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!

Debate:

I’ll flow any argument and I can deal with spreading. I really love interesting original cases, particularly based around philosophy (unless they’re just poorly constructed).

I have a much easier time voting for cases with strong framework and make use of that framework, but framework doesn’t matter unless you make it

Speech:

Conversationality and argument construction are the two most significant factors I base my rankings on (but of course not the only factors).

Jared Bressler. My email is jbressl3@gmail.com if you are using an email chain or you want to email me a question (Include tournament name and debate in the subject line if its a pre-round question). I did LD debate for four years a very long time ago. I competed in then coached NPDA debate at Texas Tech for a very long time. I have also coached LD on and off for the last decade or so, some traditional some less so. I will go into my stylistic preferences bellow but there are a few things that apply no mater what style of debate you chose. Warrants are good, weight impacts, be nice to each other, I will evaluate the debate if front of me based on the arguments made to the best of my abilities. Also I am ok with speed (I know that should go without saying at a bid tournament but I also know that I am new here)

I am happiest judging policy style debates (I like to evaluate the aff plan vs either the sqo or a compitive CP). I have judged and am capable of judging any style of debate you chose (critical (identity or otherwise) traditional ect.) I will reward quality arguments with speaker points in a way I will not reward tricks.

Policy making: I will cover more of this in the theory section, but a few things. Offence is your friend, don't forget uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I really like heg and politics debate. Impact turn debates can also be fun.

Theory I judge all theory on competing interpretations. All that matter is the aff (or the neg) meets the best interpretations in the round as decided by weighting standards. I struggled with rather to give you my theory prepositions since they are not strong since a: they can be overcome with quality arguments and b: they were formed doing NPDA and policy which has different resolutions and times so I'm not even sure that these preconceptions are good for LD, but I think its good to have as much idea as where I am coming from so here they are. A good interpation provides predictable limits. The aff should be topical, CP should be textually and functionally competitive (they can of course be topical), all neg advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise (though if you want to go for condo bad you should clarify in CX). I am willing to vote on framework/wrong form arguments. Also make sure you share your theory interps (and advocacy texts) or if for some reason you can't read them twice at below conversational speed.

Critical debate. I ran this a lot as a debater, but have become less fond of them as a judge. My default is to weight the alt as a competing advocacy. I am cynical of ballot of advocacy but I have voted that way before. I am able to follow most critical litature as long as its extend properly.

Traditinal LD: I have judged a bunch of this and some of it has been pretty good. Remember that debate is still about impacts, saying my value is "..." dose not automatically make that important. I have seen too many rounds where half the speech time was spent arguing value/criteria in a way that was completely detached from the rest of the debate where the impacts were.

Hi! I am a parent judge. I am comfortable voting on arguments that are properly extended and weighed. You need to tell me why to vote for you and prove to me why your evidence/arguments are important. Be respectful to your opponents and I will not vote on anything that is offensive in anyway(ie things that are racist/sexist/homophobic etc.) I'm good with medium speed. Add me on the email chain: anitha3@hotmail.com

Overall:

Speed (Spreading): Don't spread if you can't do it properly! Speak quickly but if I can't understand you...I'm out.

Flow (Prep Time): USE YOUR PREP TIME! It is there for a reason. If you drop something or your argument isn't well rounded and you didn't use your prep time....hmmm...see the problem here?

Style (Interaction): I prefer the debaters to not get nasty towards each other but I also want you to stand your ground. There is a style to doing this without sounding like a teenager who isn't getting their way.

Arguments: You have your case...present it. Ask the questions that are needed.

I am a fairly quick thinker so if you miss some of the lingo that's okay but be sure I can pick out what is what in your argument. It should be well developed and structured so that both the judge and opponent(s) can flow your case.

LD: I prefer a round that is both debaters giving their cases at their best. Don't look for what I "prefer" or care about seeing; just give me what you've got and leave it all in the room.

Policy: I think my policy paradigm is the same as my LD. I love a good cross; it's there to ask as many questions as you can and get as much info as you can...be aggressive here if you have to.

sarah.gonzales@rcisd.org

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I'm currently a 2n at wake forest where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda.

please read some interesting k stuff i am so bored

Short Version:

Read whatever you want as long as it's not oppressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXLu_x0SRm4

i know i've got a tricks rep in ld but keep in mind i'm literally a policy k debater now lmao i promise you anything and everything is good in front of me. keep in mind i'm a bored college student, if you read or go for a really cool strat, read some dope k lit, or just have a really interesting and in depth round your speaks will absolutely benefit.

If you're rushing through prefs, use this as a guide:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory/Tricks - 2 (probably could be a 1 i'm 100% down and happy to vote on this i'm just a fyo so u may not want me for a super dense trix round)

LARP - 3

Super dense or difficult to understand K - 2/3

Long Version:

I primarily read different stuff each year. Sophomore year I was all about soft-left affs and larp. Junior year I read a ton of tricks and phil stuff. Senior year I mostly read Deleuze and Psychoanalysis. At Wake so far it's cap and Afrofuturism.

