Tabroom.com

Yellow Rose District Tournament

2021 — TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Manny Acevedo Hire

Last changed on Tue April 30, 2024 at 5:51 PM CDT

PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly. New on case arguments are ok in 2NC, but not off case.

Clement Agho-Otoghile Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CDT

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Amanda Atkinson West Hardin None

Diane Boor Holy Trinity Catholic High School None

chuck Brandon Hire

James Brenenstuhl Round Rock Christian Academy 8 rounds

Hannah Bryant Hire 8 rounds None

Kathy Christophel Hire 8 rounds None

Joseph Collatos Caney Creek High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:24 AM CDT

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Rebecca Cooper Hire None

Taylor Dougherty Princeton High School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:54 PM CDT

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.

About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>truth most of the time.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.

LD:I do not know what tricks are. Please read an impact to T-FW.

Jacob Everett Grandview High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 10:56 AM CDT

TL;DR:

You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded.

If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, NFA-LD (policy), parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!!

Hello! I am the current debate coach for Claudia Taylor Johnson High School in San Antonio, and was a 4 year policy debater in high school on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits for China Spring High School, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I tend to evaluate rounds based on an offense/defense paradigm, so I enjoy rounds with a lot of interaction between arguments and good articulations of their stories.

Speech drop is ideal, but email chain is fine. I'd like to be included in whatever form of file sharing y'all engage in. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded (unless y'all are physically uploading to a flash drive and walking it to the other team, then prep stops when you start to walk the drive to the opponents)-- too many teams have taken advantage of their ability to "save the doc" to steal prep time.

I'm usually not looking at the doc during round, but occasionally I will based on how the round plays out. Don't count on me looking back over the doc to fill holes in my flow though, if you're not clear enough for it to end up on my paper then I'm not evaluating it. I look over evidence for questions of ethics, quality, or for resolving major points of interest in the round when I absolutely have to-- not to fill in blanks from what I couldn't catch.

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

POLICY/NFA LD:

I enjoy watching K v K, K v Policy, and Policy v Policy rounds equally.

T/Theory: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. If T isn't your game, you probably don't want to run it in front of me because I always have a hard time voting for Ts that are blippy and not impacted out. I enjoy T debates that have a lot of clash on the reasons to prefer, and that attempt to compare the division of ground/education of each interpretation. Reasonability does not mean "You shouldn't care abt me bcuz im REASONABLY topical-"-- I have no idea what this means or how to decide whether you are or aren't "reasonably topical". Reasonability is about the aff's interpretation and its place in the literature/its division of ground.

Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice. I don't really have a preset threshold on how many conditional advocacies are okay, but I generally find myself enjoying watching rounds with less than 4 conditional advocacies more than rounds with 4+ in CX rounds. This doesn't mean that I'm not willing to vote on condo bad in rounds with less than 4 negative advocacies, this is just a statement of personal preference. For the LDers looking over this (NFA, or HS), I find myself enjoying rounds with less than 3 advocacies more than rounds with 3+.

I'm probably not voting on disclosure theory at a HS tournament unless we're at a TOC bid tourney (UIL norms, and new TFA rules), if you're a college debater you should be disclosing and I am very open to voting on disclosure theory.

I typically start theoretical questions from a "reject the argument" mindset-- I need a well warranted argument as to why I should reject the team to overcome this (with the exception of condo/dispo bad).

DA: Disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense.

CP: Counter plans are great. I like most CPs, and I really have any dispositions toward any CP (I've voted on PICs, Consult, Delay, International CPs, and many many more) however I am also more than down to hear a great theory as to why their CP isn't legit. I typically start the round from a drop the argument mindset and need warranted reasons as to why I should drop the team in these debates though. The only CPs I'm really suspect of are artificially competitive CPs (if you're confused what I mean, look here: https://www.debatemusings.org/home/stupid-cps-are-stupid ) but, I have in fact voted on them before.

I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (however, you can make arguments for why this should change).

K: I love K debates, and I wish more teams would go for the K in front of me. This is the argument I collapsed on the most when I was competing. I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. I probably haven't read the lit you're talking about in the K, so just assume that I haven't and make a concerted effort to explain it to me. Probably not the best judge for most Baudy (and friends), psychoanalysis, or any other high theory K-- I have voted on them, and am willing to vote on them again, but often teams who read these args just fill their overviews and tags with paragraphs of the most esoteric wording I've ever seen, and I often get lost in both flowing and understanding the round when teams do this.

K Affs: Go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you. I enjoy good Kritikal affirmatives, and love both KvK and K v T/theory debates. Framework is definitely a viable collapse in front of me, but often teams who collapse on framework just won't resolve the offense on the flow when they go for it so I usually vote aff in these debates. If you are going for framework, make sure you're doing the work and establishing a clear link chain to the impacts on the T sheet.

A lot of judges say to be "in the direction of the topic"-- I think this is vague and arbitrary. You will probably have an easier time on the framework sheet with me if you are able to explain how your advocacy affirms the topic in some way or form, and you should still be arguing that we should change from the status quo (even if you're running pess), however I am also a fan of "debate about debate" Ks and I don't feel that the aff should be bound to being "in the direction of the topic" if they can win args about why the topic (or debate) is bad/exclusionary. That being said, if you can't win that debate then you'll probably lose the round. If you're not reading evidence that is at least somewhat in the lit for this year's topic, I'm also probably more likely to buy into impact chains on fwk/t-usfg (i.e. If you're debating on the college nukes topic and none of your ev is about nuclear weapons, predictability and limits become a lot easier to win on the neg. Same goes for the current HS CX income inequality topic/LD topic of the month)

Case Debate: I love good case debate, it's really a lost art now. If you're a good case debater, you should rely on that with me in the back of the room-- it will help you and your speaks out a ton.

Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's L 20s across the board). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics.

-.5 speaks every time you say "Game over"-- idk how this became the standard grandstand of debaters, but it's the worst and you're better than having to rely on this to make it sound like you're winning.

This is true of all levels of debate, but it's something the NFA LDers looking over this need to pay closer attention to. Please chill out. There is absolutely no need to be as rude as I've seen the past couple of years in this event. Snide remarks in CX, unnecessary comebacks to questions, and general lack of respect for opponents is probably my LEAST favorite thing to watch in debate. I'd rather watch someone read a 7-8 minute NC of only friv theory or 26 off a-z spec and be nice than someone execute the best strategy I've ever seen while being an ass. In CX, ask the question get an answer and move on-- there is no need to say something snarky after you get a bad answer (I promise I heard it too).

(The average speaks I've given in the spring '24 semester are approximately 28.26)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

You probably won't see my face a ton in debates. I am typically a "nose in the flow" type of judge and don't really look away from the papers on my desk to make sure that I don't miss anything. If I am making facial expressions, or if you see my hands in the air/on my head it is because you have said something incredibly confusing, egregious, or I have absolutely no clue where to write down what you are saying (or some combination of the three).

Prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker points docked

How I evaluate things: Procedurals/theory first, Pre-fiat arguments second, Post-fiat arguments third

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round.

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

When I was competing I primarily collapsed on system/reps ks and T in NRs, and ran soft left/topical K affs with a bit of trad policy affs sprinkled in. I never ran a planless affirmative but have coached/judged/debated quite a few.

My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, Michael Donaldson, Tony Wyatt, John Anderson, and Josh Miller-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge.

"The past tense of flow is flew" -- Tony

High School LD:

I'm typically in the policy side of things, but I have been in many a value round and know more than enough to judge this activity. That being said, I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.

I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot.

If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.

I thoroughly enjoy good phil debate (especially on topics that don't use the word "ought"), although I am not a philosophy head myself. I will make a pretty key distinction here though-- I am not a fan of these cases that are 5 minutes of abstract framing that, half of which aren't carded, spewed out as quickly as possible and then two cards that are like "oh yeah, and one minor link to the rez", I do not enjoy this style of argumentation. 1) these cases are incredibly hard to flow (too much flowery language, confusing concepts, lack of cards, and spreading through taglines/analytics), and 2) they rarely make a full argument which means the other side doesn't have an incredibly high threshold to meet in terms of answering these cases. That being said, if you're doing the work to explain your case, how the contentions back up the framework, and explaining what my ballot does and what it says when I vote for you you will probably do just fine with this style.

Tricks is bad debate, and I have a hard time justifying a vote on most tricks even if they're straight dropped. I wouldn't recommend running this style of debate with me in the back of the room-- even if you win on tricks with me, your speaks are probably getting tanked (expect a 27, tops).

World Schools:

I competed in collegiate NPDA style Parliamentary debate, so I have relative familiarity with the event and how it works, although I am very unfamiliar with the norms in this style of debate. I operate off of an offense/defense paradigm, so I appreciate a lot of interaction between arguments. Please focus on your warrants, and the logic behind your arguments-- just because this is a non-evidentiary form of debate (or at the very least, the evidence standards are not as rigorous as other events) doesn't mean we shouldn't have complete arguments with a claim, data, and warrant. There are a lot of WSD rounds where students will get to the third or fourth speeches and will be saying "We said 'x', they dropped that" and then that's all they say on the argument-- don't do this, it will not get you very far with me. When extending arguments tell me why it's important that they dropped it, and/or how the argument impacts the round as a whole. I usually find myself deciding these rounds based off of the framework, so good comparison between the competing burdens and resolutional analysis will probably help you. If you have any specific questions before round just be sure to ask!

Jacob Everett Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 10:56 AM CDT

TL;DR:

If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: jteverett53@gmail.com

For pref sheets:

Clash- 1

LARP- 1

K- 1

Trad- 2

T/Theory- 2

Phil- 3

Tricks- Strike/5

Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!

POLICY/NFA LD:

I enjoy watching K v K, K v Policy, and Policy v Policy rounds equally.

DA: Disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense.

I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (however, you can make arguments for why this should change).

(The average speaks I've given in the spring '24 semester are approximately 28.26)

Miscellaneous things you might want to know:

Prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker points docked

How I evaluate things: Procedurals/theory first, Pre-fiat arguments second, Post-fiat arguments third

Tech over truth, but truth influences tech.

Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round.

The only rules of debate are the speech times.

My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, Michael Donaldson, Tony Wyatt, John Anderson, and Josh Miller-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge.

"The past tense of flow is flew" -- Tony

High School LD:

World Schools:

Cathleen Ferose Round Rock Christian Academy

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 8:51 AM EDT

I have taught and coached at Round Rock Christian, TX, for 15 years across events. I am passionate about this activity and its value for competitors to 'find their voice' in their events. Please ask if you have any questions about my paradigm.

