Below are my paradigms listed by highest priority to least:

1. Case construction and validity. Do you understand the position you have taken? Do you understand the resolved? This is closely wrapped up with presentation (you may understand the argument but if you cannot clearly state it, the message is lost on me) but leeway will be given for small presentation mistakes.

2. Argumentation. Do you successfully refute the opponents case? Do you make it easy to follow the arguments? Do you line out a case for why you have successfully argued for your side over your opponents?

3. Use of evidence. Is the evidence you use credible, relevant, and does it successfully uphold your argument?

4. Presentation. Not as important to me as it is to others. Basically, as long as your presentation does not detrimentally affect your argument, you will not get points knocked. Of course, if your presentation is exceptional, that will help the other parts of the paradigm.

.-. .-. | \/ | /, ,_ `'-. .-|\ /`\ '. .' 0/ | 0\ \_ `". .-' _,/ '--'.'|#''---' `--' | / \# | / \# \ ;|\ .\# |' ' // \ ::\# \ /` \ ':\# `"` \.. \# \::. \# \:: \# \' .:\# \ :::\# \ '::\# jgs \ \# \

Background: Competed in speech/debate for 4 years in high school on the city, state, and national circuit. Previous School Affiliation: Harmony School of Advancement

Lincoln-Douglas

General: Feel free to ask questions prior to the round. I try not to intervene during the debates, so be clear on the objectives to win the round.Sign posting and road maps are much appreciated. Vote on who has the more reasonable framework as well as the claim, warrants, and impacts that follow. Extensive flows, be sure to thoroughly address counterarguments and drops your opponent makes. Clash is important and expected, hopefully it comes out natural but always remain respectful. Do not be petty or passive-aggressive.

CX: I love CX. My favorite part of the debate. Make sure to address major points of CX if they are pertinent to the round.

Evidence: If an evidence card seems fishy, such as fabricating evidence or clipping cards in a way that changes the warrant of that evidence, I will ask to see it. Intellectual honesty is very important to me.

Speed: I would prefer you not spread, but if you must due to time constraints, be clear, be fluent, and enunciate. Be sure to also emphasize your main points. If the speaking becomes incomprehensible, I will stop flowing and deduct speaker points. If I can't understand you, and especially if your opponent cannot understand you, that's on you.

Theory: I tend to prefer traditional debate because that's how I was coached, but I'm open to progressive arguments (as long as they make sense and aren't abusive). Just be sure to explain it thoroughly throughout the round. Remember that this is still LD debate, not policy. More likely to intervene in theory heavy debates. If you go this route, make sure that your arguments are especially clear and warranted.

Speaker points: Based on my understanding of the round. If you're articulate, you'll get good speaks. The main way to get bad speaks is to spread poorly.

All in all, respect your opponent, give the round all you've got, be clear, composed, and have fun.

Depending on the event, I like content to, obviously, be relevant to theme/topic.

Clear/clean delivery with good use of volume, rate, pitch.

In debate, I like to be able to understand with clarity.

My name's Emily Jackson but I'd prefer you just called me Emily. I graduated from Plano Senior High School in 2016. I did two years of LD there, PF at Clark High School (Plano) before that, and NFA-LD and parli for the University of North Texas after. Currently associated with Marcus HS and DFW S&D.

FOR NFA - MY LD PARADIGM BELOW IS ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL. In general, refer to my policy paradigm. Here are some key differences:

• NFA-LD is short and I have a lot less tolerance for exploding blippy arguments than you'd probably hope. Keep in mind that the neg only gets two speeches- make your arguments have warrants in both of them. This is true in HS too but I'm also a lot less sympathetic to affs that rely on blip extensions.
• No I do not vote on RVIs in NFA-LD
• No RVIs means I'm more interested in procedural debates

At some point I will add a NFA-LD section but for now if you've got a specific question just ask me.

