I competed in Informative, Oratory, Extemp, PF, Congress, and LD in high school. I competed in traditional circuits but have experience on the nats circuit.

PF:

I believe PF should be pretty traditional. I love good clash and an easy flow. I do consider crossfire as an important element, but will not weigh anything that occurs in CX unless you tell me to in your speech. I enjoy being on the chain so include me (kevincraig226@gmail.com). Speed is fine, just make sure you're clear and understandable-I will let you know if you are too fast.

LD:

I prefer seeing a traditional debate but I'm good with CPs and DAs, but don't like seeing Kritiks. Speed is okay, I'll let you know if I can't understand you. CX is important to me, but I don't weigh anything in it unless you bring it up in your speech. Add me to the email chain at kevincraig226@gmail.com.

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. 

speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

When it comes to LD I look for framework arguments above contention arguments and I am fine with logical arguments. No spreading please. Higher points for addressing the issue raised by opponents from your initial position. I like good CX. Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive. Not a big fan of shell case.

I have been an educator for over fifteen years, and a Debate and Oral Interpretation coach for over five years. My primary concern is ensuring debaters learn skills that prepare them for the future. Here are three principles to keep in mind for your round with me:

Have fun. Debate in a way that you can keep your cool. Don't stress out - it's all good. We're just throwing some ideas around to see what sticks, something philosophers have been doing forever.

Learn lots. Debate in a way that shows you have learned something valuable. I want to hear clear, concise, thoughtful arguments with effective and logical counters to your opponent. Please note that I have a slight hearing impairment that makes it difficult for me to follow spreading. I appreciate clear signposting. Overall, I prefer quality over quantity, and if you do a better job of making your case and defending it, you win.

Be good. Debate in a way that shows respect for your opponent and the judge. No one at this competition deserves to be treated disrespectfully.

That's it! Have fun, learn lots, be good!

I am a communications judge. No Kritiks please. I’m cool with some theory, not all of them (not a fan of disclosure theory).

I focus on enunciation; speak clear taglines, regardless of flashing the judge your case, it is still a speaking event.

Note: there’s a difference between fast speaking and spreading. Just make sure to enunciate your tags, signpost, etc., and you’ll be fine. if I hear heavy breathing because you’re reading too fast, it’s a problem.

Having said that, I like analytics. You can use evidence/cards and cross apply them, just ensure you provide a clear explanation as to why you’re able to cross apply them. You can’t just say “cross apply my C1 to his DA” and move on; tell me why it applies. Make sure to emphasize how it cross applies.

I like to follow the flow. I expect a good, yet understandable rebuttal. Please include me (the judge) in the email chain, if any. (antonio.valdez@psjaisd.us)

please do not be rude. If you become aggressive within the round, expect to see low speaks. It’s one thing to attack an argument, it’s another thing to attack your opponent.

Last, I do not disclose. Tournaments typically run late and I don't wanna add to the problem.

[Updated 10/23/2023]

Midway '20 / BYU '26

TFA, UIL, NSDA, NDCA debater; fourth-year judge

He/Him

add me to the email chain - benwdebates@gmail.com

Top Level:

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

I am not a college debater, but I have judged a number of tournaments.

Generally tech over truth

I want to call myself a tab judge who acknowledges that biases exist. Feel free to run whatever you want so long as it's explained and debated well. My place in the debate is as an observer to in-round information; that being said, understanding of the world is limited and often skewed.

T:

-Don't run it as a time skew. If you run it, I want to see it extended to the rebuttals at least, and I want to see a clear violation.

-I'm a fan of legal/textual precision - run T if there are technical aff mistakes

-For voters, I don't regularly buy in-round abuse. Limits/ground/education is the easier argument to win and normally just makes more sense.

-Otherwise, I default to reasonability. Prove a violation or there isn't one

Case:

-Assume I know nothing about your case. I probably do, but I like explanation.

-pls understand your case, if you fall apart in cx you lose a lot of ethos.

-no underview; overview should be <20 seconds [assuming your 1AC was adequate lol]

-prefer an LBL in the order of the 1NC case args but honestly idc

-Framing: preempts are ok but unnecessary, I probably default to a deontological standard (which isn't really saying much)

K affs:

-Performance, narratives, etc: all cool. I give them weight in the debate space because they're still debate arguments. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key. FW debate is real important to me, and be prepared to defend switch side debate.

DA

cool

-UQ controls DA, if you run a long link chain scenario w old ev I'll probably not buy it

-I like good impact debate

CP:

-Pretty simple, prove competition with the aff + net benefit or I won't buy

-Probably won't vote on theory args here unless it's blatant, affs are better off attacking solvency mechanism of the CP in my book

K:

-Debate the K's thesis as it applies to the topic/aff. Give me a specific link, I don't really vibe w teams who just run the same neg strat w generic parts

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

-Again, I love a good FW debate, have a good interp about the ROB, otherwise it's just to vote up the better debater lol

-Well versed in biopolitics, setcol, cap, afropessimism, and neitzsche. Run whatever, but anything (especially lit heavy things) should be explained thoroughly.

Theory:

-You can ask about specifics but my general answer is please don't.

-Aspec is dumb unless they really don't specify in plan text (cx probably checks)

-I probably won't vote on condo, 99% of the time just whiny debaters haha

-I think I said this already but potential abuse isn't a voter

Misc. Info:

-Speed is fine, but clarity above anything else. I won't flow things I can't hear or understand.
I'll say/type clear twice in the event that your spreading is messy. (Obs: online debates with spreading suck, so on the off chance that I'm judging one of those, please don't)

-Points are awarded for good clash, quality arguments, efficiency, judge direction, impressive cross-x, and for being an effective speaker. Try to make this interesting for me. The medium is the message; you have a better chance of winning if you phrase your argument in a professional/enjoyable manner.

-I'll typically award at least 28 speaks unless you're blatantly rude, apathetic, or otherwise disturbing the debate space. Racism/misogyny/homophobia/any other kind of discrimination is grounds for 0 speaks.

-Mark your own cards and be ready to clarify where they were marked

-I used to run spark and wipeout a lot, so I vibe w impact turns when they're ran well

-Email me w any questions, I'll typically get back to you within 24 hours

[note: treating me as a lay judge in LD is not a terrible idea. I have debated and judged LD in a limited capacity, and I am fairly well-versed in LD, but it is probably a safe bet to overexplain everything.]

thanks for actually reading this! if you did feel free to let me know and I'll probably see you as a more responsible debater haha

Joshua Wimberley
Speech & Debate Coach
Midland Legacy High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions, just ask.