In Round Conduct

I have zero tolerance for bullying and disrespect directed toward anyone in the competition space. I have and will stop rounds if it is taking place. If you are competing against someone who is less experienced, please be gracious to them. We are a community and with that comes certain expectations of how we interact with others.

Time use

Across events, your strategy for time use will be noted on the ballot.

Overall thoughts

I favor bold, energetic, engaged debaters who best represent what the event they are competing in asks of a competitor. Teach me something new. I believe each debate event has something unique about it and do not consider events to be interchangeable.

As a communication activity, in my opinion, spreading does not enhance the education space. If you choose to spread, please sure to signpost effectively. Avoid it in rebuttal speeches. I refuse to yell out things like clear, as if you have any question about whether I understand, you need to adapt your delivery. While some jargon is warranted, the over use of it is not effective communication or an argumentation strategy.

I will weigh first on framework, then the contention level debate. Theory arguments will be dealt with secondarily.

Please note, linking everything to nuclear war without proper warrants is not effective. I am looking to see how your argumentation speaks to the resolution and what it asks of each position in the debate.

Giving voters allows you to narrate the round for me. If you cannot articulate why you won the round, you likely did not.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I favor a traditional style with lower speeds and attention to the value/criterion, but I can adapt to more progressive style of argumentation. This event is not policy debate for one. If you spread, please sign post effectively.

Public Forum

My paradigm is convince me. I strongly dislike the Negative team going first and I recommend that you do not.

Congress

Delivery: this is a competition and delivery style will be a factor in ranking. Please exhibit the expected decorum in a Congress chamber because I do drop ranks for behavior that is unbecoming, including being rude or yelling.

Speeches: I expect a balance between preparation and the ability to navigate through the arguments so far in the round. Crystallize. I am looking for more than a surface understanding of legislation and its impacts. Questioning: use questioning as an opportunity to showcase your knowledge on legislation and your ability to expose issues on the opposition. Avoid: wasting chamber time with irrelevant questions, unnecessary motions, being dramatic about taking a first speech, or ignoring Presiding Officer gavel taps. Being gaveled down is not a flex.

I expect competitors to come prepared on legislation and yes, I am listening when the chamber is planning the docket.

For the Presiding Officer, I expect a fair and efficient chamber. A strong PO will rank high, but it is not an automatic 1st place.

Interpretation

My paradigm for interp events is whether you are believable or not as your character(s). Do you have advocacy in events that traditionally expect it? What about your time use? I will be looking at your introductions that they are carefully put together. I am looking for a polished performance that demonstrates a fine attention to detail. Your performance across events should have layers, demonstrating nuance and complexity in characters. We don't like music played with just one note, don't perform any piece with no vocal, emotional, or pacing variety.

Artistic plagiarism: as a coach of those in the interpretation events, I take this seriously. If you are performing a piece that has been on the national stage, make it yours, not a duplicate of the performance.

Platform Speaking

Whether you are in oratory, info, impromptu, or one of the extemporaneous speaking events, try to stand out by not sounding canned. Teach me something new. Humor, well used, is always appreciated. Like debate, your use of time will be reflected in the comments.

Tanya Galloway Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:40 AM CDT

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

Ali Ghazanafar Hire

Stephen Green Caney Creek High School

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 11:49 AM CDT

Contact Information:

smgreen@conroeisd.net

DEBATE

Speed:

I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.

I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.

Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?

Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.

K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.

Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.

My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:

1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?

2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?

3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Extemp Speaking

Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.

I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.

AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!

Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.

Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

Congress

Policy

I'm a stock issues judge. However, in general, the affirmative should have a robust plan text. Just repeating the resolution is NOT a plan. It may be included in the solvency, but I'm looking for a legitimate plan. I'm not looking for a vague semblance of what we should do, but what exactly we need to do to solve the problem.

Negatives I don't take a card dump as good refutation/proving their case is flawed. Show me the cards uniquely link. Generic arguments are awful.

Extemp Debate

Most of my LD paradigm applies except for the LD-specific ideas like value and criterion. In general, I do not believe in the burden of rejoinder/“silence is compliance” in this debate, but I’m going to weigh the arguments that, in totality, support each side. Each side does have an affirmative burden of proof for their respective side. In general, convince me. Make me feel the arguments and reasons I should believe you. I’m looking for people to debate the resolution, not just each other.

INTERP

It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:

Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.

Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.

Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.

Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.

Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.

Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.

Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.

Jeffrey Hughes Godley High School

Aarti Kapoor Hire

Hanson Kuang Midway High School

Ronald Long Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:09 AM CDT

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

Christopher Malhas Princeton High School

Last changed on Tue April 11, 2023 at 12:33 PM EDT

Update for the TOC 2023: I am not well versed with kritik literature, so if you primarily run kritiks or k affs then I may not be the best judge for you. The same can be said about theory, I mostly judge small town tournaments in Texas, so I am not at all familiar with advanced theory that you may run at your national circuit/bid tournaments. I am a tab judge, so I will still try to evaluate theory/k's as fairly as possible, but if your case relies on my knowledge of these things you are likely putting yourself at a disadvantage. Aside from that, read whatever DA's, CP's, K's, or Theory you want as fast as you want. Will not vote off of racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, or any other ignorant arguments you make just to win the round. Please signpost and slow down for taglines and analytics

Add me to the email chain: cmm2001@gmail.com (pronouns He/Him)

Background: I did LD and a little bit of policy at Princeton High School. I qualified to UIL and TFA state as well NSDA a few times. I know a decent amount about policy, but I am more comfortable with LD. I do not mind a traditional round with no spreading, but I will also listen to very progressive rounds. It is up to the debaters to set the pace and to tell me why and who I am voting for. For some more about me, I am an Astronomer studying low-mass galaxies using the Hubble Space Telescope and received my B.S. in Astronomy at UT Austin.