Err on the side of over-explaining super dense k lit. I'll vote on it but if you read something like Baudrillard and assume I know everything you're talking about your speaks will suffer.

Other stuff:

- Don't read afropess if you aren't black. If your opponent reads afropess and isn't black, make that argument, and you'll win. To clarify, this is within the round. If you want to argue that your opponent read it previously and should be dropped, I'm 100% happy and willing to vote on that, but I'll evaluate it as I would any other argument.

- If you want to make an evidence ethics or clipping allegation, tell me to stop the round and I'll evaluate the allegation. W30 to whoever wins and L25 to whoever loses.

- Email me or message me on FB w/ any questions!

Things I'll boost speaks for:

- Clever analytic PICs

- Well executed one off skep against phil or larp

- Well executed one off kritik against k affs

- Understanding your positions and explaining them well (please don't read stuff you don't understand)

- Making fun of any of the following people in a funny and not-too-offensive manner: Scott Klein, Matt Liu, Elizabeth Lee, Zach Lu, Curtis Chang, Jalyn Wu, Amanda Huang, Chris Xu, Annie Wang, anyone on Hunter LD

- Setting up the email chain before I get there, or you walk in if you're flight two

I debated in high school 20 years ago. I’ve been actively judging debate on and off since. I don’t like speed and prefer well organized articulate debates. I mostly vote on stock issues and counter plans ( if they are good). I like to see clash and for each contestant to come up and argue your own original arguments.

Competitive experience is in LD, PF, DX, and OO.

IEs:

I don't have judging preferences for IE’s - the whole point is to see you be you!

Debate:

TL;DR I care much less about who can speed read through the most content or come up with the most restrictive theory argument and I care much more about a debate who is can present original arguments with clear warrants, strong links, and reasonable impacts.

My competitive experience was in LD and PF. Judging preference for debate is a more traditional style, which means in LD I still want at least some value debate. Even if your value and criterion are the same, it still matters to me which framework better upholds each one. I don't like when debaters immediately concede the value debate in their first rebuttal and try to re-frame the debate as a policy debate.

If you want to introduce policy elements, please make them well explained with strong links and valid to the round at hand. Low tolerance for handicapping through theory, counterplans, etc. Preference for a concise argument with warrant, clear & strong links, and reasonable impacts over a sprint to see who can access extinction the quickest.

Speed is okay, but be clear and slow down for taglines and anything else of particular importance.

I will only flow/consider what you say, not my own observations. Example: If your opponent claims you conceded something but you don’t agree, make that clear, don't count on my flow to provide the impacts for you. Similarly, if you think an argument was dropped or conceded, simply saying so does not mean I’ll extend it for you. I still want to know the impacts and relevance to the round.

I appreciate good structure and organization (strong links, line-by-line, voters, etc.) It makes my job much easier as a judge. It's also obvious when debaters use a stock case and if you are doing that, please at least have a masterful understanding of it. If you wrote your own case, thank you for keeping things interesting.

Unless the tournament has specifically given us guidance to disclose in the round, I will disclose on the ballot.

LD

I am an old school judge. I want the main focus to be on framework. Most times my ballots go to the debater who links all arguments to values and criteria successfully. I can keep up with some speed, however I tend to favor persuasion and logic over spreading and tons of cards. I want to hear impacts of cards, not just the card itself. Debaters should listen to each other and use that as the basis of clash, not just contradiction. If you plan to use theory and critiques, you better explain it clearly and don't assume my knowledge.

PF

I am not a fan of spreading. I do not want you to overload with cards and theory.

Howdy I'm Jayme (or Jam :^)) & my pronouns are she/they

jaymelynnem@gmail.com

Blanco HS (TX) 2014-2019

Texas Tech University 2019-2020

I debated UIL Lincoln Douglas for 5 years before debating parliamentary (specifically NPDA) for Texas Tech.

Tall Cotton 2024:

My preferences haven't changed much, I still want you to be kind and patient. I still want to see line by line clash (w/ signposting!!!) and voters.

include me on the speech doc PLEASE

Tall Cotton 2023:

be cool, be kind, be smart. those are my big things.

Mean debate is punishable by low speaks, show mercy and patience. We want to send our best representatives to Nats, and I'd like to see West Texas Charm on the main stage lol

I love framework, but I won't vote on it alone. Winning the value and criterion debate (unless you're very explicit in your voters) is not an instant ballot. I need impacts to be weighed USING the established framework. That is to say, if the Neg destroys the Aff FW, but the Aff can show how their impacts are more important under the Neg VC, they've got me.

