Lindale Fall TFA
2020 — Online, TX/US
Asynchronous Speech Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
LD: Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any point made during the entire debate, you should have evidential support. During the rebuttal speeches, don't limit yourself to stating you don't agree with opponents stance, give specific reasons why and provide supporting evidence. Give me clear reasons to vote and explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. I do not like reading speeches. I want to hear it. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speech. I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate and not a 1 on 1 policy debate. If you choose to go beyond a traditional LD round, make sure you are understood, are easy to follow, have evidential support for all claims made, and make sure that what you say is related (have a clear link) to the resolution and opponent's case.
Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later on in round, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. Correct parliamentary procedure should be followed.
CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of the email chain. I do not like reading speeches. I want to hear it. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speech. If you ask me what my paradigms are at the beginning of the round, I expect you to follow them and adjust your case accordingly. If you don't, then I will default to a policymaking paradigm if not given a clear way to evaluate the round by the debaters. I am not a fan of Ks since most I've heard are not well done or explained thoroughly. No new off case arguments in 2NC and both aff and neg cases must be extended through the entire round.
IEs: I've judged all IEs for 30 years for different circuits and different levels. On interpretation events, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want. For all INTERP events: It's your performance. Entertain me! For informative, if you are using props, make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On EXTEMPT, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow standard speech outline (including hook, intro in which the topic stated, a clear answer is given, and a preview of pts to be discussed is presented; body with pts supporting your answer to the question; and a conclusion in which the topic is restated, a clear answer is given, a review of the pts discussed is provided to tie speech together, and refer back to the hook to give a note of finality) and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech.
PF: The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery.
WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.
*firstname.lastname@example.org for the chain*
Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.
You would probably classify me as a flay judge. This will be my 14th year in the debate community but I still have a healthy skepticism of sketchy arguments. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.
Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 250 wpm.
I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.
I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.
Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30’s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.
I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.
Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.
I’m probably not evaluating your K. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to trick out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for.
I’ll listen to theory but have a higher tolerance at nat circuit tournaments than at locals
Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.
LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)
Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)
K: 2 (4 for Baudrillard)
I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with identity K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but need you to why it should weigh heavier than case side stuff on my flow. Past that, I’m still getting comfortable judging LD so I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.
The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.
If you quote Thomas Jefferson or use him as a source, you will get downed by me.
General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.
Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. I normally do not award half points, because who wants to deal with that?
LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.
Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.
When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.
However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.
I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!
Policy Debate: Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. IF you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).
YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.
In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.
Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out:
Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me
(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)
Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards
(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)
(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to you!)
Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad
(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)
States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad
(Eh…it is what it is)
Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most
Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity
Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)
I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read
(9 times out of 8,yes you read that correctly, I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. If you opp calls you out and it’s good luck getting my ballot)
Fiat solves circumvention-----X-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff
CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency
DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case
Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional
Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer
(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)
Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments
(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)
Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.
PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF
WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet
Do NOT try to read me. You can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or your piece may have a powerful line that I react to or the piece is cleverly written so I laugh, despite the performance. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.
There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful. I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.
I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everyone is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experience the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".
In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.
Hi I'm Emma! I competed for Lindale High School Fall 2016-Spring 2020 with almost all interp and speaking events. I currently attend The University of North Texas. Here is a list of some things that strike my fancy(in no particular order) in interp events:
1) POLISHED! It's easy to tell how much work someone has put into their program. I want to see the effort and love you have given into your piece.
2) PASSION! When I was in high school, interp was a way that I could express my passions in an artistic way. When I can hear, see, feel your passion, I will inherently connect more with your piece.
3) CHARACTERIZATION! If your piece has more than one character, I want to be able easily tell the difference. Whether that is a physical change, vocal change, or both, make sure that your audience knows who, what, why, etc. While it is not a necessity, bold and unique characters are also something I look for.
And a list of the things I look for in speaking events:
1) Again, POLISHED! In prepared speaking events especially, a polished speaking style can easily be something that sets you apart from other competitors. A few stumbles here and there are no biggie, but your overall presentation should be well-prepared.
2) UNIQUENESS! There are definitely trends that exist in all s&d events, so it's refreshing to listen to a speech about something other than those trendy topics.
3) RESEARCH! It's a given that all speaking events require some magnitude of research, but credible, calculated, and interesting research will give you a leg up.
My biggest thing is respect for your competitors. This activity should be for lifting each other up, giving humans cool opportunities, and getting totally educated!
Questions, concerns, and comments:
Please use a tagline that explains how to flow each attack, extension, or additional evidence. Be sure to extend every argument from speech to speech! I DO NOT flow crossfire, so anything said during crossfire should be brought up in your next speech if you want me to flow it in the round. :)
I judge speech and interp based on the rules and based on the round--comparing the performances in the round. I think author's intent is important for interp. I think communication skills, organization, rhetoric and evidence is important in speech events.
CONGRATULATIONS! I am thrilled to have the opportunity to judge!
As a judge, I will always look for a professional presentation. This includes, not only your content and delivery, but also your presentation of YOU. I appreciate CONFIDENCE and POISE in a speaker, unafraid of being seen and heard. Please take pride in how you present yourself.
What am I looking for? In all categories, across the board, I find appropriate structure to be of utmost importance. Each event under the IE heading has a structure that is unique to that event. There must be evidence that you as a speaker understands what that structure is.
