Tabroom.com

San Angelo Central Bobcat Bonanza Swing

2021 — San Angelo, TX/US

Synchronous Debate/Extemp Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Bensen Achtsam Harlingen HS South

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2019 at 3:26 AM CDT

I try to be as close to a Tab judge as possible. I will listen and vote on any argument or style of debate as long as it is well developed and given clear voters in your speeches.

Style and Presentation:

Maintaining a collegial atmosphere is very important to me. Try to keep hyperbolic and sarcastic comments to a minimum. Don’t expect me to disregard an argument because a debater says it’s stupid or wrong. Explain why it’s wrong and engage the warrant and evidence.

Speed is fine as long as it’s clear and consistent. The tags and analytical arguments NEED to be slower so they are easy to differentiate. I will say “CLEAR” if it gets too muddled.

Impact Calculus and Weighing will be a key factor in my decision-making. Debaters should state what they think the most important thing in the round is, why they think it’s important and why they think I should vote for it. I would also like debaters to include analysis of what the role of the ballot should be.

While overviews are sometimes useful, they are often overwrought and I ask that they be short and sweet. I would prefer most of the debate to occur on the line-by-line next to the evidence that makes the arguments to keep the flow tight and encourage clash.

I don’t like judge kicks. Debaters should have a clear and firm defense of the arguments they wish to the present in the rebuttals.

I don’t count flashing or e-mailing as prep but don’t steal prep please! If you’re talking, writing or typing, prep should be running. I do request to be on the e-mail chain if there is one. ( ben.achtsam@gmail.com ).

Tech vs. Truth – I would say that I am more for Tech over Truth. I try to allow the flow and the debaters to shape and lead the round in order to intervene as little as possible. Make sure to extend arguments to keep them on the flow. I don’t like whole advantages just showing back up in the 2AR after being absent since the 1AC. I will vote on weaker arguments if they were not properly answered in the constructive speeches but debaters should do extra work to build them up and explode on them in order to make them reasonable voting issues.

K – I am familiar with most common critical debate arguments and will vote on them. I greatly prefer specific links and love it when you take the time out to pick out in the evidence where it specifically talks about the opponents’ position. Debate is ultimately about education therefore don’t try to be squirrely when explaining the philosophical underpinning of your K. You should strive to give a straightforward and intellectually honest explanation that will help your opponents understand what your arguments mean. Explain what the alt does and tell me what the world of the alt looks like in comparison to the world of the aff and the status quo. I don’t like alts that are tagged simply as “Reject” because it doesn’t tell me anything about your advocacy.

Topicality & Theory – While I will vote on these arguments in a vacuum if they are properly argued and given independent voters, pointing out specific abuse in the round that relates to your violation is the best way to get me to vote on them. Don’t go crazy with a flurry of Ts or random theory args sprinkled through your speeches as time sucks.

CP – I prefer your counterplans to have an actual CP text that’s written down so it can be reviewed by both teams just as a plan text would be. PICs are fine as long as you can defend the theory and do well explaining why it gets a net-benefit against the aff’s specific plan.

Emma Armstrong Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Maria Ayala The Village High School

Bailey Bartholomeo Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jordan Barton Andrews High School

Last changed on Tue January 21, 2020 at 7:44 PM EDT

Overview:

Hey! I'm Jordan (he/him/his). I am a freshman at Harvard College planning to study Philosophy or Government. I did policy for 3 years in high school, 4 years of speech, and was on the CX team here at Harvard for a bit (planning on returning here soon). I am effectively tabula rasa (in debate, at least). I fundamentally believe in the doctrine of functional frameworks and counter-frameworks (this meaning the debate experience shapes the judge interpretation of the ballot, the round, or the debate space by introduction of, and rebuttal of, framework positions). In this, the debate experience is shaped uniquely only by the debaters in question. I hold no inherent value towards the resolution, debate structure, or meta-textual or metaphysical interpretations within the debate, such as the role of performance, language, or superstructure. This is not to suggest that I don't hold opinions/analytical perspectives on the issues raised in the debate, but as a judge, I open the debate space without my own subject-experiences. There are no fundamentals guaranteed in the debate other than those which are mutually accepted by, best articulated by, or debated by the two teams. In this, all voting issues are tangential to the substance of any single debate, so I vote on anything and everything so long as I have an implicit or direct framework which allows me to evaluate it in comparison to the debate as a whole and all rebuttals raised against it.

TL;DR: I am purely non-interventionist tabula rasa, meaning I uphold no rules or standards other than those brought into conversation by the debaters or those implicitly agreed upon by both teams (for instance, speaking time). I vote on anything as long as it wins the debate and I have a reason to believe it winning the debate is sufficient to capture the ballot.

Specific Things (work in progress):

Theory (ALL): In line with paradigm notes, theory is obviously fine in debate. I will not prefer any interpretation or meta-structuring innately, but will listen to theory args. Theory is a huge thing to hash out here, so if you have anything weird or need clarification, you can ask, and I'll answer as best as I can.