Short, reading on your phone as you're walking to the room version: Speed is fine, my limit is your opponent. Read whatever arguments you're good at, don't pull out something you don't like running just for me. I like well warranted frameworks, engagement on the framing level, and clear voting issues. I dislike rounds that collapse down to theory/T, but I'm more likely to just be annoyed with those than I am to dock anyone points for it unless you do it badly. Don't run racism/sexism/homophobia/etc good. If you have doubts, don't do it. If you have any specific questions, check below or just ask me before the round.

Fileshare and Speechdrop (speechdrop.net) are my preferred evidence sharing platforms. For evidence sharing and any out of round questions, email me at emilujackson@gmail.com

GENERAL/ALL
General: Too many debaters under-organize. Number responses to things, be clear where you are on the flow, refer to cards by name where you can. For some reason people keep not signposting which sheet they're on, so I'd really really like if you took the extra second to do that. This makes me more likely to put arguments where you want them, and generally makes it much easier for me to make a decision.

Speed: I like speed, but there are many valid reasons that your opponent might object and you should check with them first. Slow down on tags, cites, plan/counterplan texts, interpretations on T/theory, values/criterions, and generally anything you want to make sure I have down. If your opponent asks you not to go fast, don't. I will say "clear" if you're not understandable (but this is normally a clarity issue rather than a speed one.) Make sure you're loud enough when you're going quickly (not sure why some people seem to get quieter the faster they get)

Evidence: Know the evidence rules for whatever tournament you're participating in. Normally this is the NSDA. I take evidence violations seriously, but I don't like acting on them, so just follow them and we'll be fine. If you're sharing speeches (flashing, speechdrop, email chains,) I'd like to be a part of it. It's not that I don't trust you, but I know that debaters have a tendency to blow cards out of proportion/extend warrants that don't exist/powertag, so I'd like to be able to see the cards in round if your opponent can.

Speaks: Generally I give speaks based on strategy and organization, relative to where I feel you probably stand in the tournament. This generally means that I tend to give higher speaks on average at locals than larger tournaments. Low speaks likely mean that you were hard to flow due to organizational issues or you made bad decisions.

LD PARADIGM

Framework: High-school me would best be categorized as a phil debater, so it's safe to say that I love a meaty framework. It's probably my favorite thing about LD. I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that stray from the util/generic structural violence FW norms of LD are my favorite, but make sure you actually know how it works before you do that. I've also come to like well-run deontological frameworks, but I tend to not see those as often as I like. I generally see who won the framing debate and then make the decision under that framework, but I can be convinced otherwise. Non-traditional structures are fine. As a side note, this applies to role of the ballot args as well, and I'm not going to accept a lower standard just because you call it a role of the ballot instead of a standard or a criterion. The manifestation is often different, but we still need justifications folks. Framework is not a voter.

I have a low threshold for answers on TJFs- I generally don't like them and I think they're a bit of a cop-out.

Ks: I like Ks when they're done well, but badly done Ks make me sad. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like. Like on framework, don't assume I know the lit. I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. When done well, K debates are one of my favorite kind of debates.

On non-T K affs - I do very much like judging K v K debates and K affs. I coach non-T K affs now and I think that they can be incredibly educational if done well. I used to run T FW/the cap K a lot, but I feel like that has mostly led to me feeling like I need T FW/cap run well to vote on it as opposed to run at all.

Theory/T: Not a fan, but mostly because the format of LD normally necessitates a collapse to theory if you engage in it. I'm sympathetic to aff RVIs, and I default to reasonability simply because I don't like debates that collapse to this and would like to discourage it. Keep a good line-by-line and you should be fine.

Plans/Counterplans: Go for it. Make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition. I don't really have much to say here.

Some general theory thoughts: Doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen alternative arguments, but here's where my sympathies lie.