K: I never ran K's in high school, but I have had a few ran against me, so I know some basic one's (Nietzsche, Set Col, Cap) but if you are running anything more progressive or any lesser known K's I only ask that you make sure you know what you are running and that you are not running it just to confuse me and your opponents. If I cannot understand the reasoning behind what you are saying I will have a hard time voting on it. This also goes for K affs, run them and if they are well constructed and you defend it well I will vote off anything

CP: Read away! If you say the CP is either conditional or non conditional in CX I will hold you to it.

DA: Run whatever, I will buy any link chain that makes sense in both LD and CX.

Theory: I have a high threshold for how well you prove abuse. There has to be some sort of in round and potential abuse. I will not vote for theory just because you ran it (of course, if it goes clean dropped by your opponent I will vote for it, but that should be assumed about any argument).

FW: Util unless otherwise told

Speaker Points:

30: reserved for exceptional speakers. I am not afraid to give 30 speaks if you do just an all around breathtaking job.

28-29: Amazing speaker with great organization and structure. Seamless transitions, signposting, and slowed down for taglines. An almost theatrical feeling where I want to stop flowing and just listen to the speech (I won't do this, it is just an example)

27-28: good speaker with organization and structure. Did not have to stumble or spend much time flipping or scrolling between pages in your speech. Slowed down for taglines, and analytics. I had to say clear once at the most

26-27: some organization and structure, but still hard to follow speeches, I had to say clear once or twice to get you to slow down

25-26:arguments/speaking lacked structure and organization. Little to no roadmap, or inability to follow speaker because no signposting or slowing down for taglines. I may have had to say clear multiple times to get you to slow down. This also includes poor evidence ethics, but not something for which you can be disqualified for. If you are maliciously or intentionally misrepresenting your evidence (as opposed to just being unfamiliar with the norms of debate) I have no problem reporting you to the tournament director (although I would rather not have to do this).

20:Racist/sexist/other biggoted statements

All that being said, please be kind and respectful of both your opponent and myself/your other judges. Debate is an educational activity, nobody needs to feel excluded of this community.

Ashlyn McMillon Hire None

Chris O'Brien Grandview High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:32 AM CDT

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

Marissa Pena Hire

Carmen Perez Hire

Last changed on Fri September 25, 2020 at 1:23 PM EDT

Congress:

I enjoy clash- reference other competitors by name in your speeches if you agree with them or want to make direct refutations against their arguments.

Try to avoid rehashing the same arguments in several speeches; continue the analysis of points, don't just let them stagnate. Later speeches that don't provide anything thoughtful or insightful to the topic at hand will not be scored as highly as fresh speeches.

Ask questions and otherwise participate in chamber. If you go up, give a speech, and do nothing else for the rest of the 2-3 hours, you're not going to rank.

POs, keep the chamber running smoothly and try to avoid making mistakes in procedure. I won't count a few simple errors against you, but if it's clear you don't know what you're doing and/or aren't making a genuine attempt to run the chamber well, you're not going to score highly.

LD:

Your Value and Criterion framework must be standing at the end of the round. Everything else is secondary to V/C, and my win will go to whoever was best able to support the ideals presented in that framework. Ks and the like must be explained thoroughly and should still tell me why the opponent's V/C are irrelevant to the matter at hand, otherwise it simply sounds like a complaint with no basis.

Impacts are the next most important thing I consider after V/C solidity. Whoever can prove that their impacts are greater in the case of a V/C tie will win.

No spreading- Lincoln and Douglas didn't spread, neither should you. I also prefer more traditional resolution debate, but if you choose to go down a more progressive route then make sure that what you're saying makes sense, as mentioned earlier.

Evidence of course is preferred, but if something makes more sense through the use of anecdotes, analogies, and/or metaphors, I will still consider those because of the philosophical nature of LD.

Make sure you don't go off on weird tangents without explaining to me how you got there. Show me points A, B, C, and D in your logic; don't just jump from A to D and expect me to keep up.

PFD:

No spreading. I know PFD times are shorter than other debates, but the point is to crystallize the most important things to talk about in the context of the resolution, not fire off as many arguments as possible to leave your opponents scrambling. That's not conducive to a Public Forum.

Make your lines of argumentation clear; don't jump from point A to D without also showing me the intermediate steps of B and C. Same thing with impacts, which are a key voting factor for me.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want to capitalize on points made during crossfire make sure to actually mention them in your next set of speeches or else they'll be lost and not counted in or against your favor. Try to avoid becoming too aggressive with each other during crossfire since that's not the point; speaks will drop for both teams, but especially for the instigators.

WSD:

Absolutely no spreading! This is a conversational debate; if you wouldn't use your rate of speed to talk to a friend, don't use it to deliver a speech to me.