Coaching/Spectators/Scouting: Follow tournament rules, but in the blank spaces between those rules most of the time is difference between spectators and coaching/scouting. Difference between these two categories is big. Debaters have the right to object to any spectator in the room, and they will be asked to leave if any debater has a problem with any certain individual watching. Coaching is different matter. Debaters are always allowed to be coached before round. If you don't want coaching against you, which is fine, refuse to disclose. This is perfectly within your rights (as long as it is specifically not forbidden by tournament rules), and if you're the opponent, you can run Disclosure T, as you can run anything, but I won't for some reason give your argumentation more leniency if they don't disclose.

Topicality: In line with my paradigm notes above, T is fine and is not inherently a time-suck. Debate it sufficiently, and maybe it is. I will vote on it if I should (if it wins the debate and I have reason to think it deserves the ballot).

Performance: Same as my general paradigm, I don't care, but if you think you should debate it, do so and I'll weigh methods. However, I won't ask for clarification on performative purpose. All argumentation is assumed to be within the realm of the ballot unless otherwise stated, so if it is an aesthetic addition, say so. This also goes for Discourse Ks as DAs or the sort: I will assume it is on the flow unless you state it is aesthetic.

Addendum: someone asked if they can play music as a performance/before round. Two different issues, but before round is fine as long as no one is uncomfortable. In round, yes as a component of performance, obviously. Don't disturb other rounds.

Time: Keep it and don't cheat.

Card-Cutting: Be clear and state exactly where you stop reading. Reasonably, I won't evaluate card claims/warrants that aren't spoken.

Open CX: I am still being asked about this, so to put it simply: I don't care. If a team is uncomfortable with it, defer to me and I'll evaluate whether or not that discomfort is sufficient to cease Open CX. Otherwise, don't ask. Open CX is assumed in any sensible tabula rasa paradigm.

Disclosure: Follow tournament rules and be nice to each other. Otherwise, your choice.

Literature Debate: I am fine on critical literature, so don't hold back. But do it correctly; I study postmodernism and cultural theory, so "high" theory (Frankfurt School, Deleuze, post-colonial) is within my academic scope. I've probably read what you're cutting from or read something critiquing/reviewing it, so don't skip loose ends on the crit debate. I obviously don't expect the level of complication of theory as it would be in an academic setting, but don't be cheaty by obscuring links with buzz words that receives little to no sophistication based on the literature. It obviously isn't a voter unless implicated as such, but the weight your alts and links carry when they rest on a bed of skeptical theoretical sophistication is obviously harmed.

Resolutionality: See above, but I don't differ to resolutional cases because they are innately resolutional. Even if you're a policy buff, if a neg case brings resolutionality into question (be it in an operative mechanism, value-based mechanism, like a Kritik, or on theory), a rebuttal is not "this is the resolution we were given," or "but its the resolution!" However, defending aff ground, predictability, etc. as STANDARDS to why we should prefer resolutionality theoretically is a response. This is a callback to my emphasis on operative frameworks: nothing is guaranteed as an innate standard unless it is implicitly valued by both teams. Even the resolution is capable of criticism (and meta-criticsm) if a team has a reason to suggest we should critique it.

Framework/Framing: One thing I will say is that framework, both as an off-case or as a structural mechanism within an argument, requires an interpretation. If you want me to view the round/ballot/team in some way, you need to clearly define how that experience exists and how I should orient myself to it. IT IS CRITICAL to provide counter-frameworks as the opposing team, as I cannot assume how your arguments function in relationship to the framing of your opponent. As a tabula rasa judge, I have to definitionally prefer what framework I am given if it is not contested, tabula rasa being very literal in this sense (meaning I have only witnessed, and thus can only know, the given framework that exists in the world of the debate). Even if it is conceptually flawed, if it is the only framing that exists in that world, I have to prefer it. Give counter-frameworks with standards and clash. If no framing is provided, I implicitly differ to the flow and weigh arg versus arg (which should inevitably conclude in impact analysis and clash, which is sufficient to write a ballot as it gives me a lens to view the debate).

Arg Prefs: This is usually the point where judges will rank their prefs on distinct args. I will not do that. Every debate is unique and all issues have distinct context and related structuring as a component of that unique debate experience. Thus, I can't really holistically rank all Topicality issues, DA issues, or K issues in one ranking. I will listen to anything and everything, and it is ultimately your job to decide the value your arguments (and your opponents arguments) hold in the debate.

Happy debating, and if you have any questions, debate-related or not before/after round, talk to me or email me at jordanbarton@college.harvard.edu.