Naturally, in extemporaneous speaking events, your evidence is needed. Use and site your sources.
Delivery is going to be what I'm looking for most. Speak clearly, speak confidently and speak accurately and you will have done well.
As an interp judge, I am wanting you to make me feel something. I want to be taken on the journey. That is what I will look at first, and then will be the evaluation of the technique, et al. The same mantra as above is used as well...SPEAK CLEARLY, SPEAK CONFIDENTLY AND SPEAK ACCURATELY.
I want to see you become the character(s) you are portraying and have the most believability in the role. Often times in the speech world, I see so many students caught up in the “statement” of the piece, they are no longer focusing on the acting.
I want to see completely fleshed out characters and actors who have thought about each moment! Breathing, operative words, and event work is crucial.
Blocking should be creative but not steal focus. It should be used to enhance your piece and not done for the sake of doing so.
passion and creativity in OO, INFO, and Extemp is ranked highest! When everyone has the same great analysis, it’s the small things like the intellectual way you created your AGD or vehicle that make you stand out!
I am a traditional judge. I normally judge speaking events and interpretation.
In interpretation, I appreciate natural acting in most events with the exception of Humorous. I believe you can be fully animated in Humorous Interpretation. ALWAYS have purpose for your blocking. If you have blocking just for the sake of blocking, I will rank you down. It is better to have real emotion than "fake crying" or a "crying voice." Always be true to your character(s).
In speaking, speeches should be delivered at a pace that is easily understandable. Organization is key as well as keeping the audience interested with a great vehicle.
I do not flow spreading. I believe debate is a communication event, not who can get the most arguments in the least amount of time (there is not a difference in "fast speaking" and "spreading"). If you spread, you'll get low speaks and have a hard time winning my ballot.
Debate was created to communicate and compare your points against your opponent's points. If you don't create a clear story and explanation, I will not vote you up.
I will immediately vote you down if you are rude or aggressive towards your opponent. It is one thing to debate and clash against an argument, it's another to attack your opponent.
If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: email@example.com
Hi, y'all! My name is Rachel and I competed for Salado High School for four years, The University of Texas Speech Team for four years, and am currently a first year law student at Texas Law.
I was primarily and LP'er (limited preparation fan -- extemp and impromptu) and PA'er (public address superfan) during college. I competed in Congress during high school and served as the Congress Curriculum Director for The University of Texas National Institute in Forensics after graduating in 2019. Although I never competed in interp, thanks to the Texas Speech Team (and living with a DI national champion), I have watched many interp performances and know what does and does not work.
First rule of extemp: answer the question! If you don't read the question carefully, odds are you will not answer what the question is looking for.
Excellent sourcing is a must. I do not look favorably upon CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.
I look for a solid substructure within the speech. The speech should flow easily and be coherent to even non-speech judges.
I am not a fan of the grace period. During the world of online speech, you may time yourself.
I want a solid structure to the speech. If I cannot follow the path you are trying to lead me down, I am not going to look favorably upon the speech. This means you MUST preview in your introduction.
Transitions between main points are also essential.
For OO, the solutions need to be tangible and something that I, as an audience member, can do. If the solutions are abstract and not something I can accomplish -- you are not completely fulfilling your role as an orator.
For INFO: the implications are the heart of the speech. Your implications must encourage me to examine the speech through a lens I would not have otherwise considered. I do not want cookie cutter implications. Most of my comments will likely be placed here.
I will flow your speech and point out any holes that may exist for me.
I do not pay attention to delivery as much as I do the meat of the speech. However, I would love to see well intentioned delivery.
Preview in your introduction.
You MUST have excellent sources and I will not look favorably upon a point that has no sources at all. How am I supposed to evaluate something that is purely opinion?
The only time I will excuse no clash in a speech is if you are the author/sponsor or the first neg.
You will not be rewarded for re-hash.
To PO's: I pay heavy attention to how you are conducting the round.
Be kind in questioning. Do not be abusive in any aspect of the speech.
I will mostly focus on your argument to make sure it's clear! Most of the comments you get from me will likely be about the structure of the introduction.
I jokingly say this when students ask for paradigms but I super mean it: I don't have PF paradigm because most of the time y'all don't listen to it. If I directly tell you my paradigm and you clearly flout it, I will consider this means to dock speaker points. If there's one thing I can give you here: don't be abusive. If you are abusive, I will automatically drop you.
Thanks and hook 'em!
I've got quite a bit of experience in Public Forum, LD, and Policy. I will understand your terminology for the most part, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations. I've been participating in speech and debate for 14 years, coaching for 7, and this is my third year in Texas.
PF: I tend to prefer the debate to tad a bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal.
I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.
Lastly, I will rarely ever vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaks. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:
1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your goal is to practice the art of knowing and preparing arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-8 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time.
PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.
2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual. In a virtual debate, just sit it's fine).
3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards or cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for LD and Policy only. If you spread though slow down on tags, and always include a short analysis of cards and argumentation.
4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in LD and Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.
5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and will likely affect your speaker points.
6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have the a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.
LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory with no actual clash.
PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash. Again, I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory.
CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter. 2) I do not like Ks because I feel like there is always a performative contradiction. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.
I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.
