Clarity is very important -- guide me through each step of the analysis. Solid, clear structure with a confident delivery.

I have a tabula rasa approach and I evaluate every debate based on what is presented to me in round.

I am open to all styles of debate.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

Parent judge. Don't run any crazy arguments in debate unless you know how to back them up. For speech, I go mainly off of speaking ability, but I will be listening to your content too.

I am willing to judge congress, extemp (FX or DX), oratory, and PF.

Just so you know, I competed for 4 years in congress and DX and for one year each in oratory and PF. I came off the circuit after the 2019-2020 school year.

Congress: I want to see a good round of debate where I am not bored to death trying to judge for three hours. I competed in congress for four years, so I know what a good round should like. To achieve that, I want great sourcing (fox news, usa today, and cnn don't really cut it), logical arguments that flow through your speech and have explanations with them, and clash with other representatives. ALSO please actually care about what you are speaking about. I won't appreciate a speech that may have all of the technical pieces but has no passion behind it. If you don't care about it at all, please rethink your arguments. I like 2 point speeches because that gives you plenty of time to develop your arguments. 3 point speeches are hard to pull off with enough sourcing, context, and analysis but if you can pull it off more power to you. I want great speeches. I want you to know what you are doing and sound like it too. I don't have specific style preferences if you work hard and then speak well. Fluency breaks happen, I understand so don't freak out, but practice your speeches so you can speak confidently and persuasively. My biggest pet peeve is reading. Anyone can read a good speech. You are speaking to the chamber, speak. Don't read.

BIG NOTE: if we are online, and I see you reading from your computer screen word for word, I will dock you on my ballot. Congress is not an event where you just get to read scripted speeches and hope for the best.

Specifically in regards to clash, you don't need to pull a word for word line from another reps speech and then say something against it. I want you to be paying attention to the debate and be able to pull out different lines of reasoning or main arguments that others have brought up and incorporate that into your speech to pull me to your side. Mention the rep you are trying to disagree with or support and then explain to me why. Pay attention to the round. Pay attention to both speakers and questioners so that you can speak with the knowledge of both sides.

I do pay attention to questioning and take it into consideration, so make sure you are actively participating in questioning and when you are being questioned make sure that you are confident and able to answer questions deftly.

Also, just generally, I would love for you to be knowledgeable of congressional procedure. If you are confused, just ask. Don't try and figure it out while you go. Ask me, another judge/parli, or other chamber members. Please know the different motions and actions that can be made in a chamber so that the round can progress successfully. On that note though, if there is someone in the room who does not know about congressional procedure it is not okay for you to be a jerk to them. You need to polite and kind and do your best to help them learn. Debate should be a welcoming community where we want to teach new kids about events so that they can learn and grow!!! Being a jerk does not accomplish that.

Finally, read the legislation. I will have it in front of me, so do not try and pull something from thin air and claim the legislation says it. Read and understand the legislation before you give a speech on it. You can give an incredible speech but if it is not based on the real truth from the legislation you probably aren't going to get a very good score.

Extemp: A lot of my congress paradigm flows over to extemp so this one will be shorter.

1) Good sources. With that being said, if I find out that you made up your sources you will not make it onto my ballot. If you mess up and accidentally say the wrong date, that's okay but if you make up your sources I will drop you. I much prefer fewer accurate sources to a large quantity of faked sources.

2) Speak conversationally. The extemp formula that they teach at debate camp is great but if your speeches sound like you are just putting together sections of the formula to hopefully eventually reach a point it loses its effect. I want you to speak as if you are talking with me not at me.

3) Clearly answer the question in your introduction. If it is a yes or no question I want to hear a yes or a no. If it is an open ended question, you still need to come up with some kind of response. A three prong plan or explanation will probably work out best.

4) Basic extemp stuff... Three point speech please, walk the triangle, and try to speak the topic slip correctly. (If you mess up a few words, it's ok. I've been there)

5) As for jokes, they are okay as long as they fit into your speech and are respectful to everyone. This is not HI, you are not here to make me laugh. You are here to tell me about something going on in our world. If you make me laugh while you do it, good for you.

Oratory: This is simple. I want your speech to mean something. Don't come to compete in oratory just to spit the "original oratory" formula at me. I want you to care about your topic. Oratory is a forum to bring forth ideas and problems that need to be recognized and addressed by our society. So I expect good research. I want to know that you care about this topic and did the work necessary to make your voice heard. Think about your hypothetical solution, this part of your oratory is important, I want to know how you think the issue could be solved. Finally, please practice your presentation! Just like congress, speak confidently and persuasively.

PF Debate: Evidence is super important to me. Bring your evidence through the entire debate. Connect your arguments to your opponents arguments and convince me that you should win. If there is a specific argument that you have an evidence based response to, let me know. Make that abundantly clear. Make sure I don't think you dropped an argument. I'll be flowing and paying attention so make sure you address each part of your opponents arguments as well as your own.

During the questioning periods, ask good questions. Don't waste my time or your opponents time asking for information that has already been given (unless you truly missed a card tag) or asking filler questions. If your opponent lets you, dominate the questioning period. At the same time, be polite and respectful. If I notice that your opponent is trying to ask a question and you keep cutting them off your speaker points are going to drop and so is my opinion of your team.

Make your case clear and prove to me why it is the most important thing to value in the round. If you have a super important debate shaping card I want to know about it. Don't let me forget.

Finally, just actually address your opponents case. Not just to disprove what they are saying but to bring your case forward. They may be wrong but I want to know why you are yourself are right.

(also, please keep presentation in mind, speak clearly and well. this helps accentuate your content even more!)

Overall, I'm interested in quality work and presentation. I look forward to watching you all debate and grow!!

