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.

Congress:

Authorship/Sponsorship must address the issues in the status quo and why the legislation solves them, at the very least explain what the legislation does.

1st Neg must provide the foundation of the negation (this is the time to your generic/stock arguments).

2nd Cycle needs to start clashing and providing unique points/giving stock points not already brought into the debate.

3rd Cycle+ constructive arguments need to be unique but still topical.

~4th Cycle speeches need to start being half-refs.

~7th cycle (or when only a few people haven't spoken on the item yet) speeches should be crystals, which only consist of clash, grouping arguments, and voters.

I'm not stupid. Although NSDA classifies it as debate, congress isn't real debate and is very presentation focused. Your speaking presentation will be a major factor on my ballot, but if your arguments are non-topical or if they don't make sense you will be dropped.

POs: Know your parliamentary procedure. Be commanding! Only use your gavel for the following reasons- to call session in & out of order, time signals during speeches & questioning, and to call decorum. Do NOT gavel tap to call for speakers or questioners.

Yes, I did notice the precedence error you made during direct questioning. Do I care? As long as it isn't hurting the flow of the round/a strong bias towards or against another competitor then no. However, if you shave time off questioning to look efficient I WILL care and you will be immediately dropped. I know all the tricks, so please don’t try any of them.

You are not guaranteed to break if you PO, but I also give you an equal chance to get the 1 in the chamber.

Extemp:

Try not to go into grace period, but it is not the end of the world if you do. I am not tied to the norms of extemp structure-wise, so feel free to give me a 2 point or heck why not a 1 point speech (just make sure it's good).

Debate Events:

Not experienced enough in any of them, but I’ll try not to do the things that my friends tell me they hate judges doing. I will try to flow, tech > truth, and I’m very knowledgeable about politics and current events but I am sorry if you get me as your judge.

In LD I am a tabula rossa traditional judge that decides on values, criterion, solid contentions, and warranting. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose speaker points.

In WSD, I am a tabula rossa judge in terms of reasoning. Spreading and aggressiveness will lose style points. RFDs are based on principle and practical substantives, reasoning, examples, evidence (where appropriate), models (where appropriate), burdens, weighing and clash.

In PF, I am a tabula rossa judge that decides on contentions that are brought through the round and contentions that are dropped (You have to argue whether they are critical or not). Rounds are based on reasoning and relevance of the evidence presented.