LD Debate: I am a judge that leans toward the classic style. I don't mind K-debate, but you'd better make it apply to the resolution! I am not a fan Topicality arguments. If you run more than one off, I'm not going to apply the rest. Don't be a whiny debater. Debate the round! Speed is fine as long as you are articulate. Don't be rude to your opponent, and if you are a male debater...DON'T BE SEXIST OR CONDESCENDING to a female opponent. I want to hear framework, value, criterion, impacts, and links. Give me that and I will be happy.
PF Debate: Framework and Impacts! I don't like rudeness in Cross Examination. I like a mix of claims, warrants, and narrative. Tell me a story. I am not looking for solvency. I'm not sure why people think they have to solve in PF. I just want to understand why you support or oppose the status quo, how that fits into the framework provided, and where/how it impacts. Don't make it too difficult.
Speech and Interp: I enjoy being in speech and interp rounds, where I get to see student's personalities take flight! I love stories, and I feel like the journey's students choose to take us on are important ones!
In interp, I look for HONESTY and connection in each performance. Don't force emotion. We see that! It takes us out of the context of the piece! Also, please don't stare directly at me. I can't get lost in your piece if you are including me in the scene. I want to be a fly on the wall. And I'm a big believer in the FOURTH WALL. Also, I'm not a fan of those who exploit special needs characters, or make fun of them. If you use the "R" word in my round, or show disrespect to special needs characters, you will hear about it on my ballot. Please reconsider doing this in any piece you choose. It is exclusive and disturbing...don't resort to such things for the purpose of a trophy. This community encourages you to find growth in your humanity as well as your talents!
In speech, I like it when I learn something I didn't already know. Teach me! I love coming out of rounds and telling people, "I was in this OO/Informative/Extemp round and I just learned that..." And I don't mind controversial subjects either! As long as you aren't excluding anyone, or being offensive to a particular group of people (race, ability, religion, sexual preference...etc), then I'm okay with controversy. And whatever your topic...have conviction!
In both speech AND interp, I like it when students make CHOICES and take CHANCES. I'm a tough judge, but only because I want you to improve and have the best critique you can get to do that! I love the community that speech and debate provides for students. I also know that the experience I get from every single performer is invaluable! So thank you!
For any speech, I would like to see organization in your writing, clear points, and good transitions. Strong points are necessary, but be sure to add your personality.
A good introduction is necessary to set up your piece and remind yourself as well as your judge why this is important to you. Be sure to be clear and to the point when speaking. A professional approach is always nice.
Blocking wise, I would hope to see clean movements that are purposeful. Utilizing your camera with your blocking is a nice way to add individuality. Character work will be evident, so make sure every look has a reason, every choice has a reason.
Insensitive or offensive topics/jokes are not my favorite.
To be brief, these are the things I look for when judging:
Organization of your speech, clear thesis, clear conclusions to your points as well as a clear transition to your next point. The presentation of your topic and how you convey your topic's relevance to your audience and society. (Did you give your audience a reason why it's important for people to stop and listen to what you have to say). Your call to action and the statistics and data you research to incorporate into your speech.
Dad judge of 2 for the Plano East Senior High School.
I enjoy watching Extemp -- try and make your speeches similar to these being very clear and articulate throughout. The best speakers I have seen are persuasive, confident, and well-researched. You may speak at a conversational speed and please don't go too fast.
- Have a value and definitions
- Justice > morality
- I don't like theories and critics very much
- I side with the neg more so try your best to negate, but if you can't then good luck
email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I've been competing and/or coaching in various speech and debate events since 2011. My primary experience is with policy (national circuit/toc, tfa, and regional/local traditional circuits) and parli (npda/npte). I judge almost every weekend, and I spend a lot of time in debate since it is essentially my full-time job, so I am relatively up-to-date on debate trends and norms, as well as discussions of the criminal justice topic. I typically judge ~50+ rounds a year.
I don’t have any predispositions regrading the content, structure, or style of your arguments. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm absent a team winning an argument for me to evaluate it another way. Clear impact weighing in the rebuttals and evidence/warrant comparison are typically what I notice in teams I enjoy judging.
I attempt to be a ’technical’ judge in every round I watch. I try to keep a detailed flow, and use my flow to evaluate the round that happened. If the flow doesn’t decide a clear winner, I will then look to the quality of evidence/warrants provided. I tend to find I’m less interested in where an argument in presented than others. While clear line-by-line is always appreciated, some of my favorite debaters to watch were overview-heavy debaters who made and answered arguments in the debate while telling a persuasive story of the debate. I would rather you sound organized and clear than following a template throughout each flow.
I will most likely not vote on ‘independent voting issues’ unless it’s an egregious instance. This is separate from ethics concerns, like cheating, card clipping, etc. I am not persuaded by claims that I should evaluate the entirety of the debate based upon a single argument on my flow. Particular rhetorical abuses, such as racist, sexist, transphobic remarks are a different story, and I will hold those to much higher scrutiny than a claim that I should decide a whole debate because the 2ac read a severance perm.
Instead of framing debates through ‘body counts’, I am much more persuaded by framing as ‘who saves the most lives’, or who has the best advocacy for change. Sometimes debaters talk about claims of very real violence and problems for various communities with little regard to the real world implications of their political advocacies.
I tend to prefer specific plan texts over vague plan texts. I also like specific internal link claims and impact scenarios. Specific instances of war are more persuasive to me than ‘goat power war’ claims.
counterplans, disads, & case turns
I would prefer you read at least once piece of solvency evidence per plank in the 1nc. Obviously that’s not a hard rule, but I will hold CPs that read multiple planks with no evidence in the 1nc to much higher scrutiny than a sufficiently developed 1nc shell.