Impacts are super important to me. Quantify your arguments and tell me why I should care about the issues at hand. Along the same vein, don't just immediately jump from Point A to Point D in your analysis- show me logically how you get there by explaining A, B, C, D, etc.

Excessive rudeness (belittling your opponents, ad hominem attacks, etc.) will result in the obliteration of your style points. Keep it professional.

Considering how it's World Schools Debate, I'd like to see a variety of evidence from around the globe if the topic allows for it.

I'm not super familiar with a lot of debate jargon used nowadays, so if possible, please explain it in layman's terms.

Gus Perez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 30, 2017 at 1:43 PM CDT

LD:

Keep the debate civil. I focus on the framework, so the Value/Criterion are key. I want to see civility and no spreading or speaker points will be deducted. I want to see solid logic and analysis displayed. Evidence is not as important to me in LD, but it can be useful to develop your framework. Please stand for the cross examination if possible.

PFD:

Keep to the resolution. I focus on topicality here. I do not like Theory debates. Keep the cross examination civil. Spreading is discouraged, but no speaker point deduction is made unless it is too fast for me to flow or understand what is being said. Evidence is important and I will pay attention to how well the cross-examination is used to set your case up for success and/or set the other team up for failure. You can sit during Grand Crossfire. I do not like seeing partners verbally prompt the person who is doing the cross examination, but notes can be passed. Please stand for the individual cross examination if possible.

CX:

Spreading is OK, but don't go too fast or I cannot flow. Please keep the cross examination civil; however, I know it can get heated. I will deduct speaker points if professional behavior is not displayed. I also focus on topicality here. Cases that veer away from the resolution will not do well (assuming this is successfully called out by the opponent). Please stand for the cross examination if possible. Evidence is very important in this debate, but no new evidence can be introduced during rebuttal. I do not count debate prep time against the team when they are flashing their case to the other team; however, I will start the timer if it becomes excessive.

Overall:

I like logical arguments, so don't assume your arguments are connected just from the cards' tag lines. Not everything will lead to global thermonuclear war and human extinction. I also like to hear voters and appreciate off-time road mapping. Keep debate jargon to a minimum. I also appreciate any sign-posting you provide when presenting. I am OK with teams keeping their own time, but I will keep time as a back-up and provide hand signals upon request. I avoid disclosing at the end of the round, but I will give feedback to help with presentation style if time permits. Without warning, I may check during the round to ensure that all electronic devices are not connected to the Internet.

Mimi Perez Hire 8 rounds

Robert Perry Hire

Matthew Riggins Princeton High School

Adrian Santiesteban Chapel Hill High School None

Kelsey Sawyer Hire

Last changed on Thu January 21, 2021 at 10:21 AM CDT

Dear students and coaches,

Thank you for this opportunity to witness your hard work as your judge today. Feel free to ask any questions before we begin the round. There are unique challenges in this new virtual environment, so let's be sure to practice patience and forgiveness with each other. And most importantly, make sure to have fun!

BACKGROUND: Plano East HS, class of 2011; University of Texas at Austin, class of 2015. My HS debate career focused primarily on extemp (FX), congress, and ended with 1.5 years of CX (2A/1N, former Michigan camper). I also briefly competed in college extemp. Over the past ~7 years I have judged extensively across Houston and Dallas circuits in all debate events, including recently for TFA State and NSDA Nationals. I currently work in the energy industry.

CORE PARADIGM: Naturally, details will differ by event, but generally speaking I am a games player judge. In addition to general argumentation strategy, I want to see demonstration of three competencies in this round: 1) integrity, via demonstration of the relevancy of your argument/evidence, 2) comprehension, via clear communication of how your cards prove the point you are trying to make, and 3) curiosity, via direct, respectful clash with your opponent.

SPREADING: I'm comfortable with speed, although note that the more arguments you make, the more arguments you will have to defend. I am inclined to permit your opponent drop an argument if you dropped it yourself first. Generally, it is better to make one or two very strong arguments than to make ten weak ones. Also, given variability in wifi, slower speaking can also help ensure that your speech doesn't cut out during virtual tournaments.

CROSS-EX: Open CX is fine. In a world where school teams are sharing cases and resources, I need to see very clearly that you are understanding how your case works. I don't flow CX formally, but will be unimpressed if it becomes clear that you do not know your material thoroughly enough to answer questions about it. Be kind and respectful to your opponent. Do not try to use CX as extra speech time.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: I have grown more open-minded to Ks and other non-traditional arguments. However, please don't abuse this style of argument to avoid building an actual rebuttal or engaging. Topicality and theory arguments are fine - I view this as a core part of the heart and governance of debate - but it is not a catch-all strategy. PICs are fine too.

I look forward to hearing your insights! Good luck!!

Kind regards,
Kelsey Sawyer

(updated January 2021)

Nathan Scolaro Chapel Hill High School None

John Sims Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

John Sims Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:13 AM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

Jose Solis Caney Creek High School

Last changed on Thu December 10, 2020 at 12:43 PM CDT

LD: Howdy Y'all! I am a former debater who has competed on different levels, I am well versed in how an LD round should run and what to expect from the debaters. That being said, My voting comes down to three main points; Framework development/analysis, the extension of arguments, and presentation of the debater.

I expect the debater to be able to provide a clear Value and Criterion that is weaved through their case and show how they are able to meet this value by the end of their round. This allows me as the judge to view the round their framework and understanding why I should vote for their side. As well, I expect that debaters extend and cross apply their framework throughout the round.