Lay parent judge.

For interp and speech events, speaking is most important.

For debate, content outweighs speaking

Mix of stock issues judge and tabla rasa- prefer a clear, traditional debate but don’t mind if teams run a kritike or counterplan with sufficient evidence and clear argumentation to back it up

Speech style- I prefer speech clarity over speed reading. A succinct argument that doesn't spread is preferred.

Argument- No preference for argument as long as it is backed by evidence and fits within status quo of possibility.

Sources- Credit will be given for most contemporary and credible sources presented in argument. Repetition of sources and linking to argument is preferred method of citation.

Looking for a good, clean, and respectable debate. Courtesy and good sportsmanship matter towards overall scoring.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Joshua Wimberley
Speech & Debate Coach
Midland Legacy High School

Address for the e-mail chain: joshua.wimberley@midlandisd.net

Debate is a game designed to build a specific set of communication skills. At the end of the day you are a salesman trying to get me to buy your idea. If you don't sell me on it you can't expect to win the round. That being said, if you think you can sell me anything more than a bus ticket at 250+ words per minute you are grossly mistaken... Leave that life to the auctioneers, we are here to communicate.

I will judge the debate you want to have to the best of my abilities. I would say you are better to debate what you are good at debating, than change for me in the back of the room. I do, however, have some predispositions and beliefs regarding debate that you should know. Absent a framework set-up during the debate, I will default policymaker. I prefer to watch debates with good evidence and oriented around a policy action. What makes evidence good is the analysis of the person putting it in action.

Theory Debates: I do not like to watch theory debates because they are generally just taglines with out of context sound bites and impossible to flow. Having said that, I understand the importance and strategy of engaging in a theory debate. I recognize that sometimes you just have to deal with what you're given. If you go for theory in the debate, go deep and slow to analyze the debate. Continuing to read front-lines with no depth of explanation will be bad for you. Try to make the debate about in-round implications and not centered around potential abuse or "how" debate should be in the future. In general, if you haven't caught on by the descriptions, I tend to find education arguments more persuasive than fairness arguments. But fairness is important.

Framework/Performance (or the like) debates: If the debate is a debate about framework or how I should evaluate the debate, please don't forget to talk about the other arguments in the debate. In other words, there should be something "productive" that comes with the way you want me to vote. Debates about how we should debate are interesting, but make sure you engage in some sort of debate as well. Reading scripted/blocked out front-lines is very unimpressive to me. Make it about the debate at hand.

Topicality: I do not vote for T very often but I do think it is a voting issue. If you read a T argument make sure to talk about "in-round" implications and not just potential abuse arguments. With the caselist, disclosure, and MPJ, I do not find potential abuse arguments very compelling. Linking the T to other arguments in the debate and showing the Aff is being abusive by avoiding core neg ground in the debate is what works best. Discussions about predictable literature outside of the in-round implications do not carry much weight because in most instances the Neg knew about the case and researched a good strategy. The exception is when an affirmative breaks a new 1AC, then the neg should be allowed to make potential abuse arguments--they didn't get disclosure and the caselist to prep. I generally prefer depth over breath education claims.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific the better. The Link is very important. Please make evidence comparisons during the debate. I dislike having to call for 20+ cards to access uniqueness on a Politics DA (etc) when they are highlighted down to one or two lines. Read the longer, more contextual cards than the fast irrelevant ones. I tend to not give a risk to the DA. You need to win the components to the DA to have me weigh it against the Aff.

Counterplans: I do not like Consult CPs, please choose another type of CP. PIC and Agent CPs are OK, but are better when you have contextual literature that justifies the the CP. Advantage CPs are cool. Affirmatives should not be able to advocate the permutation; however, theory abuse arguments can be used to justify this action. Condo is OK, but you shouldn't go for contradictory arguments in rebuttals.

Case Debates: I like case debates; however, these debates tend to turn into "blippy extensions" and force me to read cards to understand the arguments and/or nuances of the case debate. Debaters should make these explanations during the debate and not rely on me to read the cards and make it for you. I tend to try and let the debater arguments carry weight for the evidence. Saying extend Smith it answers this argument is not a compelling extension. Warrants are a necessity in all arguments.

Critiques: I generally consider these arguments to be linear DAs, with a plan meet need (PMN) and sometimes a CP (often abusive) attached at the end. Yes, I will vote for a K. When I was in college I read a lot of this literature and so I liked these debates. Now that I am almost 20 years removed from school, I tend to see bad debates that grotesquely mutate the authors intent. This is also true for Framework debates. Your K should have as specific literature as possible. Generic K's are the worst; as are bad generic aff answers. While I think condo is OK, I find Performative Contradiction arguments sometimes persuasive (especially if discourse is the K link)--so try not to engage in this Neg (or Aff).

General things you should know:
1. I like switch-side debating. While you are free to argue this is bad, it is a strong disposition I have to the game. **Read-Affirmatives should have a plan of action and defend it. However, because of this I usually give more "latitude" to affirmatives on Permutations for critical arguments when they can prove the core action of the aff is a good idea.
2. Potential abuse is not very persuasive. Instead, connect the abuse to in-round implications.
3. Engage in good impact analysis. The worst debates to judge are ones where I am expected to weigh the impacts without the debaters doing the work in the speeches. Sidenote: Don't expect me to weigh impacts you didn't analyze effectively.
4. Research: I am a big believer that what separates "policy debate" pedagogically from other forms of debate and makes it a better form to engage in is the research and argument construction that flows from it. Hence, I like good arguments that are well researched.
5. Don't steal prep-time! If you are paperless, prep stops when you hand the jump-drive to your opponents, not when you say I am ready.

Any questions, just ask.