Head coach at Plano East Senior High.

I enjoy judging IEs most.
In Extemp: at TFA State I will be randomly source checking 1 source per speech, let’s not be making up our sources plz

In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.

-I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem.

-On case attacks are important!

-Theory & CPs good.

-Do not read at me while giving voters.

-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.

-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.

In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.

In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit. I have a lot less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge.

In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible.

Include me in on email chains: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu

I look forward to hearing you speak!

No Spreading

Debate:

Be respectful during crossfire and argue the opponents criteria with evidence. Provide a value and value criterion for your case. Contentions must be clear and make sure to introduce them rather than stating the title of each contention.

Speech:

Be clear and precise. Make sure your speech flows and comes full circle. I like to see analogies for OO. And Interp events must display a clear understanding of the introduced topic and be very clear.

my email: gusjones33@gmail.com

LD:

speed: I'm cool with any speed, as long as I have what you're reading.

Kritiks: I didn't really read much k-lit during LD so it needs to be well explained. I really dislike K-Aff's so please justify them well.

Theory: I also dislike theory, absolutely do not read this unless there is a clear abuse within the round. If you read unjustified theory I will vote you down.

Any other form of progressive argumentation is encouraged. Just remember LD is a moral debate, and that just because your evidence says you're right, it doesn't mean your case wins. Make your cards support your arguments, don't let them be your stance.

Any other questions feel free to ask

- I prefer no spreading

- please keep track of your own time

- I do not appreciate hostility/abuse during cx and such behavior will be reflected in your speaker points.

PF/LD: I will normally judge based off of the round. Okay with speed. Prefer it if you don't run theory arguments.

Interp: I will take piece selection into account. Prefer more versatile pieces that display a wider range of skill and talent.

Speaking Events: I will count evidence and fluency breaks. I will also keep track of how evenly your time is distributed. I would also appreciate some humor - more in Original Oratory, less in extemporaneous speaking events.

You have worked hard. Now is your time to shine.

Interp: I have been teaching speech for 8 years; and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know an engaging, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I will give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.

I am looking for clear characterization(s) both physically and vocally. Establish setting with blocking and business. Pantomime should be realistic and establish object permanence.(ex: a glass of water must be picked up and put down while maintaining a consistent shape and size. Refrigerators don't move unless the character moves them as part of the performance.)

Every performance must tell a story. You must convey the who, what, when, where, and why. Emotion is borne out of action.

Drama is is not all screaming and crying. Pauses and soft spoken words can often covey far more than NOISE.

Great acting may boost your rank, but I must understand what is happening and why. The performance must tell a story to receive a high rank in the round. Show that you have chosen material that is meaningful to you and with which you have a connection.

Humor arises from a character's total commitment to and belief in what they are doing and what is happening. Never TRY to be funny. It doesn't come off as humorous or believable. The absurdity of a situation should be evident to the audience, not the character. That's true comedy.

Most importantly, I want to be moved and entertained. Nothing is more thrilling than witnessing a great performance.

Please, let me know what time signals you prefer.

I truly appreciate all of the time and effort you put into preparing for these tournaments. Break a leg!

Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. My audio processing issue makes it difficult to comprehend 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round. I can't tell if you are making a good case or argument. I have judged too many debaters who have ignored this part of my paradigm, and I am left HOPING that I have chosen the winning side.

I am a 5th year coach who knows enough about LD, PF, and Congress to judge, but I am not a seasoned veteran. I teach speech and interp as well, so I KNOW about speaker points.

Simply because "everyone" in the debate world knows a term's meaning, doesn't mean your judge knows it. Ex: Flow that through to the neg/aff, structural violence, disad, block, kritik, voters, etc. (I know what these mean, but most lay judges do not).

I prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than running a theory shell. Show me what you know about DEBATE. I'm not a big fan of kritiks.

If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.

Plano West Senior High School ’19; 4 years of PF, 4 FX/DX

Myself:

I debated four years on the North Texas, Texas, and National circuits in PF and extemp. I did alright. If you want to email any speech docs/have questions about the round, here is my email (jamammen01@gmail.com).

PF Paradigm:

My paradigm is kind of long but there is an abbreviated version below. I don't think it is that different than the standard tab paradigm. Couple key points to bear in mind for those of you scanning 5 minutes before round begins:

I will not buy unwarranted arguments even if the warrants are in previous speeches. This is true for simple claims, citations of evidence, and weighing. If a warrant is properly carried through, then the impacts that subsequently follow from previous speeches will be implicitly carried through. If neither side does the legwork necessary, I will lower my threshold for requisite warranting until I find the argument best warranted. Also weigh, I like that.