***Judging history is wrong here on NSDA - can't link to tournaments I've judged in West Texas as I didn't link to Tabroom, any questions lmk.***

Heather Berg Flower Mound High School None

John Best Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Karen Best Volunteer Judge 8 rounds

Steven Brooks Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Kyla Brookshier-DeLeon Wimberley High School

Heather Byars Frenship High School

Celeste Caballero Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Pamela Callan Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Alexis Canlom Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Teresa Canlom Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Zackery Carlock Snyder High School None

James Casillas Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Isaac Chao Heights High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 6:37 PM CDT

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

Policy: 1
T/Theory: 1-2
Phil: 2
Kritik (identity): 2
Kritik (pomo): 3
Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
Tech > Truth
I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

I default to competing interpretations.
I default to no RVIs.
You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
"If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
I default to epistemic confidence.
Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
I don't disclose speaks.
I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:

I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.

If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Rickie Clayson Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Trent Collins Hire 8 rounds None

Megan Cordes Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Barbra Dickson Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Scott Dickson Volunteer Judge 8 rounds

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.

Zach Drennan Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Chris Dunn Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Carmen Dusek Volunteer Judge 8 rounds

Cheyenne Elliott Volunteer Judge 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 20, 2021 at 7:34 AM CDT

Hello! Welcome to my paradigms. I am an old CHS Speech and Debate Veteran, my specialties were LD, DX, IX/FX, HI and Prose.

I recently graduated from Baylor University with one BA in Political Science and a BA in Communications. I am well-versed in contemporary debate and debate etiquette so I expect all of you to be as well. Please take care to avoid eye contact with your opponent (in CX and LD). Making eye-contact, while respectable and encouraged in other situations, often leads to an inflation of one or both competitors' emotions. I enjoy the "gentleman's/woman's" debate very much , so pay closer attention to your own case, to me and my non-verbal cues and all ought to go quite smoothly.

I do not care what school you went to, what side you drew, or if you are a freshman, sophomore or senior, if you are eloquent, well-prepared and energetic you will have my attention the entire time.

I expect a VERY clear roadmap, both for Extemp and LD. In Extemp, I will take note of your quotations, dates, SOURCES and your vocal cadence. I love that extempers get to show off a bit of their own personality and interests in their speeches: you are not computers or robots, you are litigators and researchers. I want to get to know you in your speech.

As for LD debaters, I prefer that if you are most comfortable spreading, that is fine. I ask that you tell me this along with asking any additional questions in the round. I will be keeping time throughout the rounds- not to dock you for going over, I believe that to be unnecessary, but to make sure that your are succinctly covering all of your important cards and points on the "flow" as best you can. You MAY read from your case, as I do not know how long competitors have had to prepare and prepare well (unlike past years). So, don't feel as though I will dock you for keeping your footing, I will not.

Lastly, I judge largely based off of what the competitors argue are the most important points of the debate. I will be judging on your speaking skills and research as well, but this is a competition and I want to know what each of you think is important. Again, if you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to ask in the "room". I will have you know, I prefer to do research on the topics ahead of time, so I will likely know if you are falsifying information and will automatically gives you the least number of speaker points. I DO check cards so prepare a flashdrive (if in-person) or prepare to show me your card at the end of the round. If your opponent does not bring it up, congratulations, you got me!

Best of luck and God's blessings to you all. Stay safe out there!

christi engle Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

sonia falcon Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Bryce Fant Volunteer Judge

Wendy Faught Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Kevin Franke Hire 8 rounds

Nikkie Galindo Trinity School of Midland None

Davian Garcia Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 18, 2022 at 3:28 AM CDT

Email: Include me in the email chain please - jdaviangarcia@gmail.com

General:

tell me how/why to vote

refocus the debate on the central issues of the round during the rebuttals

clarity > speed: try to slow down on or at least emphasize tag lines and analytics

In most cases tech > truth, but that doesn't mean a concession is an automatic loss; warrant out why each argument matters

I'm generous with speaks

Topicality:

Regarding interpretations, I focus more on the relevancy/quality of the source of the definition, especially in relation to the topic at hand. I do tend to default to reasonability, but can probably be convinced to default to competing interpretation. If you can prove abuse, you have a good chance at winning T.

Framework:

Go for whatever impact you would like in framework (procedural fairness, advocacy skills, topic education, clash, etc.). It really comes down to the impact calculus and interpretation comparisons for in and out of the debate space.

Theory:

Theory debates can be interesting, but when it it an actual strong theory and not a 15 second shell. Tell me why/how to vote especially on theory arguments.

Disadvantages:

I prefer to listen to case-specific arguments that link to the affirmative rather than generic disadvantages that link primarily to the resolution, but I can probably be convinced that generic arguments are good too. Uniqueness matters a lot on time-sensitive DAs like politics DAs. Clear and concise link chains always help. Impact calculus is super important!

Counterplans:

I prefer case-specific counterplans over generic CPs, but again, I can probably be convinced otherwise. Solvency advocates and clear net benefits should always be included for me to weigh your CP against the aff.

Kritiks:

I'm not familiar with a ton of lit, so be sure to explain the theory thoroughly and any buzzwords. Probably try not to read something you're not able to explain. Explain the alt thoroughly and why perms can/can't solve. Framing could go a long way. Overviews and line-by-line explanations/argumentation help a ton too.

