I am a Political Science and Communication Studies student at Texas Christian University, and the current President of their Speech and Debate Team. I am a Parliamentary/ Policy Debater, and compete in Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking, and other platform events. I was a national runner up in Extemporaneous Speaking and Parliamentary Debate last year, meaning I understand debate better than your average Joe, and take proper debate seriously.

For policy teams:

- I will not vote on a K unless the resolution is so incredibly egregious that you are left with no choice, or if the affirmative team says something blatantly problematic. If you can debate it, you should.

- Make sure you are using proper t- shells. You should explain to me why a topicality argument is necessary-- I shouldn't have to fill it out myself.

- I will not extend arguments for you. Do the work on the flow. You should make my job as a judge easy with good, solid argumentation and policies.

- Quality over quantity-- the preponderance of evidence is important, however, if you just read me a card without any warrant or impact, I do not care.

- I fact check evidence. Do not make it up. I will drop you on the ballot if you make up evidence.

- Debate is, first and foremost, a communication event. If I cannot understand what you are saying, or if you are going too fast, I will stop flowing and drop you on the ballot. Speed is fine, however if I cannot write fast enough to keep up, then you are going too fast.

Congress:

- I did congress for four years, and thus understand the procedures of a chamber.

- Presiding Officers-- do your job. If there is disfunction, I will dock your points.

- Congressman/woman/Senators: make sure you warrant and impact out your arguments. Sometimes we assume congress isn't as serious as other forms of debate, however you are making claims and I need you to do your job of explaining them.

- Remember that you are debating the LEGISLATION, not the issue. I do not enjoy it when congressional debate dissolves into something that it is not meant to be. Talk to me about the legislation, not whether or not the regulation of fish mongering in the South China Sea is a good thing.

- Be professional. If you are referencing something that a previous speaker stated, make sure you do it in a respectful manner.

Speech/ IE:

- I do not have a lot of interp experience, however the same communication arguments apply. I need to be able to understand you. Your pieces should have some kind of an argument.

- Extemporaneous: I will fact check you. Do not make up sources, or even fabricate dates because I will know it. Just because extemporaneous pertains to current events doesn't mean it has to be boring. I appreciate a good joke, or something to lighten the often bleak mood.

I'm fine with most debate styles and strategies. I am however deaf in one ear, which hinders my ability to understand extremely fast talking - spreading. My qualifications are 2 years of LD in high school, occasional other types of debate, and I'm currently on the debate team at Arkansas State University for IPDA and Parli.

I do however have a couple of problems with certain arguments when it comes to LD:

If you read theory, it should be for actual reasons rather than just to steal time. If you run argumentation purely as a time suck and it's addressed by the opponent, just know that your chances for winning the round are pretty slim. Debate should be an educational event used to increase communication. Thus, argumentation should be made to serve that purpose, not to deter it.

In regards to anything else, just sign post and be clear. I can't flow argumentation if I can't hear it, so as long as I can hear the tags, we should be good.

Any other forms of debate:

IPDA - Just run what you think is good. You know what arguments fly and what don't. This debate format seems to really not dictate many rules from judges.

Policy - You probably don't want me as a CX judge because of my hearing ability.

PF - My old paradigm used to be (is this still a thing???) but after getting set as a judge for many PF rounds, I feel like I need a more educational paradigm. When it comes to numbers, tell me why it's important. If all I hear is number after number, there's 0 indication on how I should evaluate them, as well as what they even mean. Ultimately, I feel like a PF paradigm doesn't go much further than that. If you feel as though there has been abuse within the round, feel free to call it out and I'll weigh it how I feel it should be weighed.

In conclusion, I want the round to be both fun and educating.

Do not spread. Speak at a reasonable pace. I cannot judge when I cannot understand what is being said.

Define your terms and explain specialized vocabulary to allow understanding for the audience/judge/opponent.

Clearly indicate credibility for sources/experts.

Congress: I’m normally an extemp judge, but I’m not completely unfamiliar with Congress. I am definitely a more lay judge, but I’ll still try my best to flow, and strong argumentation will be reflected on my ballot. I’m fine with humor, just keep it under control. Speaking needs to be strong, but it won’t make up for a lack of content. I’m normally generous with POs, just don’t make excessive mistakes. Good Luck!

I am a high school science teacher and speech and debate coach. I've coached speech and debate for 9 years. I competed in speech and congressional debate in high school, then some speech in college. I am very passionate about the power of communication. Above all, it is extremely important to me that you articulate and enunciate well. This can still be accomplished with reasonable speed. Take care to explain your arguments well. I strongly prefer constructive speeches with resolutional analysis, framework, key definitions, and a standard that I can use to weigh arguments. I should have a solid understanding of what you think are the most important issues in the round. Please use voters! If you want me to vote on it, please make sure it is in your final speech and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.

Arguments

Argue on logic, not emotions. Construct well-impacted, well-supported arguments. Quotations have no meaning without explanations. Therefore, always explain the significance of your evidence. The debater that most clearly presents a logical argument AND effectively refutes the opponent will be the victor.

Evidence

I may ask you to post your case or cards, if a virtual tournament. I may call for cards if your opponents ask me to, if the card is widely disputed during the round, or if it sounds exceptionally sketchy. According to NSDA rules, you can also access the Internet during round if you need to show your opponent the full citation.

Speed and Flowing

Anything below spread speed is fine. If you go fast, you should: SLOW DOWN when using tag lines and signposting. Give clear citations. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow (off time roadmaps). Please look out for physical cues if you are speed-talking. If I look visibly confused or if my hand isn’t moving, that’s probably because I can’t understand you. While I don’t flow crossfire/cross-ex, I’ll remember anything exceptionally witty or smart you say. Make sure you repeat anything significant from crossfire/cross-ex in your next speeches. Rebuttal speeches should be well organized. Please go straight down the flow.

Behavior

Don’t be mean. If you’re mean, my brain will naturally find a way to vote against you. Being assertive is valued. Being aggressive is unnecessary. There is a difference between a passionate debater and an abrasive or condescending debater. Crossfires/cross-ex needs to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I enjoy good clash.

Specific to LD

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing value and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Impact all your contentions back to your value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross examination will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Speaker Points

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

IE Performances

Performance material should be literature that is compelling and unique. It should be evident that the story fits the performer. Organization of structure and character arc should be evident. Multiple characters are a plus for me but the most important aspect is that the character/s you create are believable. Strong choices but nothing for mere shock value. (Do not prefer cursing, cuss words...but will overlook if proven appropriate for the piece) Time should be used well. As an audience member you should be respectful and appropriate when watching other competitors- just as important. New material is a plus. Motivated blocking. Clean transitions, variation in tone and pacing. Clear articulation.

Speech Events: IX, DX, INFO, OO

Debate