Anyone can give an argument on why their case is better, however, extending and building on one's argument is golden in my view. Having the ability to 1) build on arguments and carry them through your speech, 2) provide clear warrants and impacts, and 3) cross apply them back to one's framework.

Although the first two points are important, it ultimately comes down to how you present this to a judge, such as myself. I do not like speed, please speak at a normal pace to me (how you would read a book that you enjoying or how you would speak to your friends). Going too fast will make it hard for me as a judge to know what you're arguing. meaning that if I can't understand what you're saying, it makes it more difficult for me as a judge to judge the round. Please signpost during the round as it makes it easier to follow the round (whatever you can do to make a judge job easier always looks good !) I expect competitors to be courteous to one and another, although the round may get heated, that does not give anyone the right to be disrespectful. Also, as previously mention, I do not like speed or spreading. I will not flow what I do not understand. The last major point presentation is organization. What gets always undercuts good speakers in LD is the lack of organization. Be on top of your time and be sure that speeches are well formatted where I can logically follow.

If you have any questions concerning my ballots please ask me after a round.

Vincent Spies Grandview High School

Last changed on Thu March 14, 2024 at 4:34 AM CDT

Overview:I am a tab judge and will vote on whatever FW you put in front of me. If I need to default in stock situations, I will default to a comparative justification framework, prioritizing offense and defense. Across all events, I tend to remain the same on most issues, particularly theory. I tend to put theory at the top of the flow and view it as a procedural argument. Furthermore, I tend to prefer more abstract phil arguments, so if you want to run Ks, go for performance, or ask me to engage in a particular role as a judge, I am alright with that.

Please use spiesva@gmail.com for email chains and any questions.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.

Other prevalent issues:

Clipping Cards:

I consider clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence as intentionally altering the text or highlights in such a way as to detract meaning from the card. I realize that is a pretty broad definition, so if you would like to run some sort of indict and theory argument, here are the standards I hold the card to. Is the alteration of the text germane? Is the alteration of the next meant to recontextualize the article from a different conclusion? I also consider the effects of the change to determine intent. The smaller the difference and impact of the clipping, the more sympathetic I am to the argument that the debater made a mistake.

If you are paraphrasing instead of cutting cards in LD or PF for a more traditional judge or tournament, I am okay with that. Especially if I am the odd judge out on a panel, please do not feel like you need to adapt away from this more traditional style. I would ask that you have the articles accessible if I need to access them to check evidence indicts.

Troll Theory:I would argue 99% of the time, students know what they are doing when they run a more troll-type theory strategy (League Theory, Shoe Theory, Font Theory, ect.). I understand there is value in running these extreme arguments to draw attention to issues in the debate community or a particular debate circuit. However, I also feel that these arguments are run against unsuspecting competitors as an easy way to the ballot. Unless you have, IN FRONT OF ME, asked both your opponent and me if it is okay to run this type of theory, and we have both consented to it, then the round will be a tough uphill battle for you, and I will most likely give you an auto vote down.

Extreme Arguments:I am not very sympathetic to extreme arguments like spark or wipeout. Running these extreme impact turns seems to be a strategy that is used to make an easy way to the ballot when facing a newer competitor or one that comes from a more traditional circuit. Also, I am uncomfortable with allowing students to advocate for things like nuclear war or genocide, so even if your opponent can handle the argument on a tech level, I will still most likely vote you down.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Theory/ T:Much like in the overview, I tend to put this at the top of the flow; for me, theory has to be procedural as I am resolving a rule to the game to determine who won the game. For example, I can only determine who won a Game of Magic: the Gathering by determining if the goal was to get my opponent's life down to zero or some other win condition.

RVIs:I think RVIs are crucial for getting the theory offense of the flow for your opportunities. When considering the offense of the RVI, I would like to see work done on the voters for the in-round abuse story. I delineate this standard from what I most commonly see: if you give me some unfairness/ abuse story but do not tell me why I vote on it, I am less inclined to provide you with the offense because I feel that point I would be interfering. When answering the RVI, I am not super sympathetic to just kicking the theory argument, especially if the RVI goes for some sort of time-skew argument; I think the much safer strat for me would be to put actual ink on the argument.

The most important part of T and other theory shells:I see many students who focus on the top half of T and do little work when it comes to extending or interacting with the standards (ground, limits, predictability) and voters. For me to even consider T as an issue in the round, I need to see some sort of offense coming from the bottom half of the argument.

Disads:Defenitly okay with you going for disad offense in the round. If you are in front of a more traditional panel and I am the odd duck, do not feel obligated to go beyond this offense into some other argument if the judge will either a) not flow or b) hold it against you in some way. Oftentimes, I see that students will avoid going for straight defense on the D.A. I am assuming that is because I put such an emphasis on offense in my paradigm. If that is the case, feel free to go for defense and indict parts of the D.A. I just ask that you flush it out, or if you are using it as a time suck, avoid making it a huge voter in the back half of the debate.