1) Tech>Truth, argument conceded = 100% true, no intervention (barring #11) unless you make a morally reprehensible claim

2) The 2nd rebuttal has to cover turns or I consider them dropped. On the flip side if turns are dropped, they act as terminal defense. Also in 2nd rebuttal don't read new offensive overviews it doesn't give the opponent's enough time to respond.

3) Defense is sticky even with a 3-minute summary. i.e. even if defense on case is dropped, it must be responded to for case to be evaluated. Offense evaluated must be in the summary, but an uncontested impact will be implicitly flowed through even when not terminalized if the warrant is read (read the full description below).

4) Crossfire is non-binding in the sense that you can tack extra analysis in the next speech to try and get out of a concession

5) If offense survives 2 speeches untouched (barring case), it's dropped

6) Don't use "risk of offense" unless absolutely necessary

7) Need parallelism in summary/final focus, offensive extensions must be in both speeches

8) All extensions should include a warrant and impact (including turns). Summary must extend full argument

9) Proper weighing and collapsing are crucial to having the best possible round

10) No new args/weighing in second ff

11) If they have an argument straight turned, you cannot kick it

12) No new evidence in second summary unless it is responding to new evidence in the first summary

13) Do not try and shift advocacy after rebuttals

14) Anything you want me to write on my ballot should be in summary and final focus. If your opponents drop an argument or don’t respond to sticky defense, you still have to extend it for me to evaluate it.

15) PF is a debate event, but part of it is speaking. speaks are given on how well you speak (more details below)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

Whole paradigm below:

Personal Preferences

Preflowing - Preferably already done before you walk into round. I don't mind if you take a few minutes before the round starts but after 5 minutes, we are starting the round.

Coin Flip – Flip outside if you want or in front of me, either one is fine. Just make sure that both teams are in agreement

Sitting/Standing/etc. - If you guys want to sit in all the crossfires then go ahead. I do prefer however that during actual speeches you stand, it just looks more professional that way

Asking Questions after I disclose/RFD - post round discussion is good for the activity, ask away.

Lastly, I’ll always try to disclose my decision and reasoning if permitted to do so, and always feel free to approach me and ask me questions about the round (jamammen01@gmail.com). I firmly believe round feedback is the best way to improve in this event, and I would love to be a contributor to your success.

Too many judges get away not evaluating properly, not paying attention in round, etc. and while people do make mistakes, I think direct discussion between competitors and the judge offers an immediate partial fix. Asking questions ensures that judges are held accountable and requires them to logical defend and stand by their decisions. I do ask that you refrain from making comments if you didn't watch the round.

O Postround me if you want to. I am happy to discuss the round with anyone who watched, regardless if you were competing.

O I'd encourage anybody reading this who disagrees with general postround discussion to read this article which goes in depth about the benefits of post round oral disclosure and why this practice is more beneficial than harmful to the debate space

Spectators - In elims, anyone is allowed to watch. You don't have a choice here, if you're trying to kick people out who want to watch I'm telling them they can stay. In prelims, if both teams can agree to let a spectator watch then they are allowed in. That being said, be reasonable, I will intervene if I feel compelled. I would ask that if you are watching, watch the full round. Do not just flow constructives and leave.

General Evaluation

- Tech>truth. In context of the round, if an argument is conceded, it's 100% true. The boundaries are listed right above. Other than that, I really don't care how stupid or counterfactual the statement is. If you want me to evaluate it differently, tell me.

- I go both ways when it comes to logical analysis v. strong evidence. Do whichever works better for you. Be logical as to what needs to be carded.

- Well warranted argument (carded or not) > carded but unwarranted empiric. In the case both sides do the warranting but it is not clear who is winning, I will likely buy the carded empiric as risk

- Conceding nonuniques/delinks to kick out of turns, etc. are all fine by me. However, if your opponent does something dumb like double turn themselves or read a nonunique with a bunch of turns, I will not automatically get rid of the turn(s). Once it flows through two speeches you've functionally conceded it and I'm not letting you go back and make that argument.

- Reading your own responses to kick an argument your opponents have turned definitively is not a thing. Even if your opponents do not call you out A) you will lose speaker points for doing this, B) I'm not giving you the kick.

- If offense is absent in the round, I will default neg. I believe that I have to have a meaningful reason to pass policy and change the squo.

- I would highly encourage you to point out if defense isn't responsive so I don't miss it. That being said, I try my best to make those judgement calls myself based on my understanding of the arguments being made so I don't require you to make that clarification. A non-offense generating dropped arg that doesn't interact with an offensive extension is meaningless.

