Email: reuelhsbautista@gmail.com

For LD:

Tabula Rasa

As long as the argument is well explained and the debater shows why it leads to a winning ballot, I will vote on anything.

I typically judge policy, so I might be somewhat biased to policy-esque arguments.

Make sure I'm on the email chain/speech drop and be clear on tags.

Do not make me make the arguments for you. Be clear on how and why a card or an analytic clashes with your opponent's arguments, or why it's a voter.

Make sure you have fun in the round. Do not take it too seriously. You are [probably] not actually a racist no matter what your opponent calls you.

For Policy:

Tabula Rasa

I am willing to listen to any argument as long as you explain why it leads to a winning ballot. Make it easy for me to judge the round by explaining to me what to vote for and why I should vote on it. If arguments become incomprehensible, I will default policy.

I do not like new arguments in the 2nd Negative Constructive.

Kritiks

I am mostly fine with Ks. I am not super well read on all K literature, so make sure that everything is well explained, defined and be specifically clear on the link debate. Again if the K debate gets too messy or incoherent, I will default policy.

Theory/T

Any theoretical conflict is up for debate. I will vote on T but it has to be well-developed and reasonable in the round. Otherwise, I will typically vote Aff on T as long as the aff has a reasonable response to the argument.

DA

Cool

CP

I am not the biggest fan of CP but I will usually vote on it as long as its properly debated.

Presentation

As long as I'm part of the email chain or speech doc, all you have to do is have clear tags. If for some reason I do not have access to your doc, make sure your reading is clear and comprehensible. I am fine with speed, but I will not flow anything I cannot understand. Do not make me make the arguments for you. Explain your arguments, provide analytics, and make sure you have a clear line by line. Make sure to go hard into voters in the last speech.

Don't be a jerk in-round. I will deduct speaks for unruly behavior.

My pet peeve is "in your own words" questions in cx.

Midway '20 / Baylor '24

TFA, UIL, NSDA, NDCA debater

He/Him

Please add me to the email chain - StephenBender3@gmail.com

(Email me w/ any questions)

Top Level:

Debated all 4 years, qualified for TFA/UIL state 3 years, NSDA 2 years.

In General

I am a tab judge. I will weigh anything if you can tell me why I should.

Speed is fine but is never more important than clarity (especially for online debate). I'll give you two warnings before I stop flowing.

Please give me a roadmap before speeches and stick to it as best you can.

Tech over truth, for the most part. I will intervene as little as possible.

Scoring

Clarity, honesty, and thoughtful analysis of arguments will earn high speaks from me. I cannot emphasize enough how important clash is- if neither side is responding to anything the other is saying, both sides will get low speaks.

However, the only way you could score below 27 speaks is if you are

a) Unnecessarily rude,

b) Intentionally throwing, or

c) Disrespectful to me, your fellow debaters, or debate itself.

Discrimination and/or personal attacks are grounds for 0 speaks. Don’t.

T

I won't be happy if you run it as a time skew.

I will default to reasonability unless you prove there is a violation.

Case

I’m not likely to be educated on your specific case. This means that it is EXTREMELY important that you understand your own case and explain it to me thoroughly.

No underviews please, overviews are great as long as they are short.

DA

Not a big fan of super long, weak, or general link chains.

Impact calculus in the last speeches please.

CP

Prove competition with the aff and a net benefit.

K

Kritiks are great, but I should see a well-explained alt solvency mechanism. Give me an alt that actually defends something or I probably won't vote.

I'm fairly well versed in biopolitics, setcol, cap, afropessimism, and neitzsche. Run whatever, but anything (especially lit heavy things) should be explained thoroughly.

Most importantly, you must be able debate your Kritik in your own words without simply repeating your evidence. I'm not likely to vote for something that I completely don't understand at the end of the round.

K affs

You’ll have to be ready to win the framework debate. Basically, everything that applies to Ks applies here: know what you're talking about and defend an alternative.

Theory

Feel free to ask about specifics, but in general unless there is blatant, in-round abuse, the chance I will vote on or even weigh theory is very small.

tl;dr

Be kind, be clear, and know your arguments well. Run whatever you would like. Good luck!