Fairness is an internal link to education

AFC and TJFs are silly and mostly a way to deflect engaging in phil debate

Disclosure is good

1 condo advocacy fine

Nebel T is also silly

POLICY PARADIGM:

Ks: I think winning framing arguments are critical here, as they tend to determine how impacts should be weighed for the rest of the round. That being said, most rounds I've judged tend to be more vague about what exactly the alternative is than what I'd like. Clear K teams tend to be the best ones, imo. Kritical affs are fine provided they win a framework question. Do not assume that I know your literature.

T/Theory: Mostly included this section to note that my paradigm differs most strongly from LD here- I don't have a problem with procedurals being run and I can follow the debate well. I have never granted an RVI in policy and I don't see myself doing it any time in the near future- I default to competing interps without any argument otherwise.

Misc: If I don't say something here, ask me- I've never quite known what to put in this section. Open CX is fine but if one partner dominates all of the CXs speaks will reflect that. Flex prep is also fine, verbal prompting is acceptable but shouldn't be overused. I have a ridiculously low threshold on answers against white people reading Wilderson.

PF PARADIGM:

I don't have anything specific here except for the love of all that is good you need to have warrants. Please have warrants. Collapsing and having warrants is like 90% of my ballots here.

Misc, or, the "Why Did I Have To Put That In My Paradigm" Section:

- No, seriously, I will vote on evidence violations if I need to. They're not that hard to follow, so just like, do that.

- "Don't be offensive" also means "don't defend eugenics"

- Misgendering is also a paradigmatic issue. ESPECIALLY if you double down

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

For Speech events, I like a clear introduction. Teasers are ok. I like to see clear differences between characters both by physicality and by voice. I like to connect to the performance and judge on skill and on effort.

Policy Debate:

I tend to be traditional when it comes to debate but, I am open to other approaches. I would like to see why an argument is valid/justified-don't make assumptions. I also prefer the round to be an argument of the resolution. I expect there to be evidence to support your arguments. Make your arguments clear so I know where to place them on the flow.

Speech:

Extemp: Properly structure your speech, quality over quantity for evidence, and you must stay on topic.

Oratory/Info: Persuade me and leave me with some realistic solutions. Solutions should be researched and have merit that they can solve the problem. Structure and transitions are important.

He, Him.

Spread all you want, but you'd better be good at it or lose your speaks.

I coach, so don't be abusive.

Yes, I'm flowing.

Policy - Policy Maker

LD - Theory & Phil.

PF - Analysis and Clash

Extemp. - Analysis and Composure

email chain: diemktnguyen@utexas.edu

pronouns: she/her

Hi my name is Saba Rajput! For some history, I have four years of LD experience in high school and was a state qualifier, so I am open to nearly all arguments in traditional and progressive debate.

I prefer traditional because I feel like thats what LD really was always about, value and value criterion debate. I value framework more than anything so make sure you hit hard on that regardless of the type of debate you are doing.

I am open to progressive and I definitely wont down you for it, within it i love hearing K debate. As long as you are attacking all points and defending your own that is all I care about with most priority being given to framework and then impact calculus.

Make your links clear!

Im okay with speed, just add me on the email chain - Saba.Rajput05@gmail.com

i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.

Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.

i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.

I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.

if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.

Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.

Speaks

30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.

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.

Let me start with; You the debater are trying to sell me your side, don't yell at me and don't speak so fast that I can not hear all your points clearly, you are selling me on something of worth not on a late-night only on TV issue. Faster speaking does not make a better debater. Have many sources if you are only getting your information from one source then you haven't written a speech you have copied an article. Show grace while we are in the virtual world, technology has issues, pay attention and show courtesy if it happens to an opponent or judge. Spreading is becoming a hot topic, let me put it in the most simple terms, do not do it, there are very few people who can spread successfully. I am interested in your ability to discuss, promote and convince, over your ability to bully and perform character attacks. If you want to make a case using only hot button buzz words I will not give in to that sort of conversation, I would rather support a debater whose topic is completely against my core, but who has a great presence and amazing data, than someone whom I agree with but who can not think for themselves and must use the bullying tactic of fear-mongering to communicate.