- Another thing I hate that's become more common is debaters just saying "this evidence is really specific in saying _____", "you can call for it, it's super good in saying _____", and other similar claims to dodge having to engage with warranting of responses. If you say these things explain why the warrant in it matters and how it interacts with your opponent’s case.

- If neither team weighs or does meta comparison, I will intervene. Preference: Strength of Link > Subsuming Mechanisms > Comparative Weighing > Triple Beam Balance.

Speech Preferences

- Second speaking rebuttal MUST address turns at the very least from first rebuttal or I consider them dropped. I think that both teams have a right to know all responses to their offense so they can go about choosing what to go for in summ/ff in the best possible way. Second speaking team already has a lot of structural advantages and I don't think this should be one of them.

- I need parallelism between summary and final focus. This means all offense, case offense, turns, or whatever you want me to vote off need to be in both speeches. Do not try to shift your advocacy from summary to final focus to avoid defense that wasn't responded to.

- Highly would prefer line by line up until final focus, this should be big picture. This doesn’t mean ignore warrants, implicating impacts, and weighing. I will evaluate line by line final focuses however.

Framing

- If framing is completely uncontested, I don't need you to explicitly extend the framework as long as you're doing the work to link back into it. On the other hand, if framework is contested, you must extend the framework in the speech following a contestation as well as the reasons to prefer (warrants) your framing or I will consider it dropped. If framework flows uncontested through two speeches it is functionally conceded and becomes my framework for evaluation. If framing is not present in the round, the LATEST I am willing to buy any framing analysis is rebuttal. Any time after that, I expect you to do comparative analysis instead.

-I usually default CBA absent framing. Of course, if you present and warrant your own framework this doesn't really matter

Weighing/Collapsing

- Weighing is essential in the second half of the round if you want my ballot. It can even be done in the rebuttal if you feel it is helpful. I believe collapsing is a crucial aspect that allows for better debate, don’t go for everything.

- I think that second final focus shouldn't get access to new weighing unless there has been no effort made previously made in the round in regards to weighing. Weighing should start in summary AT LATEST. Exception is if there is some drastically new argument/implication being made in first final which shouldn’t happen.

- Weighing and meta weighing are arguments. Arguments must be warranted. Warrant your weighing.

- No new terminalization of impacts in final focus (i.e. do not switch from econ collapse leading to job loss to econ collapse leading to poverty)

Extensions

- Extensions should include the warrant and impact, not just the claim and/or impact. Also just saying "extend (author)" is NOT an extension. I don't need you to explicitly extend an impact card if your impact is uncontested but I do need to get the implication of what your impact is somewhere in your speech. When evaluating an argument as a whole I generally reference how I interpreted the argument in the constructive unless distinctions/clarifications have been made later in the round.

- THE SUMMARY MUST EXTEND THE FULL ARG (UNIQ, LINK, Internal Link, Impact) This is especially true for case args or turns. On defense, the warrant and how it interacts/blocks your opponents arg is fine. A 3-minute summary increases my threshold for this extension.

- I advise that even though defense is sticky, extend critical defensive cards in summary and weigh them. I am more inclined to buy it.

- My threshold for extension on a dropped arg is extremely low but even then, I need you to do some minimal warrant/impact extension for me to give you offense

-Even if the opponents don't do a good job implicating offense on a turn (reference above), the turn still functions as terminal defense if extended. Just saying the opponents don't gain offense off of a turn doesn't mean the defensive part of an extended turn magically disappears....

-Turns need to be contextualized in terms of the round or you need to give me the impact for me to vote on it by summary/ff. They don't have to be weighed but it'd probably be better for you if you did. A dropped turn by the other team isn't a free ballot for you until you do the work on some impact analysis or contextualization.

Progressive arguments:

*Under NSDA Rules/Not TFA* - Please run args within the boundaries of NSDA competition rules. If you don't, I can't vote for you even if you win the argument

I don’t like these arguments and am inclined not to vote on them as they should not be very prominent in pf and should not be seen as free wins. I think that the discussions that are created through theory are good, but should be had outside the setting of round. That being said however, if there is a clear violation by your opponents, run theory and I will vote on it. Do not run disclosure theory, you will get dropped.

Speaks/Speed:

TLDR: My range is generally 27-30. Below 27 means you were heavily penalized or said something offensive, 29+ means I thought you did an exceptionally good job. I give all 30s on bubble rounds, anyone with a good record should clear. Speaks should not be the difference in you breaking if you win the bubble round.

