I am an attorney and a christian minister who wants to judge. I like to see that you came prepare and ready to win your round. You need determination in anything you will do with your life so let’s start from now. Please present your arguments clearly and make sure to tell me why you should win this round. Use cards, evidence, sources, examples and whatever else you can to support your arguments! Only because you said so won't be enough. Less is better than repeating similar points. If you can’t prove your arguments, if you can’t turn your oponen arguments either I will vote you down. Reading is fine but make eye contact with the judge and audience if they are any, even if is online. I allow audience if they are in silence and if they respect others. Speedy speech is fine as long as you are understandable. Please use prep and cross examination time wisely, I probably have another round after you so I can’t waste time. Time yourself but if the alarm sounds please finished your phrase, thank you. Enjoy what you do and good luck !

Debate is an educational activity, and part of that education is two people negotiating on the terms of the round. Do what you need to do for both competitors to have the best round possible.

If you're somebody whose case is claiming end-of-world level harms, have very strong links, and the fewer the better. I'm not a fan of scorched-Earth arguments that are tenuous at best.

Spreading is fine, but enunciate, and know your cards. It's more distracting (and detrimental to your overall speech) if you're going fast and stumbling rather than simply slowing down a bit. I am not a judge that will yell clear - the burden of clarity is on the speaker, not the listener.

I don't want to be yelled at all round. Think about that if that's what you depend on "loud" as your method of presenting everything you have to say.

I am a flow judge, but have been known to not take as many notes for 1A if it's a stock case I've already heard 8 rounds of.

Need a timer/Don't know how long speeches are? https://debatetimers.com/ld/ld.html

FAQ

Do you want to be on the email chain?

No, no I don't. The burden of me following the round, your arguments, and your evidence is on you PRESENTING this information to me - not on my reading your case. If I have to read your case to follow, you are not doing your job.

Secondly, it's MUCH more likely I will pick apart your evidence and quality of your cutting if I'm on the email chain.

Do you have any paradigms/preferences?

Isn't that why I filled this out? If you ask this, I'm going to assume you've not read this paradigm.

No - I want you to have the best round you can with the style of debate you and the other debater want to have. My own personal preferences don't come in - but read above the FAQ if you want the info on what I am more receptive to generally.

Do you disclose/give oral feedback?

No. I typically read my flow and make my decision after the round so that every speech is able to be really considered in the decision.

Oral critiques cause tournaments to run behind, and written critiques can be reviewed over time to improve overall.

For people who see this as a "I want to win the tournament" this is frustrating - but I am giving feedback that is meant to be a more long-term improvement over how to win your next round. There are exceptions for egregious errors in rounds. (Please don't make me do that.)

Do you care where I sit?

Nope! I do my best to position myself in the room so there's a clear presentation area.

Don't tear up the room moving furniture around too much. It's a respect for the teachers who are letting us borrow their space. Whatever you move, put it back. (I won't take off speaker points, but I will be annoyed!)

I have judged over a hundred rounds of LD and Policy rounds and am a former Policy debater who competed at the highest levels in TX UIL. I currently work in higher education and am new to coaching LD.

I consider myself to be a learner, an educator, so that shapes how I view LD rounds. I am open to a wide variety of cases, traditional, progressive, or otherwise, so long as the arguments are clear, sound, and valid. The burden is on you to educate me, to persuade me of your viewpoint.

With that said, LD is a values debate so focus your argumentation on why a certain value should be upheld. You should strive for clarity in communication and cogency in argumentation.

Weighing arguments is crucial and you should expect that I will not complete arguments for you. Remember, you are educating me on your value position and why it's superior. Superiority is established by philosophical justification, clear evidence, significance and relevance to the round, and well-reasoned argumentation.

So it's important to articulate the standards by which you believe I should adjudicate the round. For example, in a more traditional case, the links and impacts to the value/criterion are essential. Yet, kritiks should justify why the resolution should be upended in support of a particular value.

I'm open to a variety of cases so long as you're clear, weigh the arguments, and establish why its the best way to adjudicate the round. Creativity is highly encouraged! Nevertheless, it must be thoughtful, cogent, and well-established. Might be a high bar for some to attain in a short period of time.

During rebuttals, be sure to identify which arguments have emerged in the round as most important and why.

Speaker points range from 25-30 with 30 being no issues with clarity regardless of speed and strong rhetorical abilities, compelling; and 25 being consistent concerns with clarity, glaring rhetorical issues, or blatant offenses. Average is 27.5, no significant errors, though lesser errors in clarity and use of rhetorical devices present.

No flex prep. With respect to speed, cogency is the upmost importance. If I can't understand you, then the argument is not made. Must be able to flow the round so signposting is crucial.

Finally, and most importantly, I expect debaters to uphold the highest standards of integrity and civility. Any hint of dishonesty, disrespect, rudeness, lack of charity, etc. will be cause for a down ballot. We are striving for understanding, which means we must understand others before being understood. Such aspirations require a compendium of virtues essential for a thriving society. Thoughtful debate within the bounds of virtue is the crucible for such endeavors.

I like to hear your arguments clearly. No spreading.

My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.

FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:

• NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
• No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
• No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates

At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.

Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.

Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at emilujackson@gmail.com

GENERAL/ALL
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.

Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)

Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.

Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.

LD PARADIGM

Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.

I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.

Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.

On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.

Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.

Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.

Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.

Fairness is an internal link to education

AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate

Disclosure is good

1 condo advocacy fine

Nebel T is also silly

POLICY PARADIGM:

Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.

T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.

Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.

PF PARADIGM:

I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.

Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:

- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.

- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"

- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down

I am a parent judge. I want a traditional debate with NO SPREADING! Please present your arguments clearly and make sure to tell me why you should win the round. If you are abusive towards your opponent or towards your judge, I will vote you down. No flex prep that's why you have cross examination time and make sure to use that time wisely. Please time yourselves. I won't consider anything you say after the allotted time.

You win me when you are able to present your case and win the cross examinations. If you use too much of technical jargon, I will be looking at you but not understand much - so it will be a flip of the coin who wins! I am very fair and base the judgement only on the performance and the perspectives so help me make the right decision.

I will ensure I give good spks if you perform well, as I see too many times people are affected by speaker points!