Garret Christopher Glover Volunteer Judge 8 rounds

Mindy Goodnight Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Sean Goodnight Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Gregory Graham Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Melissa Guevara Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Allie Gutierrez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 6, 2023 at 10:14 AM CDT

Feel free to call me Allie. She/they. Former policy debater, judge/coach of 3 years running.

Current conflict is Jones (Chicago)

Email chain please: allie.gutierrez@live.com - If you have any questions before/after the round, shoot me an email! Especially when the RFD is on a time crunch, I'm happy to give more feedback.

TLDR:

No one is pure tab, but I'm as close as I can be. I'm good with Policy v Policy, Policy v K, and K v K. I lean pretty tech > truth. We're all here to learn, so be good people and have a good time!

If it’s LD or PF, you can probably get most of what you need from my CX paradigm, but particulars are at the bottom.

Some things I find affecting my general philosophy:

I've seen more judges refusing to vote for racism good, etc., and I'm all for it. If your arguments are offensive (racism good, sexism good, etc.) or make the space unsafe, I won't feel bad handing out an L25. What I haven't decided is how to handle cap good, climate change not real, etc. These arguments aren't explicitly offensive, but invalidate very real issues/experiences. As tech as I am, I'm skeptical of the rising popularity of arguments that embrace harmful pedagogy. For now, just know my tech > truth default wavers a little here.

Framework:

I'm not dogmatic about impacts, just prove why your model is best for the round and the world of debate. Bad for "Ks bad for debate", good for solid aff framework vs. neg Ks.

If you have an ROB/ROJ, please substantiate it. I've judged a lot of rounds where a pretty complex and/or self-serving ROB is read, but not A) what it means in the context of the round and B) why it's net beneficial for the debate.

For K affs, I tend to be happier if you debate the aff as is. Meta pre-reqs are a thing, but this too often feels like a way to avoid developing creative/strategic arguments. There are definitely exceptions - I'm sympathetic to the neg when aff literature doesn't mention something at least tangential to the topic. Regardless, don't feel the need to over-adapt to my preference.

I'll vote neg when: the aff has a poor counter-interp, the neg turns aff impacts, the topical version accesses aff impacts, or neg offense outweighs the limits DA.

I'll vote aff when: the 2NR fails to collapse the impact debate, the neg doesn't either turn or access aff impacts, or the aff successfully doubles down on an exclusion argument that turns neg impacts.

Topicality:

Evidence comparison!! If you have a quality definition that's contextual to the topic and fail to call out some nonsense def from Words and Phrases, I will be so sad. But, I don't want to read the size 2 text that makes 5 highlighted words a good definition. Either highlight more or weigh the ev for me.

I'm slightly reasonability-biased, at least for plan-less affs and stock cases. Good debating overcomes this. Please don't waste time running arbitrary, 5-second T shells. "Untruthful" T > 4 shells you kick coming out of the block.

I don't think TVAs are 100% necessary to win T (particularly against policy cases), but they can be useful.

Theory:

I think theory is super underused in high school! Explain why your interp is the best model and sets a necessary precedent, making theory a pre-req to the sub debate. While I don't often see rounds where things like condo and PICs are a genuine issue, I happily vote on them when executed well. Some slight biases:

Disclosure is good. Update your wiki's. No, don't run disclosure against novices or small-school debaters.

Condo is probably good within reason, but dispo is subjective and weird.

"Cheating" CPs are usually fine, but the legitimacy of delay, consult, etc. is iffy.

Perf con can sometimes be bad.

All of this can be overcome with good debating. Same as T, please don't run it for no reason.

DA's:

Case-specific is preferable, but generics are fun when contextualized in specific terms of the aff (yay for knowing your way around political/economic theory). Evidence, story-telling, and impact calc are all of equal importance. Zero risk is possible, but difficult to prove. Minimal risk makes the DA pretty negligible sans a strong framing debate. Some teams focus heavily on the link/impact and disregard uq and internal link chains, but defense here can make a big difference.

"Politics DAs are just bad for debate" isn't an argument. You can explain this and impact it out, but I don't accept the statement alone as a sufficient response. Root-causing and/or outweighing the DA is your best bet.

"DA outweighs turns case" works miracles. Say it more often.

CP's:

Specific and generic CP's both have their place. To quote Allie Chase, “I don’t subscribe to groupthink about which CPs ‘definitely solve' which affs.” So yes, re-highlight that aff evidence, give empirics, etc. but don't expect me to grant you a net benefit that isn't fully impacted out or is barely cross-applied down the flow.

Judge kicks are iffy because most of the time, the 2NR just throws out "and even if you don't buy the CP we have judge kick" in the last 5 seconds of the speech after doing virtually no work to weigh the aff against the squo. I'm not going to weigh multiple worlds for you, so this debate should start in the block.

K's:

I have a B.A. in philosophy and am working on my M.A., so I've read a ton. Feel free to ask how familiar I am with a certain lit base. Post-modernism and high theory are fine, but explain your jargon, contextualize your links, all that good stuff. If you can't do this, I'll assume you don't know your own K. More specific links as opposed to a broad K of the topic are usually best (strong analytic links are impressive). Links of omission are not links.