I tend to lean neg on most CP theories. Obviously, the debate is to be had, but I am generally more persuaded that the negative should get access to most CPs and conditional advocacies. Specific claims about instances in-round to generate offense in these debates is much more persuasive than generic standard debates. I am more willing to vote on reject the argument than reject the team.
I find I am more willing to judge-kick in the 2nr than most judges, but think this is still a debate that needs to be had. The 2nr must have a persuasive reason for me to judge kick, and the 2ar can still win that I ought not judge kick.
Uniqueness guides the direction of the link. I like robust development of each level of the debate for disads and case turns, while telling a clear story about the thesis of the disad. I decide the probability of your impact based on the link and internal link level of the debate, and find that often times 2nrs are lacking on this level of the disad flow.
I think the impact turn is a lost art and have a special place in my heart for them. The same is to be said for developed case turn debates.
To me, the best kritiks are the ones that clearly identify a theory of power or possesses some sort of a structural analysis. I am most persuaded by specific historical examples and a clear alternative that frames what my ballot does.
The link level of the debate tends to be the most important in my making my decision at the end of the round. I like developed link blocks, and think that the aff often times doesn’t adequately handle the link section of the debate.
In reformism v revolution debates, I prefer explanations that pinpoint why the conditions of the status quo are the way they are, and can best explain casualty for violence. This is where historical examples become especially important, and where warrant comparison becomes paramount.
I think permutations in the 2ar that attempt to prove the alt is not functionally competitive are not nearly as persuasive as arguments in the 2ar that the aff is in the direction of the alt. A heg aff probably cannot go for a perm against anti-blackness, but an aff that is a step towards the same telos of the alt can.
Affs will usually win that they can weigh their aff, but I am typically not persuaded by framework arguments that attempt to tell me not to evaluate the k. I think the same is also true for the negative. Instead, I think the framework portion of the debate should tell me what my ballot does and how I should frame my decision given the context of the round.
'clash of civilization' debates
I've been seeing a lot of these debates recently, so I figured it was worth adding a section with a bit more tailored to these debates.
In these debates, warrant comparison is paramount. Rebuttals that are just extending state good/bad or reformism good/bad arguments without doing any interaction with the flow is a common mistake I see in these debates. Ideally, your arguments for this level of debate also have terminalized and developed impacts as well. The best debaters in these debates typically are those who use their evidence/examples to implicate the specific warrants the other team is extending.
Links should be explained as disadvantages to the permutation with impacts developed and extended for them. I need the 2nr to be doing more work on the permutation than just extending the link level; this isn't to say you cannot or should not extend them as disads to the perm (I think you probably should), but simply saying the phrase isn't enough to prove mutual exclusivity. I appreciate a really well developed and implicated link wall.
I would much rather not have my ballot decided by the framework level debate. Engaging the substance is very much so appreciated in these debates. Obviously this doesn't influence any debates I watch, but I tend to believe that the aff should get access to their 1ac and the neg gets to weigh their impacts against it; fiat is illusory isn't reason enough for me to moot the 1ac, and just because it's a K doesn't mean your 1ac was necessarily mooted. but again, grain of salt, do you.
A lot of these rounds are decided on which team wins their theory of power or governance, and rebuttalists that are using historical and contextual examples are typically those who win these debates. The more specific the examples throughout the debate, the better spot you will probably be in to get my ballot.
Instead of telling me what your alt does, tell me how I can do your alt. I love references to other movements, specific actions I can take, and what the telos or the vision of your alternative is; I do not like you telling me in the abstract what the alterative means. Don't try to explain the words of the alt to me, tell me what the alt means with specific warrants for how the alt can resolve the links and/or the aff.
The 2ar needs to be finding ways to extend and terminalize offense that exists outside solving the aff. If your offense on the K only relies on your ability to solve your aff in the 2ar, it tends to not bode well for the aff. Reformism/state good offense that isn't just 'we solve the aff, the aff is a good idea', or terminalized impact turns or disadvantages to the alternatives can be really useful in close 'clash' debates.
If the 2ar is going for a permutation, I must know what the world of the permutation looks like with some explanation of the solvency mechanism for the perm and why the alt is not mutually exclusive.
Competing interpretations just tells me to evaluate offense vs defense, which is what I am most likely going to do. I think reasonability tells me that even if they win the their impact claims (the standards), they haven’t won the link debate (the interp debate) because we meet/are close enough to the interp. Because I view T debates this way, I like clear and developed standard debates that clear isolate impact claims.
Case lists, TVAs, examples of affs that would violate, etc. are all useful because they help me situate your interp within the topic. These are all terminal defense, so you won’t necessarily win a debate with them alone, but they are persuasive.
Interp comparison is really useful as well. Debating the quality of interps is a lost art and can generate offense in the standard level as well.
I don’t think that the aff has to win a specific counter interp in K aff v FW debates, but rather a counter model for debate. I like these debates that break down the skills gandered from each model of debate, and use them to generate offense. Arguments like fairness claims, or claims that framework is inherently violent aren’t persuasive to me. Standards about portable skills, research, advocacy, etc. that tell me the tangible benefits of your model serve best on either side because I think helps frame what sort of method my ballot is endorsing.