C.P.'s: As a straight policy argument, I am okay with all C.Ps. What I see students shy away from in the back half of the debate if they choose to go for straight N.B. offense is extrapolating or citing evidence as a reason why I buy the N.B. Be sure to spend some time explaining the evidence. This is not so much because I do not flow; rather, I like to make sure I am not interfering with the net benefit, as that seems easy to do. Of course, I understand that most of you will go for a more theory-oriented argument on the C.P., so here is a summary of my thoughts. Multipleworlds: Yes, I evaluate all C.P.s through a multivariate argumentation lens; however, because these types of arguments create a different space, I buy perms and conditionality as its own space as well. In other words, I am okay with you, waiting to go for the test in the last debate speech.

Kritiks:

These are my favorite arguments to evaluate; however, please do not use them as an easy way to the ballot, which I think can happen in two ways. First, debaters will use the technical nature of the Kritik to overwhelm more trad circuit students or newer debaters. Second, debaters will use identity politics, not their identity, to win the round. Please DO NOT exploit other people's identities and experiences to get my ballot; this will be an auto-vote down if it occurs.

In terms of evaluating links, this is where Kritik debates can get messy for me. I find that most debaters will read literature for the link and focus more on the impact of the K itself. I understand that this is a time choice; however, keep in mind that the more specific the link, the easier it will be to pull the trigger of the K. Often, I think this issue can be solved with a particular FW for the K.

I do put the alt at the top of the flow as a method of framing unless told otherwise. Whether pre-fiat or post-fiat, resolving the impacts of the K requires me to view the round through the alt mechanism of the K.

In terms of authors a literature, I am most comfortable with gender, set. col. and biopower type literature. I am familiar with most other common K lits, but if you are reading someone you want to make sure I know, feel free to ask, and I can give my knowledge of that particular author or literature.

Lincoln Douglass Debate:

Regarding progressive or more circuit-style LD, please see my above paradigm, as I feel this will answer most of your questions.

Trad and UIL Style LD:

I try my best to adapt to students insofar as letting them the types of arguments they would like to run. However, I would discourage you from running highly technical arguments in a traditional LD setting. I totally get that winning on tech is an easy way to the ballot. However, I think especially at smaller tournaments; keep in mind this may be one of the few tournaments your opponent may get to attend within the year.

Value Framing:

I have four standards when considering values as a functional for framework:

1)It's an end in itself and necessarily apropos to another value. This generally means the value should have more terminal impacts (not necessarily existential) coming out of the 1AC.

2) I am generally sympathetic to intrinsic links to the resolution as a form of offense for the debate. I think debaters ought to qualify this offense by telling me what they are bringing to the debate and using that value to meet the intrinsic part of the resolution.

3) Values should impact a world generator, meaning I should have a clear idea of the world I will live in when I sign my ballot.

4) Values should have some inherent competitiveness towards other frameworks unless you go for some permutation or link turn on framing.

Furthermore, values are inherently abstract as they seek to generate space or a world. However, unless you want me to go straight off/def for the round or plan to collapse, I think providing some sort of phil framing for a lens to your impacts is a good idea.

Criteria

Opposite to the value, I think the criterion for one particular framework should be specific. Generally speaking, I would argue this revolves around the brightline of the criterion. Totally understand that bright lines are controversial, and some would even say that criteria do not produce a specific brightline, or if they do, interps and definitions vary. With that being said, here is how I evaluate a brightline:

1) Brightlines should be active as they either decrease or increase sunstance. In other words, criteria should have a verb to describe the action of the framework to achieve the value.

2) The brightline ought to be measurable, even if abstract. Using terms like increase, decrease, and maintain is totally fine; however, I need a metric to determine if the ball moved. The less work I have to do, the more inclined I am to pull the trigger and avoid interference.

3) The criterion should be intrinsic to the value. I think if you do not go for an intrinsic link, I am much more sympathetic toward link turns as a method for gaining access to the framework.

Standard:I am okay with standards; just be sure you give me a way to pref your offense under the standard.

Reece Thompson Round Rock Christian Academy 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 27, 2021 at 9:34 PM EDT

LD:

While I personally prefer more traditional styles of debate, at the end of the day I want to see the best arguments that you have to offer. That being said, there are a couple of things I expect to see in a good round.

Value/Criterion:

The V/C debate should be a thread running through the whole round. Too often people list a value at the top of their case and then never come back to it again in the contentions. I want arguments weighed and impacted against your value and criterion. If we think about arguments in terms of a ballot story, the V/C should be the major themes.

I am totally fine with Neg debaters agreeing to/subsuming/conceding the Aff value if that feels like the right choice for you in the round. But then the weighing done by both sides needs to make it clear to me why you're winning.

Some more on the criterion: To me, the criterion is the most important and most underutilized structural aspect of every round. In my experience, the vast majority of rounds are won or lost on the criterion debate. The criterion sets paradigms for how we evaluate the round, how we go about achieving the things we want, and what kinds of questions we can(not) ask in a particular round.

Speed:

In my opinion, one of the most valuable things that debate teaches is speaking skills. For that reason I am generally opposed to spreading. Speed is totally fine and even expected in a lively, high-level round, but the line between speed and the spread is pretty clear I think. You won't lose automatically if you choose to spread and your opponent doesn't, but keep in mind that the amount of work I have to do with/for you to understand means I have less free space in my mind to apply that work to fully understanding your arguments.

K's/Critical Theory/PIC's:

I am open to most of these kinds of arguments within reason. Don't run an argument along the lines of "The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic. I win by default." Your opponent didn't write the resolution. It is ultimately underhanded and lazy in my opinion. Meet the resolution and your opponent in good faith!

