given a framework. I usually won’t vote off winning a certain stock issue or defensive argument unless there is literally zero reason to do the plan or that’s the framework that wins the round.

Try not to be rude without reason. I say "without reason" because I understand that some arguments or opponent attitudes may require or provoke a certain degree of rudeness.

Also, if other judges in the room have a stricter paradigm or rules, just follow them. No need for a war between judges.

Policy vs. Kritik Framework

I’m fine with either, but in all honesty am much more at home in policy rounds. I am very comfortable with kritiks on the negative as well as kritik impacts and “soft left/middle of the road” arguments, but micropolitics, performance, narratives, high theory kritiks, etc. have been a little difficult for me to understand. I have however voted for them in the past, so feel free to run them. Just be ready to explain your framing and methodology. If there’s any specific argument you want to ask me about, feel free.

Theory

At the beginning of the round, nothing is abusive until it is labeled as abusive. I will buy any theory or framework argument as long as it is defended well, but default to requiring real abuse unless a potential abuse framework is presented.

Topicality

I default to reasonability, but I’ll admit that I’m easily persuaded to vote on competing interpretations since it’s how I debated.

Case Arguments (Stock Issues)

Under my usual paradigm, these will only be used in impact calculus with your offcase arguments. However, I will switch to a stock issues paradigm if you can convince me to.

Disadvantages

Just make impact calculus arguments and win every component of the disad necessary. You don’t need a specific link to make me buy the disadvantage.

Counterplans

All you have to do is win that your counterplan is better than the plan and that you’re mutually exclusive.

Evidence Threshold

I have a high threshold for evidence. Chances are, if the debate comes down to a few cards, I will call for them after the round.

Speaker Points

Speaker points are used to determine breaks or placings at most tournaments, so based off that, I use speaker points as a 1-5 scale on how much I feel you deserve to break/place. (25 = 1, 30 = 5, anything lower than 25 probably means you cheated.) Most of the time, good debating, organization, clarity, etc. will get you high speaks. On the other hand, contrary to many judges, speaking like the world’s greatest motivational speaker will not get you high speaks if you’re clearly losing every argument.

Public Forum Paradigm

The round exists in a vacuum, assume I know nothing.

I feel that public forum has 2 forms of resolutions: resolutions of fact and resolutions of policy.

In resolutions of fact, simply prove your side right with your reasoning and evidence. I really can’t predict what these resolutions will be like, so I can’t give a holistic paradigm. In resolutions of policy, weigh the policy or potential policies against the status quo. However, in both resolutions, do give me a way to evaluate the round and interpret the resolution.

Also, since Public Forum was an event built to promote appeals to a common audience, I will ask that you try to preserve the mission of Public Forum and refrain from practices such as speed reading, utilization of heavy debate jargon, and reading straight from evidence like a policy debater does. However, I understand that all forms of debate are rapidly evolving and if the area you’re in does that, or that’s just your style then it’s no problem. In policy debate, I have a relatively high threshold for evidence, but in public forum, my threshold is substantially lower.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

The round exists in a vacuum, assume I know nothing.

I am open to any framework given, but without a given framework, I default to the side that results in a better world. This means that I am fine with policy style LD, but if one of the debaters is from a more traditional circuit, I would ask that the more progressive debater slows down and tones down policy-style arguments. My threshold for evidence will also decrease.

If both debaters agree that the round will be policy LD style, read my policy debate paradigm.

I am a traditional judge (don’t spread). I encourage you to use Value clash and weighing frequently. Stats and evidence is needed to support your arguments (my coach taught stats)- don’t just state them in your constructive. Your arguments that are extreme (war, extinction,racist, etc) need to be legitimatized. I don’t just buy the extreme arguments unless you prove they’re probable. Philosophical arguments aren’t as compelling without data. Use pathos too, it helps. Furthermore, my decision is made based on the Rebuttal. That’s what the focus of the debate should be. If you want me to focus on a point, say it in the rebuttal for it to factor into my decision. The Neg constructive is also the first neg rebuttal. Also, extend evidence. I admire weighing. Don’t just say your argument is better. Place your argument and your opponent’s on a scale, show me how your are comparatively better. Watch hot words in resolution like “on balance” or “just”. Advance the debate, evolve arguments to respond to what’s being said. Speaker points and speaking ability is a big help and your speaker points will be given accurately. Also, be polite! Use your cx to clarify, poke holes, and expose. Finally, keep your time and remember your prep. JUST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION SAYS OUGHT DOESN’T, IN THE SLIGHTEST, MEAN YOUR VALUE NEEDS TO BE MORALITY!! Your value needs to match the content of your case.

mashields@email.com

(Yes you are reading correctly this is not a gmail account.... you were most likely not born when this account was created in 1998)

Word of advice.... Always see if your judge has a posted paradigm online. Save yourself time and frustration and read for comprehension. Get clarification as needed and then don't just disregard what you find out about that judge.

YOUR MAIN CONCERN SHOULD NEVER BE SPEED. FOCUS ON CLARITY AND EFFICIENCY AND THE JUDGE WILL BE IN YOUR CORNER BY DEFAULT.

In CX please stand and face the judge only never your opponent and dont be "lazy" stand tall and proud. ALWAYS convey confidence.

My mindset going into the round is basic the AFF will prove that the plan or case is a viable/moral/good idea that I should approve of with them gaining the ballot. The NEG will prove that the AFF doesn't uphold or violates the resolution and that negating is the only truth of the resolution after all.

I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you that any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA you get the jist I have a zero tolerance policy for and I promise I will have no problem setting you straight dont test it.