- I can handle moderate speed, just don’t spread or you’ll lose me. I will clear if I cannot understand you and if I have to clear multiple times, we're going to have a problem. If I miss something, not my problem. If you think an email chain would be helpful, start one and add me (jamammen01@gmail.com). Good job for reading this long you deserve a reward, creative contention names geet +.5 speaker points .

- General Penalties (This is just a condensed, but not all inclusive, list of speaker point issues listed elsewhere in the paradigm):

1) Taking too long to preflow (.5 for every extra minute after first 5 min)

2) Taking too long pull up evidence

3) Unnecessary clears during opponent speeches (.5 per)

4) Stealing Prep. This is unacceptable, you will be punished heavily if I catch you

5) Severe clarity issues that aren't fixed after consecutive clears

6) Using progressive args to try and get free wins off novices

7) Trying to do anything abusive - read your own responses to turns, reading conditional cps, floating pics, etc.

8) Severe evidence misrepresentation (Trust me you probably won't want to see your speaks if you do this)

-Bonus speaks. I have added more ways to get bonus speaks, whether you utilize them is up to you

1) Reading case off paper (.1 bonus for each partner)

2) Appropriate humor and/or Crossfire power moves (varies)

3) +1 if your laptops are just closed(without misrepresenting evidence)

Evidence:

- I will call for evidence if I am explicitly told to do so or if there is a gap in both warranting and/or card comparison. I will also call if I am just curious.

- I would suggest having cut cards for anything you read available.

- If your evidence is shifty through the round (I.e. what you claim it to say changes notably between speeches), I'm calling for it and dropping it if misrepresented.

- Powertagging: It happens, pretty much everyone does it but it better not be misrepresented.

- "Made up"/ "Can't Find" Evidence Policy: In the case I call for evidence after the round, I may request for the citations and your interp/paraphrase/etc. to look for it myself if you claim you "can't find it", but it will be looked down upon.

o L/20 and probably a report to coaches if you refuse to give me this information when asked because that sends me a strong signal there's something really sketchy about this ev that you don't want me to see.

o If you cannot produce the original card you cited, it is dropped

o If I think what you are citing sounds ridiculous/doesn't exist I will search for it. Low Speaks if I cannot find anything similar to what you cited with the given quotations/interp - I assume it's either severely powertagged or made up.

Round Disclosure:

- I’ll always try to disclose with rfd and critiques after the round. I am also open to disclosing your speaks if you want to know.

-I will still disclose even if I am the only judge on the panel to do so.

- No disclosure policies are dumb as I think these policies encourage bad judging but I will respect them.

Lastly, if you're still slightly/somewhat/very confused on understanding my ideology and position as a judge, I've linked the paradigms of a couple people who have probably had the biggest personal influence on how I view debate and the role of a judge:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53914

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=54964

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=art&search_last=tay

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=84007

Feel free to ask me any other questions before or after the round (jamammen01@gmail.com)

Debate is meant to be a fun sport, so win or lose, try to enjoy the round. Have fun!

LD/CX Paradigm

If you get me as a judge in these events, I AM SO SORRY. My best advice would be to treat the round like a pf one, as this is how I will be evaluating it. This means going a bit slower and keeping theoretical/progressive arguments to a minimum. I will however, evaluate these arguments to the best of my ability if they are presented to me. Again, very sorry.

Extemp Paradigm

IDK if anyone is actually going to be looking at this, but I will write one just in case. I am a very flow judge even in extemp. I believe that what you are saying matters more that how you say it. That being said, this is a speaking event and how you say things matters. (I say like 70% what you say, 30% how you say it). This means not just reading off a bunch of sources like an anchor, give me your analysis on the topic. That is what will boost your rank. In terms of speaking speak clear and confident. Also, I like humor, make me laugh. Any Marvel references are appreciated.

If you say anything super questionable or unreasonable, I will fact check it. If it turns out you were making things up, it will be reflected negatively on the ballot.

Random

Also if the round is super late and you guys don't want to debate (i.e. not bubble round or higher bracket) we can settle the round with a game of smash or poker or smthg...if you guys are good with it.

Lastly, have fun!

email chain: sarah.manjee@utexas.edu

I debated LD for 4 years at Colleyville Heritage and I am a first year out

I primarily did larp debate, but I’m comfortable with ks and phil if it is explained well. I def like a good larp round. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps were my thing. I don’t like judging theory rounds a lot and hate frivolous theory. I’d say I'm least comfortable judging tricks so if that's your A strat I probably wouldn't pref me. Do clear weighing and have a clear ballot story. Speed is fine, i'll yell clear. Other than that, I want to see good clash in round. You can get high speaks if you read something interesting, make me laugh, and just be nice to your opponent.