Please add me on the email chain: samantha.ceccopieri01@gmail.com

First year debate judge. 2 years of experience. Qualified and competed in TFA and UIL state.

When it comes to arguments, I am open for any type of argument you want do, but please make sure it has clash. If you ran a DA make sure it has an actual impact, if you ran a T do not just attack the wording just because, think, is there an actual violation in the plan etc. I do not have a preference for any specific type of argument, I'll tell you I am not very familiarized with the topic of this year so please give me a good introduction and explanation to your plan/argument in order to understand your point.

I do not have a problem with speed, as long as you are clear in your taglines, year and author to get each of your on-case arguments there should not be a problem. If you do not do that, I will keep flowing, yet I will not flow those arguments since I was not able to get them, there will not be in my flows and will not count them when I make the winner decision. Basically non-existent.

Debate should be fun, and despite the difficulties I hope everyone has good time and learning experience. Good luck!

Include me on the email chain: ethanwake97@gmail.com

I have 4 years experience in policy debate, qualified to UIL state (2X) and TFA (2X). I'm a tabs judge, open to all kinds of arguments, but what I'm looking for is understanding of the resolution and arguments presented, as well as persuasion to buy your args (also, clash!!!). Keep in mind that this early in the year, I may not have the scope of understanding of the resolution that you do, so if I don't see any comprehension from your side, it won't look good. I'm fine with speed, but I'm not a superhuman who can flow at the speed of lightning, and at some point, if it sounds like you're speaking gibberish, I'm not going to flow; I'll give you two warnings, and then stop flowing. Bottom line, we're all here because we love the sport, so let's have some fun and debate!

I'm mainly a stock issues judge. Impact debate probably has the most sway over my decisions, while T is often lower on the list. I will vote on Alt Frameworks but they have to be well developed and well argued. And I dislike "Conditionality" I'll except reasonably sensible hypothesis testing, but will weigh contradictory arguments heavily against the need if they are lost.

I did policy debate for three years in high school. I prefer a more traditional approach to debate but am more than willing to hear progressive debate if it’s based around solid framework. If you plan to spread the only thing I ask is that it be audible and intelligible.

As a judge I approach competition as clash in communication. Debate is a elevated level of both communication and critical thinking applied through logical application.

I will judge any argument -- not opposed to K, Aff K, theory etc. I have awarded wins on each. However, my feelings about K/Aff K are that this type of argument is basically a protest against the event or the alleged inherent bias or unfairness of the topic/framers/system or other foundational aspect of Policy Debate. If you are refusing to engage on the topic of the round, I must hear a clear alternative to the specific failures exposed by the K/K Aff, and you must give voters.

Clash is all important, but civility is paramount to applying your arguments to the round. Ad Hominem attacks will cost speaker points, even if they are somehow tied to an inherent bias argument. There are plenty of ways to question the fairness or bias of something without somehow crafting your CX opponent into the evil embodiment of such a bias.

Rapid delivery is tolerated insofar as I can keep up. If I stop typing and disengage from the ballot, you are going too fast. This relates back to my position that Debate is a communication event, it is not an audition to become the voice that reads fine print at the end of a Pharmaceutical or Car financing commercial.

I like CP, Stock Issues, DA, On Case, and Framework arguments equally. It is up to you to teach me why your arguments are superior to your opponents and how your positions have withstood any attacks from your opponents. A great impact Calc is a way to take me over to your side...I have changed my mind many times in judging a round when I am presented with an effective final rebuttal like this.

Have fun, be respectful, and great job for working this hard to get to this meet. I look forward to judging each team I will meet.

Coach at THE Atascocita High School

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: John.Rogers@humbleisd.net

I debated for New Caney High School for three years and have completed my seventh year as a high school coach. My program competes primarily throughout the Houston TFA circuit and has a heavy focus on Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Dramatic Interpretation. I judge as needed at local invitational TFA tournaments and have experience judging all debate events, with the exception of World Schools.