I haven't judged many policy rounds this year, but I have seen a few. Even though the team I coach likes to read kritikal arguments, it doesn't mean that is your best approach with me. I definitely prefer debates that revolve around the hypothetical implementation of a topical affirmative plan. FYI, if your aff doesn't link to the abolition K, then it probably doesn't enact substantial criminal justice reform. This doesn't mean you will necessarily lose, but you are probably in an uphill battle if the neg is competent at extending topicality. I am aware of the sad state of good policy neg strategies at the moment, so I will try to be mindful of that if you end up going for an argument that is out of my normal comfort zone. Everything below probably still applies.
I've probably judged about 20-25 rounds on the topic. Most of them have involved a Saudi aff. I have judged very few K debates this year, but I have voted aff on the perm in every debate I have judged this year that had a K in the 2NR.
I won't reject any argument or style of debate out of hand, but I have a preference for topical, plan-focused debate. I feel a lot more comfortable expressing this preference at tournaments that use mutually preferred judging. If your strategies only include kritikal arguments, you may not want to pref me. Util is probably my default decision-making paradigm, but I can be persuaded to adopt other impact frameworks. I think winning zero risk of something is pretty hard, but I suppose it is possible. I don't think I am very good at flowing, but I try my best. If I didn't catch something then you were probably going too fast for me, or you were unclear. If the tournament allows for it, I will assign speaker points to the tenth of a point. My usual range is 27-29.9. Yes, I want to be on the email chain (email@example.com).
MORE SPECIFIC POLICY STUFF
Unless persuaded to evaluate using a different lens, I tend to base my decision on whether a world with the affirmative plan is better than the status quo or a world with a competitive policy option. If the aff plan improves the world, the aff generally wins. If not, the aff loses. I also tend to evaluate in the "offense/defense" paradigm. Generally, I think the negative needs offensive arguments to win unless they can somehow take out 100% of solvency. 99% of the time you will need a reason why the plan causes something bad to happen to win on the negative.
I don't require strict adherence to my preferences. You've prepped the arguments that you've prepped, and it probably isn't in your best interests to drastically alter your preferred approach to debate when debating in front of me. However, I think you should probably know that some arguments are an uphill battle in front of me.
First, I generally think the aff should defend the topic. If your aff doesn't link to topic-related generics, then you probably have some work to do if the neg goes for framework/topicality. I think clash is super important, and I don't like affirmative approaches meant to minimize topic-centered clash.
Second, I don't necessarily think that fairness has to be an internal link to something. I think fairness can be an impact. It will be hard to convince me that the neg shouldn't get a decent amount of predictable ground or that fairness is bad.
Finally, I can't say enough that I need to know what your k alternative does or how it functions. The less clear I am on what the alt does the more likely I am to vote for something like "perm do the plan an all non-competitive parts of the alt." I'm sure your argument isn't that this particular round or my ballot is key to breaking down or eliminating whatever it is that your are kritiking, so please be specific about what it is that you expect me to vote for. I am not familiar with or necessarily interested in a lot of kritik literature, so you probably need to do more thesis explanation than you might usually do. You should also do as much contextualizing as possible when talking about your links. If I am going to vote for an argument I need to be able to put in my own words what I am voting for. I think it is your job to make sure that I am able to do that.
I would recommend not going at your absolute fastest pace, and this is especially true when reading complex kritikal arguments or multi-point theory blocks. Other than that, have fun.
Same as Policy. Again, I'm probably not the best K judge. I'm also probably not good for contrived or arbitrary theory interps that don't relate to topicality. Even though I could possibly be convinced to vote on one, I don't like RVIs.
I don't judge a lot of PF. Despite my Policy background, I don't think PF needs to become more like Policy. I think PF should remain accessible to the general public, and the round should be debated at a reasonable pace while using a minimal amount of debate lingo. I will probably flow, but I don't intend to evaluate the round at a highly technical level.
Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003
Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007
Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017
Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present
I did LD debate and DX/FX for 3 years at James Bowie High School. Had a lot more success in speech than debate, qualifying for state in DX/FX twice. I'm also experienced enough in debate to be able to evaluate most types of arguments.
Speed: I'm fine with speed, but I'm mediocre at actually hearing everything so being able to read your arguments will help me a lot, unwritten args I'd prefer if you slow it down a little, and emphasize tags.
Arguments: I'm totally fine with progressive/policy arguments like DA's, CP's, Theory, T, K's, etc. I did not run much theory or many K's, but I did hit them often. As long as it's very clear what you're saying then I can keep up. If it's extremely complicated then maybe reconsider running it. Keep Theory/T/K's a little slower.
Speaker Points: I usually start at about 29 and go up or down based off of strategy/overall cohesion of your arguments/case. I tend to give high speaks in general.
I like to keep rounds pretty casual to avoid unnecessary stress, so feel free to ask me anything but just be polite to everyone in the room.
In interpretation events, I appreciate natural acting with the understanding that humorous interpretation carries it's own style. I value performances that have purpose to their character choices and their blocking. Moving just for the sake of moving hurts the performance. Always stay true to the character. In speaking events, speeches should be delivered at a pace that is easily understandable and I strongly value organization as a means of keeping the audience engaged.
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, and you deserve to be judged fairly.
Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. I am not yet used to listening to 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, 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 competitor.
I am a 2nd 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 prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than someone looking to win because of a technicality. Show me what you know about DEBATE, not what you know about contest rules.
If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.
Interp and Speaking Events: I have been teaching speech for 6 years and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know a great, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I also try very hard to give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.