TL/DR:

Preferred pronouns: he/him

I debated for Garland High School for four years in LD. I routinely competed on the national circuit and broke at multiple bid tournaments over the years. I now attend the University of Texas at Dallas ( Class of 23') for Finance.

Speed: feel free to spread in front of me, I can probably handle your top speed but I will say clear should the need arise.

Disclosure: please disclose and throw me on the email chain @ goldentomahawk20@gmail.com

LARP: go for it and go all out this is what I know extremely well

K's: don't be afraid to go one off k just make sure you can explain the thesis really well because I had some limited experience. Check the in depth section below for more information on my experience.

T and theory: I'm all fine on this layer but just please don't spread analytics at full speed because that will make me sad. I have a low threshold for frivolous theory so just keep that in mind but aside from that I don't have an opinion on most shells.

Phil: Do not assume I know your Phil NC at all. Practically no experience during my career but go for it if you think it's strategic.

Skep/ Presumption/Tricks debate: I wouldn't advise going for this in front of me because I of my lack of experience with this debate and my personal dislike for it.

I'll allow you to run any argument you want in the round as long as it doesn't promote racism, sexism, ableism, etc.

In depth- section:

LARP: This is what I consider myself to be the best at.

everything else: just ask me specific questions you have before the round that you have

February 2020:

After some months back on the circuit, I've had some other realizations about my paradigm. Please don't go for skep in front of me, I have an extremely low threshold for it and am unlikely to vote for it/ evaluate it the way you want me to. When it comes to high level, multi-layered t/theory debate, please flash analytics that you're reading because that makes my life way easier and also make sure to do some weighing between the layers that allows me to decide which layer to adjudicate first.

January 2021:

Haven't judged on the circuit since TFA state so wouldn't recommend blasting full speed right out the gate. Aside from that the rest of the paradigm is the same.

October 2022: If you're gonna blitz through analytics, do us both the favor and send them to me. I know you're not spreading analytics off the dome at top speed for complex layer analysis. Don't force me to resolve 5+ layers of debate without implicating them and telling me how to vote in the 2nr or the 2ar. Also, I have a high threshold for condo bad especially if it's one condo advocacy.

February 2023:

After so many years of judging and hearing the same non-t affs over and over again. I would highly advise against reading very buzzword-centric non-topical affs that frankly aren't interesting to listen to. I much prefer listening to interesting new policy affs that have some sort of basis for new engagement and contestation. If you do choose to read it, I will err heavily towards t- framework and similar style arguments unless thoroughly and well beat back. If you absolutely must read it, then make sure to really explain every point of the thesis in detail during cross or your rebuttals or extensions. I'm much more likely to vote for it if If fundamentally understand why it's SO IMPORTANT that you cannot affirm the resolution.

Garland HS (2015 - 2019)

UC Berkeley (2019 - )

Current Conflicts: Garland (TX)

Pronouns: he/him -- I'll default to they/them if I don't know you

Experience:

My name is Khoa (pronounced Kwah, not Kowuh -- just call me by my first name plz). I did LD for Garland HS for four years and competed on the national circuit for two. I got a bid my senior year. I barely keep up with debate anymore, so just make sure to explain topic-specific acronyms and stuff. Oh and start at like 80% speed and work your way up.

Online Update:

Both debaters should keep a local voice recording during the debate! If you happen to drop off the call, then just keep going and send us a link to it after ur done with the speech. We'll listen to it during ur tech time. If you don't make a local copy, I'm not ok with u re-giving a speech / pausing mid-speech to fix the tech error -- so plz keep a local recording !!!

I'll call clear/slow a maximum of twice before I start to dock speaks.

TL;DR:

Flight 2 should have the doc sent as soon as the round starts. Also plz include the tournament name, round number, you and your opponent's school+code in the subject line.

Email (both of them plz): garlanddebatedocs@gmail.com, kpham1234@gmail.com

I've realized that I can get really bored during rounds. it is in your best interest to make sure that doesn't happen.

Claims that assert that debate is not a competitive activity are fundamentally unpersuasive to me.

Disclosure of first 3/last 3 of all broken positions is the minimum if you are debating in front of me. Failure to do so will result in your speaks being capped at 28 (and I will check), though I will still evaluate the rest of the debate normally.

I start at a 28.5 - and then work my way up or down. Probably won't give out a 30 but it's not hard to get good speaks in front of me. If I think you should break, you'll get >29 for sure.