Strong LBL is much more persuasive than trying to pack embedded clash into a 5 minute overview.

I'm not particularly bothered by intense content. My hot-ish take is that death good has its place.

K affs are dope but should probably be in the direction of the res. At least be able to clearly state why it was brought into the debate space and what I'm doing by voting for you. Performance is fine, but framing and explanation your connection to the res are especially important here. I'm willing to vote on a PIK or attacks on the poetics/music you use, and I'm definitely not above presumption.

Please have some kind of advocacy. Kicking the alt in the 2NR is one thing, but I need to see what differentiates the world of the K from that of the aff/squo - even if it's not real world (I'm cool with utopian alts unless told otherwise). If you just say that the reading of the 1NC is an alt, what am I supposed to do with this without a clear explanation of your project? *cough cough, psychoanalysis*

Speaks:

I really try to give high speaks. Organization is needed, but go as fast as you want if you can be clear (extra important for online debates). I'm a fast flow, so if I've clear-called you multiple times, you're outspreading your own limits. I'm BEGGING you to signpost. I use the docs to read evidence, not flow. So say "and", number your warrants, literally anything.

I have a low threshold for rude debaters. If you hit a less experienced debater and use this as a power flex, your speaks will reflect my disapproval.

Misc:

I read the highlighted portions of ev during prep. I'll only read full text if you tell me to or it's a clear point of focus. Sub & case debate >>> 10 off. You don't have to send analytics, but it's helpful to number or otherwise emphasize when you're listing warrants and stuff. You don't have to send me a card doc - I'll probably ignore it. Tag team is totally fine, but if one partner is doing everything, that's not a good look. Flashing isn't prep within reason, i.e. don't stop prep if you're still copy-pasting, but having trouble with speechdrop doesn't count against you. Mark your own cards and keep your own times (I can definitely time, but you have to ask).

LD:

Prog LD is most familiar to me. I very much see value in traditional, I'm just less experienced. Phil is my second-best. I've read more Kant and util than I'd like to admit. That said, I still default very tab. I've voted on skep, disads, Ks, and good old fashioned framework, so really - do whatever you want.

My framework threshold is particularly high in LD. Interacting with the framework and/or creating value/VC clash is what makes LD unique. Coming down to T in LD is kind of strange, so at least make sure it's done well.

For the love of all that is good, don't make me vote on an RVI. Please. I'm begging you.

"Trix" are fine? I guess? I'm not gonna tell you not to, but I won't say I'd be excited to see it, either.

PF:

I view PF as a debate that is and has always been concerned what change is best, and this is how I'd like the round to be framed. As much as I'm a CXer at heart, I don't think plans have a place here. I often find them to blow the round out of proportion. That said, there are still plenty of other ways to create clash, so please do so.

I think K's and theory are very difficult to run correctly in PF. If you can do it, go off. But, mind that I'm a CX coach - my threshold is high.

I flow citations and paraphrased evidence the same way I flow warrants. If you want me to flow something as evidence, it should be structured something like a card.

I said not to blow the round out of proportion. What IS in proportion is painting a picture of both your world and the opponent's. The best PF rounds I've seen go beyond each individual card/contention to illustrate how the pro/con case would affect society, what they're valuing in society, and whether or not this is something they can and should achieve.

Kaden Hayes Trinity School of Midland None

Eric Hernandez Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Erica Hidalgo Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Luke Hogg Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jason Hufford Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Todd Kessler The Episcopal School of Dallas

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 4:16 AM CDT

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

Hannah Kim Hire 8 rounds

Bailey King Volunteer Judge 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 20, 2021 at 10:21 AM CDT

Yes, put me on the email chain:

bking29@angelo.edu

What to call me:

Bailey. She/her

Short Version:

I am fine with whatever as long as it is run correctly. I enjoy the round when I can see that you are enjoying it. Default tab. Tell me why I should vote for you. I won't make connections unless you directly connect arguments. Concessions are not automatic losses. Warrant all your arguments and do impact analysis. Show me why to vote for you. Depth over breadth. Clarity over speed, don't try to spread if you aren't clear in it. I struggle with double breathing and stuttering. I will clear call if you are not clear enough. Listen to these calls, please. Don't steal prep. Run an honest debate. I will answer any questions before rounds if there are any. Don't be rude or obnoxious. We are all here to have fun.

Framework:

If you are going to run framework arguments, they must be run correctly. I will not vote for or flow an incorrectly run argument. This means impacts. Do not run a framework without an impact.

Topicality:

I love a good topicality debate. I was a T debater. Same as a framework. If you do not provide all of the parts of this argument, I will not flow or vote for this. Good definitions are key. Evidence should be relative to the topic. Evidence comparisons will help you. If there are claims of abuse, they must be proven and I will vote on abuse if it is evident. T is not apriori unless explicitly stated. I default reasonability unless told otherwise. Don't run generic T shells. This is a time suck in my eyes and won't help you at all. Impact analysis.