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. Good Luck!
Hello I am new to judging so I request that you not speak too fast.
For TFA State:
Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.
Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.
Worlds School Debate:
School affiliation/s : Northwest High School
Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School
Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No
Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.
Check all that apply
__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_____I judge WS at national level tournaments
_____I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.
Check all that apply
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before?
I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.
What does chairing a round involve?
Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?
I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?
First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.
I did pf in high school (graduated from flower mound in 2020 & a freshman in college right now), pf wise I'm tech over truth and you can run whatever as long as it's not like something no one would be able to respond to. I vote off the flow and speed is fine, just be clear. cards are important, don't misconstrue but analytics are def also valid. preferably extend everything through every speech including summary, but up to you. if you want more detail on pf look at Nikhil Guddati's paradigm, for how I do speaks/topicality/K's/theory. also, be nice (v important)! on the off chance you're reading this for extemp, I did that in hs too and I'm content > delivery and I know everyone messes up but I'll know if you're just lying lol.
Hi I am a parent for my son at Plano East. I have judged at national level tournaments in PF and LD.
I prefer a slower pace but will not interrupt you by saying clear as I find it very offensive to talk over someone while they are speaking.
You should have a clear value and explain why that value and criteria are valuable. Then, you should explain why you best uphold that value.
Please uphold positivity in the round. I give speaks from 20-30 but I will almost never give 30 speaks. If you are perfect you deserve a 30 but Modi is the only speaker that I have seen that is close to deserving a 30.
I am NOT tab and have strong ideological biases. I believe fast, blippy debate is bad, I believe good research is a good thing, and I believe that if you cannot sufficiently explain your argument within your speech time you should choose something simpler.
Lastly, English is not my first language and zoom can sometimes make things very buggy so please be VERY CLEAR and be open to clarifying parts where you cut out.
I am a student at the University of Houston. I debated for 4 years at Oak Ridge High School. 2 years in PF and 2 years in Congress. I also did Extemp for 2 years.
I frown upon spreading but speaking a little faster is fine but being clear is most important. Make sure you and your partner are on the same page and your speeches back each other up, for example, summary and final focuses should go hand in hand. And make sure rebuttals have an offense as well as defense. Being rude isn't appropriate and will affect the speaker's points so be nice but most of all have fun!
CX Judging Paradigm
I have been teaching 29 years and coaching 16 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.
EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.
SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.
ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP and T should always be started in the 1NC.
KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.
DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.
TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.
INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.
SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.
COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.
THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.
FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding based DA’s).
GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.
LD Judging Paradigm
I have been teaching 29 years and coaching 16 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.
EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.
SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.
ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.
KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.
DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are often out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.
TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.
PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down.
THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.
GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.
DEBATE: Competed in LD for the last three years of High School (graduated 2019). I am comfortable with whatever argumentation that you'd like. But if you speed, I prefer that you either slow down on taglines or add me to the email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org). Because it's LD, provide some sort of framework or adapt to your opponent's so I know what to vote on in order for you to be able to access your impacts. I generally tend to go with tech over truth, except in the case of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc...
***Debate was such a fun time in my life when in high school, but I know how stressful it can be. That said, enjoy yourself and have fun. One way we can do that is to make sure that we are inclusive and accessible to all. I find that some debaters believe that cross-x is a time to "flex" and assert dominance/privilege. Condescending mansplaining, consistent interruptions of your opponent, or otherwise aggressive behavior will not be accepted, either resulting in a loss (at a maximum) or a decimation of speaks (at a minimum). Debate is cool, but it's not important enough to do anything that makes people feel unsafe/uncomfortable.***
SPEECH: I competed in poetry, prose, OO, and info off and on for four years of high school (again, graduated in 2019)
In interp events, I look for a compelling story line, well developed characterization, clear and concise teaser/intro, and ultimately dedication to the story telling
In platform and limited prep, I look for confidence, time allocation, speech structure, and enjoy humour in the right context.
Ultimately, speech events are all about what you make of them and I am just here to watch you use your platform to discuss subjects that are important to you!
I have been coaching all debate events for the past 6 years.
I'm a stock issues judge. I prefer traditional formatting and style of debate. I love to see a lot of framework debate in LD. I do understand at TFA tournaments a more progressive style is the norm. I will judge progressive rounds fairly and will not vote against someone because they are more progressive. I just prefer traditional.
I'm not a fan of spreading. I have found that in a virtual format it is next to impossible to understand you when you are spreading. I don't mind if you are speaking fast and clearly.
Respect and professionalism are important to me. There is no reason to be disrespectful to your opponent. Professional language is important for you to be credible in a round. I don't like to hear ums, uhs, likes in rounds. This is a speaking event as well as a debate event and I want to hear excellent speaking.
Hey, y'all! I joined my high school's Speech and Debate team in my senior year as an interper. Although I mainly focused on Poetry I also competed in POI and DI. After much work throughout that year, I ended up qualifying for the National Speech and Debate Tournament in DI. Below is what I look for in different events.
Interp (POE, PRO, HI, DI, POI, DUO)- In these pieces, I look for a connection to the character. I want to see a completely different person from your teaser and your intro. If there are multiple characters in your piece that you portray I want to see a very noticeable shift between who you came from and who you are now. I also prefer it if you do not break the fourth wall throughout your whole piece. I know and believe there are times where breaking can be beautiful and very effective, but if overdone it loses its meaning and power. In the events with a book I look for a tight "v" shape throughout your piece in POE and PRO, and when you are in your intro I like a central diamond shape. In POI I want to see your book represent be used for multiple things. The more creative the better.