In HS, I mainly read policy arguments with the occasional frivolous theory shell. I didn't dabble too much in phil or K debate. So in terms of stuff I'm most comfortable evaluating it goes something like: policy/T > policy v K > theory > phil > KvK > tricks

I don't like how the word "unsafe" has been used in rounds in front of me. I think it means something to accuse your opponent of making debate a harmful / violent place, and I take these accusations seriously. I will always intervene in cases of overt bigotry, but I will err on the side of letting y'all hash things out. But just as a side note, I don't think labeling arguments as racist with little explanation and then calling them "independent voters" is particularly persuasive (if anything it's the opposite, and I may start penalizing this practice if it becomes unbearable).

Non-Negotiables:

- Do not be a bigot. I also have mixed feelings about death good .. like if this is ur sort of argument idk just be tasteful.

- Speech times, prep time, and speaker order are set by the nsda/tfa/tourney/whatever, and cannot be changed by students

- There is one person speaking per constructive/rebuttal. Cx is between two people. Prompting is fine.

- A debate happens in front of me. Don't justify a dance-off, a mariokart game, discussion etc. Only exception to this rule is if you're conceding the round - in which it's your best interest to tell me as soon as you can so i dont have to waste my time

- I am the sole arbiter of speaker points (i.e. don't ask me for a 30)

- I will not evaluate arguments that involve stuff that happened outside of the round apart from disclosure

- You cannot use ad-homs against ur opponent

- Any attempts to violate these rules will result in a L0 for the initiating team

Ev Ethics: (putting this nearer to the top b/c plagiarism is bad and some of u don't understand why ???)

- I will stop the debate if an accusation is made. Whoever is on the right side of the accusation gets a W30, whoever is wrong gets an L with the lowest possible speaks.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation, but you might as well go for the accusation because I will evaluate this debate like any other theory debate. That being said winning "miscutting ev good" is simply not true and probably an uphill battle in front of me.

- Please have complete citations -- I think this includes author name, qualifications, date written, and the title of the article -- if you lack one of these things you should make an explicit note of it in the cite! If you don't and your opponent points this out, I will prob not evaluate the card and ur speaks will suffer. It would also be in ur best interest to make this a voting issue! I am more than okay with citations theory even if the violation is just limited to one card.

- I won't flow cards written by high schoolers or debate coaches who do not have professional expertise in the field of study the ev comes from. I think this is an academically dishonest practice that is honestly just easily remedied with taking the extra 5min to find better ev.

- Don't clip cards! I'll read along in the doc if I notice this might be happening. If I notice this happens during prelims, I will wait for the debate to finish then give you an L and give you the lowest possible speaks at the tournament. If I notice this happens during outrounds, I'll probably just end up stopping the round or wait til the end to give you the L.

- Brackets theory is fine in front of me considering how egregious bracketing can get.

- If you miscut your evidence and i notice it, I will give u an L regardless of whether ur opponent points it out or not

Policy:

- I find myself voting aff more than neg in these debates and I think the main issue here is 1NC construction, not technical ability. I also think affs should be more comfortable waving away incomplete arguments / repetitive cross-applications, and will reward your ability to distinguish between an argument that is worth answering in the 1AR and one that is not.

- I am more than fine with impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR -- I don't understand how someone can make weighing arguments in the 1AC considering you don't know the 1NC (?)

- I'm more willing than most to read through evidence after the round, so don't be afraid to call out bad ev. That being said, if you call a piece of ev bad and it is very obviously good then I might not read the rest of the evidence u wanted me to read.

- Presumption goes neg unless the neg goes for an advocacy in the 2NR.

- I think condo is generally good, but winning condo bad isn't impossible in front of me if the 1nc is cheese.

- Squo is always a logical option if you defend a conditional advocacy, and I'm more than happy to judge-kick unless the aff says I can't in the 1AR. [contest this if you think it'll be relevant! i'm more than happy to ignore my defaults, though I don't find this mattering in many LD rounds!] The reason I do this is that I think no judge-kick is logically equivalent to treating perms as advocacies, which doesnt rly make sense to me.

- 1ARs should be reading condo bad, CP theory, etc. whenever they can. I generally lean neg on theoretical issues when the aff is unclear/new, but pretty much a blank slate for everything else. I think teams should also be using vagueness as reasons to err their way on questions of competition, solvency, etc., and would love sifting through these technical debates as long as done well!

- Inserting ev is fine if and only if it would literally make zero sense to read it out loud. If there are charts, I still expect some kind of verbal summary.

K:

- Your K must disprove, turn, or otherwise outweigh the case -- otherwise I see no reason to vote for you. Stop relying on bad ROB arguments and make actual impact framing claims!