POLICY

I strive to be Tabula R. but will always weigh STOCK ISSUES 1st. Don't overcomplicate the story bc presumption is also in play. Keep my flow clean and I am your friend ... if you don't then I make no promises. Remember your primary goal is to communicate a viable policy option so persuade me that you know what you are selling. Signposting is very important ... watch my flipping of pages etc since I still flow on paper. There should be structure not just 1 long stream of thought moving down the flow. Im big picture and open minded to strategy and games playing.

Neg's please don't just waste time throwing up 15 arguments when 3-4 will be more strategic... and please kick out properly. On K Aff's don't overlook simple stock issues burdens being dropped. I see a lot of teams not go for the obvious because they think that they are going to set off a trigger warning. ALWAYS get some case offense and defense unless you're going to truly commit to T.

Also plan out the positions for strategy even if generic.... sometimes things that still work get dropped too soon ... make the Aff work for it. Also cover as many stock issues as possible or at least go on case and really look for weaknesses. Always give us a reason to doubt the 1AC. Even if its a small chance it could be the tie breaker that gains you the ballot by pushing you into no other reason but to negate.

Topicality - rare that I vote on so be prepared to prove the abuse if its just a way to time skew then my advice is to spend another minute on case you have a better tradeoff that works for me.

Kritiks - the link in round is most important... also I need to believe that you know what you are trying to accomplish with the Kritik fyi not many high schoolers are truly prepared here so please do your due diligence... keep it simple.

Counterplans - net benefit and competition... give me a reason that the Plan is not the CP

Perms - slow down to speed up ... make sure that you dont leave any confusion

Framework - How do I evaluate the round ... Tell me what matters most.

LD

https://www.gdsdebate.com/resources/for-students/kicking-bad-habits-in-ld/#!/ (please read it will make life better for you)

In CX please stand and face the judge only never your opponent and dont be "lazy" stand tall and proud. ALWAYS convey confidence.

I prefer a more traditional approach to LD over progressive but I will adapt if you communicate to me what you want to happen.

I will always give you a fair evaluation no matter what you present as long as you are confident and OWN your personal compelling reasons to prefer how you interpret the resolution. Give me conceptual points over trying to fit in 5-7 more cards.

Again I prefer big picture logical storytelling not just more "evidence". That being said most importantly support your premise of the resolution and may the ballot be ever in your favor.

Aff - Take advantage of 1st and last speech. Never forget the importance of definitions and setting up a strong weighing mechanism in the AC. I have a super high threshold on theory so save yourself a lot of time in the 1AR giving me clear reasons that the Neg should have just read a counterdefinition rather than make you spend 2 minutes of your speech to address it properly. That to me is way more reasonable and actually kicks the abuse claims back on the Neg.

You set the tone dont waste it Tell us what the resolution wants us to settle and allow for your framework to work towards that goal. Give solid structure in your case and build great analytics from a wide variety of cards over just 1 author... the power of multiple sources backing up your advocacy is an advantage. I do prefer Value and Criteria.. still not sure how you can affirm without it. Any other "standards" can be easily challenged if a neg opponent calls a warranted BS.

Neg - I will allow policy positions but please understand that in a question of SHOULD/OUGHT/MORALITY that they don't always apply exactly the same. The goal isnt 1 man CX debate. In my humble but accurate opinion you do alot more work to achieve less results. Have fun and think of how u can be more productive by making life more complicated for your opponent rather than yourself. Again on reading Topicality I feel it is super abusive in LD because there are other ways to pressure your opponent into dropping arguments etc. You truly have to prove it ... it just makes more sense to me to just read a counterdefinition or to give a definition and now you get to redefine the round how you see it. Let's make life simple when it is an option.

PF

Ok after seeing too many rounds where this has become an issue I have to mention the following... BE NICE / CORDIAL to your opponents in the round and as a general policy for being a good human to each other. Rudeness and aggression will make me more likely to vote for the team that plays the game fairly and professionally. In CX I am used to the banter that teams have developed with teams that they hit all the time or the level of coyness blended with sass of an LD round but remember overall PF was intended to have the feel of a lay town meeting so I recommend keep it simple and it doesnt hurt to say the topic multiple times. NOTE no matter what popular opinions and trends try to tell you this isnt micro CX so dont overcomplicate your life. You have a very limited amount of time to win me over. Tell the story and AGAIN Keep it simple / Im an avg joe US taxpayer ... logic and confidence are key be captain obvious on my flow as to why you win !!

I am not a fan of spreading...if I can't understand you how can I make an informed decision on your position? If you are for or against the status quo then state that and be convincing and compelling. Don't forget the importance of definitions but just because the other side concedes to your definitions don't assume that is enough to win the round.

Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and an impact.

Tell me what you want me to vote on...give me a road map and sign post along the way. I am a fan of impacts and if you see a turn...go for it with all you have.

PF- has the feel of a "town" meeting so your argument should be kept simple..not to the point of being insulting. In this case...be sure you are factual/truthful with "commonly" known information. I am an educated, tax paying, home owning person.

I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you that any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA (you get the gist) I have a zero tolerance policy for...let's not test me on this issue please...I'd like to keep my hopes that we will continue to evolve into a society that is tolerant of how everyone wants to live their lives.

Congress: I am looking for full participation in the round. I am watching to see how active you are in questioning. I want to hear you give your argument for or against that is compelling and not a rehash of what's already been said throughout the round. I do not like watching speaks being given for the sake of giving a speech when we've already heard the same point stated in 3 previous speeches. Be clever and when you give your speech...I am stoked when you point out something said by the opposing side previously stated.