Theory:

I love a theory debate, as long as it is done correctly. Especially in West Texas, Theory is underused and underappreciated. This doesn't mean to run a theory if you don't understand it/have never tried one/can't explain it. Prove your theories and make me buy them. I just want a good debate. Impact analysis. Show me why your interpretation is better for debate as a whole, not just in your specific round.

DA's:

I don't tend to like generic DA's. This doesn't mean I won't vote for one if it is run well and the impacts outweigh. I need to be able to see all your internal links. Don't jump to conclusions because it will hurt you. Show me how heg = nuke war. I love impact debate, but don't be afraid to focus on uniqueness and link debate. All of these pieces are important. If you leave out a section of the DA, I won't vote for it.

CP's:

I don't really like CP's that much. I will listen and flow them, however. If you are going to run one, you must have a net benefit. If you don't, don't bother wasting your speech time with a generic CP.

K's:

I love a good K. I know the more "basic" ones (cap, fem, etc.) however, am unfamiliar with the high theory K's. I will listen to any K, just explain them in layman's terms. Assuming that I know and understand your K will hurt you. There needs to be a clear understanding of the theory behind the K by BOTH partners on your team. I don't like generic links, they need to be specific. If they aren't, you need to be able to explain them in a way that makes them case-specific. I am cool with K-Aff's. Just know what you're talking about. Not a fan of performance aff's. I will listen to them if there are a clear framework and explanation of how it interacts with the resolution.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for the most part. Not listening to the clear calls, rude interactions, negative body language (eye rolls, etc), snarky answers or questions during CX, offensive language (racist, sexist, ableist, etc), interrupting speeches, and just being a jerk will hurt your speaks significantly. Don't try to show off if you are in a round with a less experienced debater. This is a learning experience, not an ego boost. Just don't be a bad human and there won't be any problems.

Anything Else:

Overviews and signposting are important. I flow each arg separately and like to be told when we are moving on. These should be concise, no more than a few words. I love line by line. Do this. It is so important. You can run anything and I will listen to it, just know what you are talking about. You don't need to send me your analytics, just evidence. Be sure to slow down on things that are not in the document. I don't like prompting. Don't do it. I don't mind open cx as long as both teams are okay with it.

Most important:

Have fun and learn from each other!

Evan Kirksey Central HS Springfield 8 rounds

John Klassen Trinity School of Midland

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:53 AM CDT

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."

samuel knox Volunteer Judge None

Linda Kornasky Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

John Landry Andrews High School

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 3:29 AM CDT

Maybe you have been told or think the judge is the dumbest person in the room in any debate. I am here to tell you now, that is a lie! At least ninety-nine percent of the time, you can expect your judge to be a reasonably intelligent, well informed member of society, now whether they are qualified to judge a debate round, we might throw fists. I am and have been for the majority of my teaching career a Speech and Debate coach from 1A-6A, a private hired consultant for PF, LD, and CX, and a 2nd Place State Qualifier in Extemp. Now my Interp skills, might be a little lacking currently, my major was theatre and communications in college...so you tell me. Who is the most qualified person in the round...the judge...notice I didn't say the smartest person in the round...I'll hand it to my students because they definitely know more of the ins and outs of the topics. I coach 6+ events each year.

I am a Games Player...let's have fun...but leashed fun.

Policy Debate – Judge Paradigms

Framework – Framework is one of the most important attributes in a Policy Debate Round. If you successfully frame the round toward your side Aff or Neg, it can help you win the round. My expectation is both teams must engage in each other’s interpretations fully instead of reading and extending…if neither team suggests a standard for evaluation…I ALWAYS DEFAULT to the POLICY MAKER! While I find stock issues extremely important in developing a solid case, for TFA/NSDA I lean to the most convincing side...Obviously there is a problem in the Status Quo...so How does your Plan rightfully solve for the greatest fix of the problem.

Case Debate – I believe smart analytics are preferable to SPEED (spread) reading Card after Card after Card. Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling. Show me what you got...solid case ALWAYS WINS DEBATES!

DA/CPs – AS SPECIFIC as POSSIBLE, but I’m willing to vote either way. I prefer link-specific analysis, but I’m willing to vote either way as long as there is a clear impact/net benefit to be preferred. My expectation is that CPs provide a direct opportunity for the Aff and Neg to create a clash within a topic. DAs should be answered in a form that utilizes the direct impact to the SQ.

Kritik Debate – I typically divert back to Case Debate when it comes to a debate that turns Kritik. It is important to me that the team evaluates why the K is the most important impact in the round, get out of the CARD READING, always be sure to extend them in later speeches…use your prep time…fully develop!! I think if the 2NC attempts to gain inroads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency can be persuasive and is a helpful way for me to evaluate the K against the Aff. I'm fine with kritik affirmatives so long as you explain what exactly I'm endorsing by voting affirmative/negative.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other stock argument. I’ll default to competing interpretations, but how I evaluate T should be the work done in the round by the NEG and then answered by the AFF and vice versa. Explain to me what the SQ looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative’s (or negative). That also means that proving in-round abuse isn’t necessary..and furthermore wastes my time. If you’re winning the standards debate, hold your ground, it does make it a lot easier to vote on T.

Theory – Theory becomes easier to evaluate when actual clash takes place instead of just reading blocks and not engaging with the other team’s argument. If you expect to solely win on theory you better give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument. Careful...theory is a slippery slope. If you divert to theory you will lose the round. Fairness=The development of the Topic...Education=thats what this form of debate is about...Don't throw education in my face...the judge is at a clear disadvantage when you argue Education...90% of the judges are coaches...BLECK!!

Non-Traditional Debate – If I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do have fun...you've prepared...now it is time to show off your skills.

Speed/Spread – As long as you’re clear, and not out of breath… I’m fine with speed. Breaking up your cadence and tone between tags/authors/analytics and warrants will help you make sure I don’t miss anything. My biggest philosophy...if I can't flow you, or you see me drop my pen...you are going to fast.

Speaker Points – 27.5 is average. I’ll add points for things like clarity and efficiency and subtract for messy debating or getting too harsh with your opponents/partner. I believe Policy Debate should be Policy…not ATTACK debate! I also believe and will add points for respect. EVEN if the Aff/Neg is clearly more prepared/seasoned, the opponent can score high based on RESPECT.

Case/evidence email: mrlandry0325@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas Debate - Judge Paradigm

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over almost 15 years. I simply have a passion for Speech and Debate. I love providing thoroughly written ballots that encourage growth...but sometimes I look the debaters dead in the eye and realize they have no idea what the difference between morals and real life application really is.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.) PLUS...this is LD. SLOW DOWN...be methodical and utilize the persuasive appeals.

Criteria: I want and value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... that can be taken as provide evidence that weighs the value co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I LOVE "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're thought of as a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem, but in our current state they are the philosophical underpinnings that do in fact guide our decision-making. This is not to say that conservative arguments are not as strong...in fact...I lean more philosophical, but that is based on personal bias of/against the topic.

I love the conflicts/clash that arises from "The Social Contract" and natural rights v. natural law...worded more succinctly "in the state of nature one may have the absolute right to do what is necessary to defend one's possessions but under the social contract, one relinquishes that right and gives it to the authority." In contrast, "people are born with certain 'natural rights' they cannot be infringed or taken away without some really, really good justification. Final words...Freedoms and Liberty are significantly different. Case in point January 6th...that is all.

Bill Langley Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Anna Charlotte Lavers Hire None

Anna Charlotte Lavers Hire 8 rounds None

Kristin Lewis Hebron High School None

Kyra Lindsay Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Celeste Martinez Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

James Mayville Volunteer Judge None

Shea McClellan Volunteer Judge None

Scott Milam Geneva School of Boerne

Millie Montoya Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Sierra Montoya Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Carina Myatt Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Dakota Rene Myers Hire 8 rounds

Selena Navarro Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Nathalie Neill Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Chelsea Ogan Hire 8 rounds

claire parker Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Tonya Powers Snyder High School

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 2:33 AM CDT

I consider myself a judge who will listen to anything as long as it is warranted. I have voted on just about any argument you can imagine. I am open to both traditional and progressive arguments. Do whatever works for you. Please give me voters. I love seeing clear ways you think I should evaluate the round. If you only read this paragraph, here is the TLDR version. I love direct clash. Voters are incredibly important in the rebuttals. Don't make me do the mental work for you.

I competed for 3 years in policy in high school, 4 years of NPDA, and 2 years of LD in college, and I was a graduate assistant for the WTAMU speech team. I have been coaching in some capacity for the last 8 years, so there's not much you can run that I have not seen.

Policy Debate

Topicality

I enjoy a good T debate. Stock issues are still very important in traditional policy debates, and I want debaters to do it well. Run T if there is a clear violation. Please emphasize voters.

Disadvantages

Please read specific links if you have them. Tell me exactly how the aff plan fits into your scenario. I'm fine with terminal impacts as long as they are warranted.

Counterplans

I like CPs when they are run well. Please have a unique net benefit on the CP. You can read CP theory for the aff or neg. It's a neglected argument, but I like hearing theories on different types of counterplans and their validity.

Kritiks

Just like disadvantages, I think Ks should have specific links. Theory is great, and I enjoy it when it is run well. Make sure you have more than just a reject alt. What does the alt call me to do besides vote for you? Do not run multiple Ks in the same round/speech. A good K is a big enough theoretical and ethical issue that it should be your main advocacy.

Lincoln-Douglas

I coached in a very traditional area, which means I see a lot of traditional debate. Ethical debates are incredibly important, and they've grown on me as I have coached the activity. That said, I am open to more "progressive" styles as long as the arguments are solid. Each side should offer a value and a criterion for their case. However, you choose to structure arguments after that is up to you.