If we're being honest, most arguments run in LD are K's/k-light so I have no problem with them in theory. I just prefer that they still make use of the V/C framework that is the accepted norm. You can totally use another framework if you'd like but you'll have to use precious time justifying that when 99% of arguments I've encountered can be made under traditional framing.

I love the work of critical theorists and the people working in conversation with them. Lacan, Baudrillard, etc. BUT they are incredibly dense/confusing/longwinded. Your argument needs to be clear, accessible and understandable to a large audience if you plan to run them.

I firmly believe arguments should be tailored to the resolution at hand. It would be easy to run a CapK or Bakhtin almost every round without actually giving thought to the questions the resolution wants us to consider. Make sure you warrant all arguments, but especially those that drift into the more critical world.

In rounds that move away from more traditional modes of debate, I tend to default to a "gamer" decision calculus. How were the decisions you made in round strategic to you winning? For this reason, I have a pretty high burden for "role of the ballot" and disclosure theory arguments. My ballot can certainly make impacts to the choices you and your opponent make in this round and (possibly though likely not) in the future, but I am skeptical that it will materially change much outside of that.

The best rounds are those where both competitors are able to demonstrate their skills on a level playing field. Talk with your opponent before the round. If you come from a progressive tradition and find yourself against a traditional opponent, you don't need to throw out your case but you should be gracious enough to give them a warning that you might run something they haven't hit before. If its really out there, give them an overview of what the structure of your case is like, how the links function, drop them the email chain a little early, etc. You still maintain a competitive advantage by virtue of knowing your case inside out and backwards and being more familiar with the jargon and authors you are running. I will still evaluate the round based on the merits of the arguments both sides present, but I don't want to watch a round where one side extends a series of theory subshells when the other probably understands how theory arguments function but not the norms of engaging with them that you might be used to. Winning by default might get you the ballot, but it is a missed opportunity for everyone in the round to engage in a conversation, which is really what this event is about.

Speaks:

I use speaker points as a gauge of both your presentation and your strategy. High speaker points generally reflect a strong style, good analysis of evidence, and arguments that push the round in new and exciting directions. I tend to put more weight to the speeches, but a strong performance in CX will only ever help your speaks.

Signposting is incredibly important and will impact your speaks! I need to know where you are on the flow and where you are going. Enunciate your authors' names please. Especially if you are moving quickly or reading an evidence heavy case! File sharing and email chains are amazing but they do not replace good presentation in the speeches.

Conduct:

Be polite and courteous at all times! Nothing is worse as a judge than a round that devolves into a screaming match. Don't be condescending if your opponent doesn't understand an argument you made: odds are you were unclear and the judge doesn't follow either. I have no problem filling out and signing my ballot or stopping a round in the middle of a speech if a competitor forces my hand.

Be honest! Don't misrepresent an author's intention for the sake of an argument. Or worse fabricate a piece of evidence to win a round. I will call for any cards that I am suspicious about or that your opponent calls into question.

Lyndsey Toce Grapevine Faith Christian

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 8:28 AM CDT

I am a high school science teacher and speech and debate coach. I've coached speech and debate for 9 years. I competed in speech and congressional debate in high school, then some speech in college. I am very passionate about the power of communication. Above all, it is extremely important to me that you articulate and enunciate well. This can still be accomplished with reasonable speed. Take care to explain your arguments well. I strongly prefer constructive speeches with resolutional analysis, framework, key definitions, and a standard that I can use to weigh arguments. I should have a solid understanding of what you think are the most important issues in the round. Please use voters! If you want me to vote on it, please make sure it is in your final speech and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.

Arguments

Argue on logic, not emotions. Construct well-impacted, well-supported arguments. Quotations have no meaning without explanations. Therefore, always explain the significance of your evidence. The debater that most clearly presents a logical argument AND effectively refutes the opponent will be the victor.

Evidence

I may ask you to post your case or cards, if a virtual tournament. I may call for cards if your opponents ask me to, if the card is widely disputed during the round, or if it sounds exceptionally sketchy. According to NSDA rules, you can also access the Internet during round if you need to show your opponent the full citation.

Speed and Flowing

Anything below spread speed is fine. If you go fast, you should: SLOW DOWN when using tag lines and signposting. Give clear citations. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow (off time roadmaps). Please look out for physical cues if you are speed-talking. If I look visibly confused or if my hand isn’t moving, that’s probably because I can’t understand you. While I don’t flow crossfire/cross-ex, I’ll remember anything exceptionally witty or smart you say. Make sure you repeat anything significant from crossfire/cross-ex in your next speeches. Rebuttal speeches should be well organized. Please go straight down the flow.

Behavior

Don’t be mean. If you’re mean, my brain will naturally find a way to vote against you. Being assertive is valued. Being aggressive is unnecessary. There is a difference between a passionate debater and an abrasive or condescending debater. Crossfires/cross-ex needs to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I enjoy good clash.

Specific to LD

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing value and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Impact all your contentions back to your value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross examination will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Speaker Points

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Bailey Van Schepen Hire

Alvin Wages Hire

Ben L White Midway High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 24, 2023 at 2:34 PM EDT

[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.

-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.

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

-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

Vanessa Wilbourn Hire None

Login to Tabroom

Yellow Rose District Tournament

2021 — TX/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges