School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required): Dripping Springs High School

Hired (yes/no) (required): No

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: N/A

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): N/A

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against (:required) Dripping Springs High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

College Speech and Debate Experience - list events competed in (required) None

Years Judging/Coaching (required) <1

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required) <1

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

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 (required)

Check all that apply

____ Congress

__x__ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required) No

What does chairing a round involve? (required) Introducing the speakers, managing time, and directing the delivery of feedback at the end of the round.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required) An accessible debate format designed for students to argue for different aspects of an ideal world

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required) I track burdens, assertions, and clashes in my Tabroom notes for each speaker on both sides of the debate.

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. (required) I can be swayed by a compelling principle argument and/or a compelling practical argument, but I probably give a slight edge to principle arguments because WSD is fundamentally theoretical and idealistic in nature.

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? (required) I evaluate a speaker's structure, timing, comprehension, and focus on the debate's issues.

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? (required) I would likely deduct at least one point from all categories.

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? (required) First, I evaluate competing claims based on their presentation. If the claims seem exaggerated, false, or unclear, I may quickly fact-check them. I'd expect the opposing team to call out distorted claims.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required) I evaluate the degree to which both teams' respective models align with the topic and, if both do, generally side with the team that presents the most logically sound and coherent model.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required) I evaluate the degree to which both teams' respective models align with the topic and, if both do, generally side with the team that presents the most logically sound and coherent model with valid and compelling principle and practical arguments.

Hello! My name is Nico Gonzalez. My pronouns are he/him. I competed in a wide variety of events during my four years at The Woodlands High School. These include PF, WSD, Info, OO, Prose, IMP, and USX. In college, I competed in Prose, IPDA Debate, and Impromptu before unfortunately transferring to a school that did not have a team :(

Random thoughts (THESE APPLY TO ALL EVENTS)

-Pronouns: In most rounds I've seen or participated in for the last few years, I haven't had an issue with this, as most competitors refer to their opponents as "my opponent" and not by any gendered pronoun, but please do not misgender anyone (ESPECIALLY NOT ON PURPOSE) and if you can, add your pronouns to your tab account under "profile". This is simply to avoid any conflict and make the environment comfortable for everyone.

-Trigger/ Content Warnings

These are CRUCIAL if you're going to discuss any heavily sensitive subjects such as abuse, assault, etc. THIS ALSO APPLIES FOR IEs. I have seen far too many Interp pieces with extremely triggering scenes and no warning. I personally do not have any triggers, but that does NOT mean your competitors don't. Be mindful. Simply saying "as a quick warning, my piece will be discussing _______" or "before I speak, I would like to warn everyone that our case includes discussions of ________" is enough.

Disclosing Results

Please don't pressure judges to disclose results. Ever. Asking is fine to me, but sometimes we need some time to process the round, reflect, and make final decisions. I will never disclose IE rankings but yet again I've never seen a judge do that. As for debate events, if I've made my decision, I'll disclose. I find that being able to discuss in person rather than only in a written ballot can be very productive and yields better feedback. If we have time and the tournament isn't running late, I might ask you to stay one or two minutes if you want me to disclose. Generally, I want to give y'all constructive feedback rather than downing you without properly explaining why.

Conduct

There are certain actions that I will not accept in a round. For example, talking when your opponent is speaking. I don't mean whispering to your partner to strategize, that is perfectly acceptable. What I do not allow is trying to argue while your opponent is speaking. Each team has its own time, respect it.

Another unacceptable action is making remarks toward your opponent instead of their case/arguments. I once had a round where an opponent just went through my case, called it "bad debate", referred to my team as "bad debaters" then proceeded to lose. Why? As judges, we don't want to hear you say your opponent's case is bad. Instead, debate it properly and show us why yours is better. Everyone is at a different point in their speech & debate journey, so be respectful.

Generally, just remember: it costs ZERO dollars to be respectful. Other obvious unacceptable actions such as blatant harassment will likely end with me having a chat with your coach. Let's avoid that.

Statement on Implicit Bias:

I do not tolerate sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc, in any way. When I competed in WSD, my female teammates were often talked over and interrupted a lot more than me and my male teammates. The same was true in PF when I had a female partner. Some competitors do not have sexist or malicious intentions, but do these things subconsciously, so please keep this in mind for EVERY round you compete in. Please respect your competitors and we will not have an issue. Female competitors are too often criticized for exhibiting behavior that is considered "normal" for male debaters and are told to "calm down" or "stop yelling" yet are expected to tolerate being talked over and disrespected by male opponents. I will not perpetuate this sexist culture that plagues the speech and debate community, and I will never expect any competitors to submit to gender roles.

WSD

Models: I absolutely love models in WSD. If you decide to run a model, stick with it during every speech of the round or I won’t consider it when voting. Basically as long as it's not dropped, it's fair game.
Burdens: I usually find that burdens go dropped by both teams in rounds, so I won’t mind if you don’t provide burdens in framework, but I also will not vote off of burdens if they’re simply unfair or abusive.
Weighing: Use the reply speech to weigh. The way I used to do it, for example, was by going over principal/practical arguments and then upholding the framework provided at the beginning of the round.
POIs: I will be giving time signals to signal protected time. Also, please allow the speaker asking a POI to finish their question before cutting them off. As for asking POIs: please wait at least twenty seconds between POIs and try to keep your POIs no longer than 15 seconds.

Speed/Presentation: I prefer a normal speaking pace in WSD. The whole point of WSD is to be persuasive and presentation is a large factor in that. PF and LD have both been slowly adopting spreading as an acceptable strategy, but I refuse to let that happen to WSD. While it has not become an issue yet, please keep in mind that presentation is a voting criteria in the points system of most WSD ballots.

LD/CX

If you have the misfortune of having me as a judge for LD or CX, it probably means the tournament REALLY needed judges, because I am not very well versed with LD/CX terminology or common arguments.

I did compete in CX for UIL which is VERY lay so I'm really only familiar with the basic arguments such as plans, counterplans, disads, topicality, voting issues, etc. My LDer friends tried explaining Kritiks and Theory to me many times, and I understand Kritiks to a certain extent, but please try to keep the round traditional/lay.

Despite my lack of experience, I am actually fine with (but do not love) spreading IF AND ONLY IF I can see the case (email chain, flashing, Google Drive) while you speak to make flowing/ following along easier. Additionally, make sure you slow down for taglines so I can flow those, and generally please SIGNPOST.

PF

I competed in PF for two years. What I want to see most in PF is consistency. Please do not introduce new arguments after the first rebuttal, as I prefer the round to consist of both teams actually attacking and engaging with each other's arguments and not trying to stack as many new arguments on their side as possible. Every PFer knows time is VERY limited, and my biggest complaint when competing in it was how short the speeches were. For this reason, I do not expect every single argument to be extended until the very end. If you drop a minor argument, I will not instantly vote you down. In the summary and final focus, only respond to the arguments you have time for. Do not skim over large arguments or give short, surface level responses for the sake of having enough time for minor arguments.

For speaker points, I usually give decently high speaks. A little bit of humor might earn you a little extra, but my standards for speaks are nothing special.

As for speed, I would rather not hear spreading or attempting to speak rapidly to fit arguments in general. Public Forum has sadly started to see spreading more and more often, although NSDA was kinda asking for that to happen by making the speech times so short...

I look forward to judging for you! Please ask me in round if you have any further questions!

My experience is in Congress, LD, extemporaneous speaking, informative speaking, and original oratory. All this to say, I’ve competed in speech AND debate, so my judging philosophy is based on artful and skillful speaking.

Speaking

Be engaging. Especially with IE, don’t lose your audience. Be animated and passionate!
While that isn’t as important in a debate event, make sure to have a clear line of reasoning for your arguments. The flow should flow well.

If you speak clearly, I can follow spreading. If I can’t catch it in the flow, I won’t vote on it, so spread with that in mind.

Evidence

Paraphrase some evidence and DO NOT card dump. Integrate evidence well and establish a clear line of reasoning for your arguments or your evidence won’t count as a warrant.

Don’t forget to date all your evidence.

Decorum

Above all, be respectful of your opponents and don’t use fallacies when arguing their case.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

I am a Tab Rosa judge. I will not make arguments for you, and if it is stated in the round it needs to be substantiated. Don't just make a wild claim and consider it as truth. If you can provide back up on each claim, I will value it in the round. I'm perfectly fine with all arguments, as long as they are run properly. If you speak fast and unclear, it makes it harder to value the arguments in the round. Please speak clearly.

Speech I look for who gives the best speech with 6 or more sources. What I am looking for is clarity as well as if it is a good speech. If you have great points, but the speech is just fact after fact and monotone, I will have a hard time ranking you up. That being said, I also don't want TOO much style. If you've got a funny, entertaining speech, but the analysis is lacking I will have a hard time ranking you up. I am looking for a perfect blend of the two.

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.