Public Forum

I have less experience with PF than I do with CX and LD, but I enjoy judging it. Unlike traditional policy debate, public forum debate does not require a plan text. The time constraints make policy-style cases difficult. I'm open to hearing that format, but it's not required to win my ballot. I want to see well-reasoned cases and good clash in rounds.

Speed

It's very hard to speak too quickly for me. It is possible to mumble or speak too quietly, especially in a virtual debate. Debate is only good if both sides know what is happening. Please make sure you enunciate clearly. Please don't gasp for air while you read. It's one of the few things I truly hate. If you're doing that, slow down. Make your signposts and taglines very clear, so I know where to flow.

At the end of the day, it is not my job to tell you what you should run. Run arguments that you like and think you will do well running.

Neil Pratt Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

William Reid Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 15, 2023 at 11:18 AM EDT

I am the Assistant Forensics Coach at Clemson University, a team that routinely competes in British Parliamentary Debate. I have Bachelors degrees in Communication and Philosophy, and I am working on a Masters in Communication with an emphasis in social media and disinformation studies. This is my ninth year within the debate community. My pronouns are He, Him, His, though I would rather be referred by "Judge" or "Panel" respectively.
Email Chain: w.nunley.111@gmail.com

____________________________

LD/PF Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outweigh the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I will only say "speed" twice if you are going too fast for me. Typically, nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity.

Partner Cohesion (PF specific): Partners should be able to function in rounds as a single unit. This means that one another's argumentation should follow a single line of thought, without fear of contradicting the other. Support your partner, they're your best asset in a round!

Refutation: Simply refuting the tag of an argument is not enough for me. Case writing relies on link work to substantiate claims and propose impacts, thus refutation should interact with the internal mechanisms of your opponents link work to disprove positions and gain ground within the round. Cases are meant to be engaging and impactful ways of viewing debate subjects, so lets engage!

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I was a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. Ensure clarification where need be, and provide me clear metrics for evaluating your content and the round.

Theory/T: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interpretation and the violation clear.

Disclosure: I will not automatically vote for someone simply because their opponent did not disclose. If your opponent is reading something extremely unorthodox I will hear the argument if it is well fleshed out.

Plans/CPs: This is fine. Do it well, do it right. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are ok. Once again, If you do it right you are fine.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. Please do not run K unless it is good. Uniqueness is a big one for me. I love to see something Unique if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. With that said, I prefer to not watch K debate. Only run a K if you feel like its necessary, not for the fun of it.

Weighing and Impacts: spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. You will not change my mind, but your speaks are likely to be lowered as a result.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

------------------------------------

Big Questions

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you. I will not reward any arguments that step outside of the true intention of big questions; meaning, running a K or theory shell will be heavily looked down upon. This format is meant to stimulate interesting and meaningful interaction with a topic, therefore traditional debate will be rewarded on my ballot.

Speed: You should speak at a pace that is easy to follow. Big Questions should not be a competition of speed; rather, I will reward debaters for meaningful engagement within the round over how many arguments they can refute against. If you are speaking to quickly, I will verbalize "Speed" so that you slow down.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. Debaters have every right to disagree with my decision, but you will not change my mind and arguing with me will not change the result on the ballot.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Schools

Do not run from the heart of the motion and engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes and you'll do great. I competed and now coach in the Worlds format of College Debate. I am very well versed in this format. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate.

Ensure that you have a logical structure to the progression and development of the bench. I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you

Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through a framework system. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story with syllogisitic link chains: make the implicit, explicit.

World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each of these judging-areas seriously and you will do well in this event.

Note on POI: I will not give time signals in round, I expect that students will keep their own times and not ask questions during protected time. POI's can be either a question OR statement, with students getting a full 15 seconds to ask the question. As the speaker, do not cut off POI's mid sentence, I will verbally say "time" if the question goes over 15 sec.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. Debaters have every right to disagree with my decision, but you will not change my mind and arguing with me will not change the result on the ballot.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

Candace Rich Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jose Rodriguez Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Margie Rodriguez Volunteer Judge None

Alyssa Romero Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jordan Sapien Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Grace Shelton Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Kymbrea Thompson Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Dian Underwood Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Wes Underwood Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

cynthia vargas Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jose Villafuerte Hire 8 rounds

Jay Walling Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Pamela Walling Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

LaDonna Watson Cooper High School None

Jay Weatherby Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Suzi Welch Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jonah White Volunteer Judge 8 rounds

Sylvia Wiegand Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jimmy Williams New Home

Will Wilson Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Joshua Wimberley Midland Lee HS

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 9:49 AM CDT

Joshua Wimberley
Speech & Debate Coach
Midland Legacy High School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any questions, just ask.

No Need to Speed — KEEP KIDS ALIVE DRIVE 25®

Savanna Winn Seminole

Angie Wright Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Jason Yarbrough Volunteer Judge 8 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

San Angelo Central Bobcat Bonanza Swing

2021 — San Angelo, TX/US

Synchronous Debate/Extemp Paradigm List

Judges