- The threshold of explanation for kritiks (especially the alternative) are gonna be a bit higher than you're used to if you read something other than cap or afropess. I'm a little familiar with DnG and Baudrillard, but I'd really appreciate it if you went 90% speed during the 2NR overview.

- I think 1NC CX is really important for K debates in front of me. I will handsomely reward K debaters that make an effort in good faith to actually explain what was just read.

- If the 1NC flags K tricks (alt solves case, turns case, RC, floating PIK, etc.) explicitly, then the 1AR has to respond to them. I'm actually more than fine with the 2NR being the first time I hear "alt solves case", but the 2AR definitely gets to respond to this implication (not the argument itself).

- Please put all your links on the K sheet. Reading links on the case sheet will annoy me unless they directly respond to the aff.

- If you say the words 'pre/post-fiat' I probably won't flow the argument.

Phil:

- I do not understand half of these debates. And of the phil debates I have judged so far 100% of them have been decided on extinction outweighs. You need to explain this stuff using words that are <10 letters long !!

- I read Kant a lot against affs that I didn't have prep against, but not much else. I also made a Hobbes file, but never broke it. Other than that, I don't really know that much phil.

- Analytic dumps are fine -- just go a bit slower on them (80% speed) so I can catch them. I don't flow (nor backflow) off the doc, so the risk of me not catching something increases the faster you go and the more tired I am.

- I default ethical confidence, but am easily persuaded towards a more modest stance. Also I have no idea what it means for an aff to "not defend implementation???" / what truth-testing means, and I think regardless of the framework u read u still need to mitigate the risk of the case (either through answering it or reading some sort of CP).

Theory:

- You always need a counter-interpretation, even if you go for reasonability. You should also meet that counter-interpretation. I'm more than fine with paragraph theory and honestly prefer theory to be read this way. No, you do not need paradigm issues, but if you think your opponent will challenge them you might as well start the debate early. I don't think you need a reasonability b/l

- I default drop the arg for everything except condo and T, but this is a very soft default. Saying "[X] is a voting issue" at the top of a shell is enough to change this default. Note: some of you have been abusing this to make very underdeveloped theory arguments in front of me. I won't be happy, and the threshold for responding to these arguments will be very low. Friv theory =/= underdeveloped theory

- The RVI is winnable in front of me, though I don't think its a very strategic time investment in most rounds. Have not voted on one thus far.

- I read friv theory sometimes when I debated. Just don't read it against novices and you'll be ok

- The 2AR doesn't have to extend substance if the 2NR is only T/theory. If the 2NR goes for both theory and some case turns then the 2AR obviously has to extend case.

- I really, really, really like disclosure. If your opponent hasn't disclosed, even at locals, feel free to read disclosure theory provided you also meet your own interpretation (and I will check). I came from a very small debate program and still disclosed open-source. If you're debating in front of me, disclosure of first 3/last 3 of broken positions is the minimum. If disclosure is read on you, you will probably lose if you do not disclose. I will happily listen to full-text vs open-source, new affs bad, etc. and evaluate them like normal theory debates.

Tricks:

- I debated in Texas, and no one ever really triggered presumption against me. I know what it means in theory, but if you're gonna do it in front of me, you should explain it a bit more than you're used to if you debate in the Northeast.

- I won't tank your speaks for going for them (especially if you go for them well), but these debates aren't really what I wanna listen to.

K affs/T-USFG:

- Your 1ARs against FW or T-USFG must have a counter-interpretation that articulates a vision of the topic! Counter-defining terms of the resolution is a good idea in front of me. "Direction of the topic" or "Your interp plus my aff" are 99.9% of the time non-starters (these counterinterps would make zero sense for a policy aff). If your K aff has nothing to do with the topic, you probably shouldn't read it in front of me since I have a hard time justifying voting for an aff that negs have 0 ability to predict.

- I think that even if your A-strat is to go for impact turns you still need some sort of counterinterp to provide uniqueness for them.

- Fairness is definitely an impact, and I will happily listen to other impacts like topic ed, skills, etc. I don't think I'd be persuaded by impact turns to limits.

KvK:

- I would probably not be very good at adjudicating this.

Vs Novices/Traditional Debaters:

- Just don't be a terrible/mean person and you'll be okay. At bid tournaments, you will be okay going full speed / just winning the round decisively. I will heavily reward ending speeches early, please do NOT take 6min for your 2nr if there is a conceded position!

- If you're debating a novice/traditional debater at any non-bid tournament and you do the following I will guarantee you a 29.5:

--- Reading at most 2 sheets

--- Going 50% speed

--- Making sure they have access to the speech doc

--- Not reading theory (you can read T)

--- Winning the round decisively with no 2NR/2AR outs for your opponent

--- Finishing your speeches early (pls!!!) I might give you a W30 if the speech is < 2 min.