CONGRESS:

Presiding Officer Philosophy- If the PO runs a flawless chamber, it is almost certain that they will advance to the next round, especially if they were the only one volunteering to do so.

I like to see all of the normal things we look for within a speech (arguments, evidence, responses to arguments from previous speakers, etc.). Offense is key.

Pet Peeves- (1) Do not tell the PO you have a speech when gathering splits and then not have a speech for the chamber. This makes for bad debate. (2) Faux outrage in order to gain a ballot is annoying. Refrain from shouting and pretending to be angry about something that you don't have a personal stake/connection in/to. (3) Questioning should not be a competition of who can scream over who. It's not a shouting match. (4) Gotcha questions and questions that you already know the answer to are annoying.

CX Shortcuts (1-YES; 5-STRIKE):

T/Theory: 3
DA: 1
CP:1
Conditionality: 4
K: 4

General CX:

· From the 1AR of one of my favorite former Kingwood HS debaters, “You’re a policymaker. You vote on one of three things: (1) a policy option, (2) a competing policy option, or (3) the Status Quo.” I think that this debater did a great job of describing pathways to win my ballot.

· I don’t like intervening in debate rounds. However, I have to write a ballot. My suggestion for all debaters is to use your rebuttal speeches to write my RFD for me. I’m very fond of “even if” strategies when it comes to ordering arguments of importance (Ex: “You vote NEG because of _____. Even if you don’t buy that, you vote NEG because of ___.”)

· Tech > Truth (Please note that I’m reevaluating this idea each time I hear a terrible argument. I don’t recommend counting on me dismissing an argument on a truth standard. I DO recommend going line-by-line.)

· PREP TIME ends when your flash drive leaves your computer. If we’re on an email chain, which I prefer, you will see me get frustrated if I feel you’re stealing prep.

· Line-by-line is important. This is where clash should happen. When you read a long overview, and even though most of y’all tell me to flow it on a separate sheet of paper, those arguments don’t ever cross over to my flow. This is where arguments are missed and, possibly, rediscovered post RFD.

· I will presume NEG in policy rounds due to unlimited prep for the AC. I will, from time to time, depending on the quality of the argument, go for the “any risk of [impact solvency] you vote AFF” in the absence of any negative offense. I will NOT presume NEG for a counter advocacy other than the status quo.

· NEG STRAT: Not a fan of negative teams that go more than 4-5 off.

Speaks:

· In really good rounds, I don’t have a problem giving more than one speaker a 29.5. I don’t tend to give tenths of points other than halves. My speaks in these rounds usually averages somewhere around 28.5.

· I will tank your speaks if you use arguments to attack debaters personally. You should be responding to the argument itself, not assuming that the argument represents the debater that is making it. Same goes to being rude and/or disrespectful to other debaters.

o With that said, I love aggressive debate. If your level of aggressive toes the line of aggressive and disrespectful, I’ll err on aggressive when it comes to my ballot and just make a comment to you at the end of the round.

o Anything overboard that deserves more than just a warning, I’ll stop the round and give you a loss (this hasn’t happened yet throughout my career).

Speed:

· I’m about a 6/10. I can give you a little room to go faster if I have your doc in front of me on my computer.

· Please slow down on your tag lines so as to help me flow. I don’t tend to flow authors unless they’re addressed in the round, so please let me know what the author said (the tag), let me find it on the appropriate flow, and THEN give me your analysis.

-If you try to read at a 10/10 pace and mumble over half of your evidence, that is grounds for 25 speaks. This is almost the same thing as clipping to me.

Disadvantages:

· Go for it.

· Full, 4-card DAs are best for a 1NC.

· Case-specific links are best. As debates get better, I like to see more unique DAs that are more specific to the AFF. Then again, I’m probably more familiar with the generic DAs, so you do you.

Counterplans:

· Go for it.

· Not a fan of multiple CPs as a neg strat.

Impact Calc:

· Please be sure to evaluate risk of impacts instead of making the round about how a nuclear war is definitely going to happen. Appropriately evaluating impacts improves quality of debates tremendously.

K Debate:

· This is probably not the best way to my ballot, but I’d love for a good K team to help me change this mindset.