Speeches (Informative, OO, Extempt)- In these, I really look at familiarity with the piece and if there are any personal/vulnerable moments in them. The more personalization you have in your piece the more I will enjoy it. I want to know more about who you are when you when I get done watching your speech.
All Events- In every event not only will I be looking for the above, but I will also be looking for the following: familiarity of the piece/speech, the flow of your piece/speech, your engagement of the audience, personalization, and the individual technicalities.
LD- In LD I look primarily for which debater can hold their side and is the strongest in their argument. I don't like a ton of one side slamming the other side about how they are wrong unless you are going to explain why. In cross-examinations, I also look for what side has the best questions to get what they want out of their opponent and how the person answering the questions answers. Do you use evidence? Do you stay true and mention your argument to further prove your point?
Good luck and I look forward to watching your pieces, speeches, and debates.
I did basically all events in high school and am comfortable and experienced judging everything but congress. In college I debated parli for 4 years at Texas Tech University and was very nationally competitive by the end of my career. I have been coaching for 6 years now and judging for 10.
Extemp: My main thing is to answer the question. If you have a topic, your speech shouldn't be about anything else. If it asks you a yes or no question, your argument should answer that. Sources are critical.
Here are specifics for debate:
What I vote on-
I default Netben unless told otherwise. Impacts and solvency are the best things to convince me to give you my ballot. Be civil or be tanked on speaks.
I don't mind hearing policy style or critical arguments, but you still need to engage with opponents that use Value and Criterion. You can't just format your opponents out of the round.
I'm good with everything. Don't name/card drop at me assuming I have heard the card you are talking about. (Cause I probably don't remember it lol)
I'm ok with it as long as your opponent is ok with it. I refuse to let someone just spread a newer and/or traditional debater out and not allow them to engage in the debate. I will tell you to slow down if I need you to. Particularly so on online tournaments, speed needs to be accessible.
Don't name drop and assume I know what your talking about. I expect links and impacts just like any other argument.
Need to prove abuse, don't just say it is unfair.
Absolutely my favorite thing to listen to in debate.
I'll follow whatever kind of case strategy being run based on the established framework.
Claims should have warrants, I put a lot of weight in evidence (either hard or philosophical) to support well developed arguments. There needs to be a clear link in value/value crit and evidence should be topical. I lean slightly pragmatic.
Quality of arguments are valued over quantity, but there should be sufficient evidence regardless of which strategy.
Opponents should always remain respectful to each other.
Byron Nelson High School (2018-Present)
Royse City High School (2013-2018)
Online Stuff [Please record your speech if you can in case of tech issues. You absolutely should be sending your case over additionally because of mic issues that can happen.]
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.
I like disclosure, don't like disclosure theory.
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round.
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.
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges.
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you did something really gross
-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.
-I will NOT shout clear at you, but I'm pretty nonverbal so if I'm not with you, you'll see it.
-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but check with your opponent before starting the round.
-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
-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had during the round. 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
-The phrase "Cold Conceded" STILL makes me want to puke
FLASH YOUR EVIDENCE OVER TO YOUR OPPONENTS SO WE DO NOT WASTE ROUND TIME FOR YOU TO FIND IT. If you aren't okay with sharing the case you better have your evidence ready to send or I'm docking speaks heavily.
Summary Speech should start collapsing on what you're wanting to focus on in the round
Final Focus should be comfortable with collapsing down on a couple arguments rather than carrying the whole flow
Extend what you want to carry to the end of the round
[Entry current as of the 1/12/21 after my debaters bullied me into making it shorter :(, stay humble]
TFA State Congress Stuff (20-21 season)
I'm just going to answer the posed questions:
Thoughts on rate of deliver/number of arguments addressed?
-Definitely more extemporaneous of a delivery, it doesn't have to be a full out DA/Adv kind of thing with speed and argumentation. Just elaborate on your main points and use those sources effectively.
Thoughts on use of evidence/how much to cite/is it necessary
-Your arguments should have sources, especially if you are going to impact out to some big stick claims, you are gonna want a source to back that up. Sources are necessary when your analytics require more than you just wanting to believe your claim is true. Use evidence is the point i'm getting to here.
Thoughts on use of clash/necessity of bringing up new arguments to keep debate moving
-Whoo buddy, I don't want ten speeches of the aff/neg repeating itself. I know you prepped a speech but be aware of where we are on the floor debate, its much more useful for you to clash or crystallize after the first two or three speeches. This is a huge thing in congress and it needs to progress to more clash and less prepared speeches over and over
What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks?
A good PO just keeps the chamber running efficiently. I don't need to hear yelling about prefacing, make it less about you showing me you run the chamber and more about you actually doing it. I think in a virtual world this is even harder, so if you can make it happen without a lot of downtime, and precedence is on point, then you're gonna rank pretty well.