I'll judge mainly based on what the debaters tell me I have no particular preference to the way that arguments are presented. I don't mind speed and I don't mind talking slowly, I've dealt with both so neither will be a problem.

Speaker Points-
Even though I don't have a particular preference to the style. I tend to give higher speaker points for those that are clear. I have also noticed that if you can read faster and clear I tend to give those debaters higher speaker points. I'm just stating a general trend of mine. However, if you speak slow and clear I'm not gonna take any points away from you.

Theory-
Theory has a purpose for calling out abuse in the round. I know how theory works and both debaters should tell me how its gonna break down in the round when compared with on case arguments.

Topicality-
Topicality- I'm down with topicality. I think that there are way more violations of topicality violations that could be called out. I also in general believe that this may be beneficial for some clarity on the topic area.

RVI's-
RVIs are probably good in that they serve a purpose against frivolous theory arguments. But I won't automatically give you one unless you give me a reason (a counter interpretation would be a good reason to have an RVI) If you tell me RVIs are good and there is no response to it then I'll vote on an RVI, same applies if I get told RVIs are bad, but I won't vote on it then obviously

Framework-
I think framework is useful for debaters to use, but if you don't give me an explicit framework then I'll either default util. But if you tell me another impact is way more important than others without a typical Criterion/Standard form, then that will be ok.

Overall framework is important for making it clear what is more important in a round, but there are other ways to establish what is more important or what is offense/defense. As long as I know what to care about and why then I'm a happy judge- or I'll default util and I'll still be a happy judge

CP-
Yeah I'm down read them

DAs-
Yeah I'm down read them

Plans-
Yeah, I'm down read them

Stock LD cases -
Yeah, I'm down read them (They may not be as strategic at times but thats your choice)

Ks-
Yeah I'm down read them- critical literature belongs in LD I encourage it- unless you're bad at K lit or haven't read it
Overall-
I'm down with with anything. Be sure to debate what you're good at, because its the only way debate will be productive or fun. (just don't be a bad person)

Tell me
1) What your argument is
2) the arguments impacts
3) Why they are more important than your opponents

Howard Ritz

I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 26 twenty six years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.

My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.

My judging philosophy is to get out of the way in the round as much as possible to let the competitors argue what I should be voting for.

If you say it, and prove it, and apply it, I'll buy it.

I have judged LD for the last 5 years. I prefer traditional arguments with logical analysis and strong evidence for PF and LD. Good Luck!

Coaching History:

Mansfield Legacy [2023-Present]
Byron Nelson High School (2018-2021)
Royse City High School (2013-2018; 2021-2023)
Email: matthewstewart@misdmail.org (do please include me in any email chains)

General Preferences [updated as of 3/14/24]:

Theory
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.

Disclosure:

Don't run it. I think open source is good and should be the standard, but I don't care for it being used as an argument to smash small schools without prep.

Framework:
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round, you still need to leverage it for your offense.


Speed:
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.

Round Conduct:
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges or your opponents! We're all here to learn and grow academically, remember that.

Speaker Points:
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you most likely said something unabashedly offensive or were just generally hostile towards your opponents.

Miscellaneous Stuff

-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you. BUT that doesn't mean you can get away with making unwarranted arguments or not doing extensions, impacts, or weighing like a good debater should!

-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but I will respect the norms of the circuit I am judging in.

-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.

-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!

-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. No more. No less.

-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had when you first started. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.

-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops

-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot. Don't assume we're both on the same flow page or that I can read your mind.

-Sending the doc or speech is part of prep time. I will not stop prep until the doc is sent.

I have been an educator for over fifteen years, and a Debate and Oral Interpretation coach for over five years. My primary concern is ensuring debaters learn skills that prepare them for the future. Here are three principles to keep in mind for your round with me:

Have fun. Debate in a way that you can keep your cool. Don't stress out - it's all good. We're just throwing some ideas around to see what sticks, something philosophers have been doing forever.

Learn lots. Debate in a way that shows you have learned something valuable. I want to hear clear, concise, thoughtful arguments with effective and logical counters to your opponent. Please note that I have a slight hearing impairment that makes it difficult for me to follow spreading. I appreciate clear signposting. Overall, I prefer quality over quantity, and if you do a better job of making your case and defending it, you win.

Be good. Debate in a way that shows respect for your opponent and the judge. No one at this competition deserves to be treated disrespectfully.

That's it! Have fun, learn lots, be good!