· While I understand real-life impacts are present in our society (structural violence, racism, sexism), I’d prefer to have some kind of policy solution to these problems rather than just talk about them. I will roll my eyes if the word "reimagine" is in the text of your ALT.

· I have not read any of your literature. I am not familiar with any of your literature. Please make appropriate adjustments if you choose this strategy.

· Not at all a fan of non-topical affirmatives. 1AC should always have a plan text.

Ethical Challenges/Cheating:

· If there is an accusation of cheating, the round will stop, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the accused cheated. If cheating is proven, the round will be awarded to the accuser, if cheating is not proven the round will be awarded to the accused. 30 speaks for winning team; 20 speaks for losing team. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.

· Debaters are accountable for the evidence that they read. I will be a little more lenient if the card is from a camp file, but that does not excuse blatant misrepresentation/academic dishonesty.

Teams are at liberty to debate in the styles they have been coached to perform as long as they are capable of defending their positions. Speed is fine, as long as it’s clear. I will listen to and evaluate both traditional and progressive arguments in the framework the debaters define. I prefer arguments to be specific and warranted, and for each team to provide effective comparative analysis giving me reasons to vote in the final rebuttals. I typically am familiar with most arguments on the topic, but refrain from technical high speed responses  and focus more on clearer more substantive explanations of your positions. Policy debates are easier for me to follow, but feel free to read kritkal strategies, just flesh it out a little more for me. 

I’ve been involved with the debate community since 1997. Most of my time has been debating and coaching in the South Texas border region. My interests are politics disads, gender, identity, cap, bio power, critical race Ks. I’m cool with T and counter plans. Theory needs to be slow and explained I won’t pull the trigger just cause to have a block. 

CX Paradigm: I am a policymaker judge; I am most likely to decide the winner of any given round based on which team has most cogently and coherently argued that their position results in the best policy for the USFG. This means that the AFF must prove their case is better than the status quo and/or the NEG's counterplan. I am unlikely to look favorably on a perm/do both strategy. I will vote on a Kritik that proves substantially that it will enhance some given policy need of the USFG. I'm not likely to vote on a Kritik that enhances participation in Debate, or society as a whole, unless it links directly to the stated point of the round. Debate is a speaking event, and I don't hear as well as I once did, so if you're mumbling or slurring your speeches, I can't vote for your argument. I can understand you if you spread, but if you're sacrificing volume and clarity for speed, it could cost you the round. Rudeness can cost you speaker points

LD Paradigm: LD is not policy, LD is an argument on morality. You should establish a value and criterion for your side of the round. A round which has clash on these points makes a good debate. Clash is better than rehash. If you don't attack your opponent’s argument I will not make the connection for you. Explain warrants. Impact your arguments. Use comparative statements and weighing in last speeches.

Extemp Paradigm: ANSWER THE QUESTION! Answer the question you drew, not the one you wish you drew. Give a coherent, clear response that is definite. Use sources for each of the main points you are making in your speech. A canned, forced analogy that only vaguely ties into the topic annoys me. Movement is ok in the virtual realm, but don't get too far from mid screen. Make sure your lighting is good, that I can see your face.

Interp Paradigm: I'm always happy when interpers give me clear, compelling characters that pull me into the piece. HI's that are gimmicky and wildly overblown are NOT my cup of tea. You can be humorous WITHOUT being ridiculous. I like to see levels. If you start at 11 and stay there the entire time, it doesn't show versatility.

OO Paradigm: Give me a great opening that pulls me in. Lay out what your call to action is. Guide me through your points. Use solid sources for your evidence. BE PERSUASIVE! Movement is ok in the virtual realm, but don't get too far from mid screen. Make sure your lighting is good, that I can see your face.

INF Paradigm: Let me know why I should be listening to your topic. Give me that little pop that makes sit up and think "Wow, that's COOL!" Make sure your speech is well organized. If you are using props, make sure they ADD to the info, not distract from it. Try to use props seamlessly. Movement is ok in the virtual realm, but don't get too far from mid screen. Make sure your lighting is good, that I can see your face.