I prefer a case directly centered around the value and criteria. I am ok with facts and statistic, but being a value debate arguing facts will not necessarily win my ballot. I flow the cases and write extensive ballots so there is not a question as to how I vote. I like a communication round, so I am not a fan of speed or spreading. If an argument is dropped, I will not vote on that drop unless the opponent points out the drop. I pay close attention during CX time and how the q and a are used in follow up speeches. I am not a fan of pre-written argumentation on the resolution when it is read in isolation to the arguments presented in an individual’s case. I like a good strong final speech and will weigh voters. I like to judge JV debaters and help grow them as speakers using the comments I make on my ballot. I do not like to disclose. I do like to keep my own time because I like to see how the debater utilizes his/her time. I am NOT a policy judge, so policy terms are not going to sway my decision.
I am an old school judge. I like framework and do not enjoy listing to spread. I will take some speed as long as I can understand. I do not like theory. Debate the resolution.
Wylie High School (2015-2019)
UT Dallas (2019-?)
- scroll down if you want event by event specifics
- With whatever you run, I prefer a link to the rez
- Be strategic and collapse
- I prefer a speechdrop for all debates, whether CX or PF. Again, just a preference. I flow slower than most and prefer the tags in front of me. And for the love of God, please don't flash, or do an e-mail chain. It's just speechdrop.net, I'll set it up if you need help. everyone gets at least 29 speaks if everyone agrees to an e-mail chain/speechdrop
- I don't care how we run the round, just don't get me in trouble with Dave Huston, Jason Warren, or any of the other tournament directors
Should you strike me/be wary of me:
Unless you debate and a progressive, theoretical, and philosophical level that's above my head, I think you'll be fine. As much as my debate understanding goes, I can comprehend everything up to a traditional policy debate round but have been learning a lot since graduating and judging on the circuit. Ultimately, if you think I might not understand what you're running, try to make the round educational and see if we can both learn something.
Here are some personal prefs concerning args/debate:
- I'm cool with K's, but prefer a link to the rez. I still don't understand the concept on running non-topical K affs, but if you make the case for it I'll vote for it. I don't read K lit in my free time or anything so if you want it i need an explanation.
- If you're running theory let there be a clear abuse violation, and then, detail it to me and why it should be a voting issue, but please don't lay all of your eggs in one basket.
- I don't understand tricks. I'm so sorry.
- I can tolerate a good T debate, stress on the word "good". If it's bad i will go run to tab and ask to give a double loss
- Impact calc is cool and i like it
- Disclosure good. Just know I won't vote for disclosure theory against a small program. On this, please don't make the debate one where disclosure theory becomes the primary focus of the round, I'll be sad
- When extending, please cite the warrant, including the tag and the card, It makes flowing so much easier.
- Putting your pronouns on the tabroom blasts is super cool and awesome!! You should do it!! I'll show you how if you want!! Regardless, introducing yourself in the round with your pronouns is super cool. On this above note, don't try and joke about pronouns. That's an automatic 25
- Expect an L25 and the immediate stop of a round if you try to make debate an unsafe space. This is up to my discretion.
- on TWs: I don't find myself needing them, but that doesn't mean others will not. If you run a case that may involve one, ask if your opponent is ok before you do
- If you're rude during cross-x don't expect any speaks higher then 27. Tense cross-x's are really hard for judges to sit through. Also, I don't flow CX, you should extend anything said in CX during ur speech. I was likely distracted by y'all's tense cross x where I was too bothered to pay attention
- If the debate is a varsity debater against a relative novice, make the round educational and adapt. Both competitors should agree on whether to take the debate on a certain level of K's and phil
Event-by-event quirky things
- CX: run what you like, but please see my warning about my limited comprehensibility of phil and certain K's.
- LD: i really like framework and framework clash, but it's certainly not required. unlike most LD judges, i'm ok with the idea of one-person-policy, but let's not get too extreme out there
-PF: DA's and CP's good. If you want to run anything beyond that ask. I'll probably be down. Be nice. Please collapse and be strategic. If it's not extended into the summary and FF it won't be voted on. Voting issues in the FF is a must! Bonus speaks if everyone agrees to a speechdrop or email chain.
- Congress: For the PO: don't suck lmao. I'll vote you up as long as you don't crash and burn. I'd prefer open chamber as regulations allow. If you're speaking beyond the second or third negative, you need to have rebuttal args or clash; I won't rank you good if you give a boring contention speech. Also if I hear rehash I might puke. I like to think of Congress as a lay hybrid of extemp and debate, so definitely use those extemp skills.
- Speech: Give it your all and don't adapt to my preferences. On trigger warnings/content warnings, I personally don't need one, but fellow competitors might (a TW/CW might be needed for graphic depictions of SA, DV, abuse, etc.). Err on the side of caution and preface one if you think they might be warranted. They're usually best placed in the intro. If not needed, then just go lmao. If you run a graphic piece and someone ends up actually triggered because you didn't warn them about a sensitive topic that you're performing don't expect a good rank. I only include this information about TW/CW because the debate over their usage has definitely resurged, and don't doubt the good that they do in the safe space that is the speech and debate community. Use proper caution and discretion and I won't care.
Have fun everyone!! i'll post updates as i think of them
Hello everyone, some things I will be looking for within individual performances will be how well you analyzed and understand your character/ portray your character. For partnered events, I will also look at these things however I will also see how you work with one another and feed off of each others moments. Along with those I will also be looking at stories and structure. I personally like a teaser that somewhat has me guessing what's going to happen, for intros I prefer something short but detailed little speech (also would prefer for it not to expose the storyline)(also don't be afraid to show your true colors in the intro). I understand we are all In different environments with different resources so as per video set up I really just want to hear you and see as much facials as possible.
-Thank you and good-luck.