Love hearing impacts, love hearing line by line. LOVE hearing voters. It is always very cool when you tell me exactly how i should vote and what my RFD ought to be. Makes my job super easy, and your job (win) also easy.

I DO NOT flow CX. if you are setting up arguments in CX, if I don't hear them in the speech, they don't exist. CX is for you, not for me.

(But everyone is a winner when we all have fun, right?)

TLDR:

> not huge on T, will vote on it if i HAVE to

> If you know you're fast, I'm too slow for you. Other than that, I'm decent at keeping up

> I get lost sometimes, I don't want to have to signpost for you, and if I do I'll be upset. make it super clear

> i DONT know your K, but i love to learn

I still don't know how to write these so here's an update as of 9/26/21:

> im much slower than i remember being, but if you send me the speech doc i'll be happy to follow

> pls read what you want, but if it's complicated simplify it for me.

> I still don't really like T, but if you read it PLEASE slow down for the shell lmao. it's hard for me to vote on standards I couldn't flow

> top speed isn't impressive if I can't understand you (fluency mostly)

I don't know how to write one of these if im being honest so here are some bullets that might help:

> im not a huge fan of T. I get it, I appreciate it when necessary, but overall its not my thing.

> I have only started learning Ks in the last year, but I have a decent handle on how they function.

> the way I did LD was Value/Criterion but I appreciate the way it has evolved to be single person policy

> parli is policy without cards so I know a thing or two about policy args

> I'm generally decent at speed but I have trouble keeping up online sometimes.

I am a hired judge who graduated in 2017 from Plano Senior High School.

I am currently an enrolled senior majoring in Economics at the University of Texas - Austin.

I've judged all four years of college, and almost every event (Save for CX). In high school I competed in LD, Congress, extemp, and OO. This year I have probably judged over two dozen rounds of LD, a handful of rounds of PF, four each rounds of Congress, OO, HI, DI, and USX/FX

LD

Before, I usually tended to say that I am a tab judge; now I have developed more of a tendency to wield my near-absolute — nay, absolute — power within the round to force you poor debaters to comply to my desire of a round that is fun for me to judge and allows me to provide a RFD that is satisfying to both myself and both of the folks for whom it actually carries any weight.

With regards to types of arguments I'll hear, what matters most is the justification. I'll obviously gut-check a lot of claims made, but, like my fleeting youth, my gut has become more sensitive in recent years. Ks should be unique and specific to the topic at hand; they should be relatively close to what is being debated rather than monumental and apocryphal arguments that I, myself, would feel uncomfortable acting as the arbiter of what is right or wrong. Theory would preferably be in shell form, and ought to (ought to) demonstrate real harm within the round, rather than a cheap way to pick up a ballot. Disads should be within a realm of believability and plausibility. Performative cases — I appreciate the personal dedication that is put into them, but I must admit that I do not know how to fairly evaluate them.

The dreaded topic: speed. This is where I allow the largest portion of cattiness to emerge, as I typically say "go at your own risk"; simply put, if I cannot understand, I will not evaluate it. I will also not read your case rather than listen. You can call me lazy, old fashioned, or a whole other litany of derogation, trust me, I've been called worse. Ideally, you speak at a rate slightly faster than conversational; the operative word here being "speak." I also greatly appreciate when a debater is able to match the (slower) speed of their opponent. It is a true test of argumentation and economy if you are able to pick up a round even while getting less on the flow than usual.

I can greatly appreciate folks who discuss intriguing philosophical arguments — debates about values and frameworks are by far my favorite, and really demonstrate the depth potential of LD. Nishida is one of my favorite philosophers. Benhabib is another favorite. Neither might be applicable to topics this year.

Please be courteous to your opponent.

PF

Ah, public forum. What a wonderful world, one where you have a friend in the game. Ideally, you and your partner work well together.

I generally believe that there is a reason that PF and LD are separate events, beyond merely the addition of a partner. We should focus on tangible arguments, rather than philosophical ones. We agree on values, generally– how do we best carry through on them? This is public forum debate. Make arguments (and speak them) at a level that is accessible to the public, including my sweet old Brooklyn bubbe. Extend your warrants.

I am almost entirely opposed to LD concepts such as Ks and theory showing up in PF. I will almost never decide on them.

Remember evidence rules. I will go beyond my most basic duties and, yes, occasionally call to see cards.

Again, be courteous.

If anything is unclear, please do ask me before the round.

Congress

Rate of delivery should be deliberate - practice word economy and don't go too fast. Usually, two arguments in a speech is standard, or one new argument and one detailed, warranted rebuttal/clash to other speakers.

Evidence needs to be both legitimate and specific to the point you are making; it is difficult to prescribe a general number of citations, but if you are building a link story in your speech, then you need several, or if you're using a policy proposal by the CBO, for example, one citation may be enough.

Repetition of arguments is bad, obviously, but clash needs to feel extemporaneous, not over-rehearsed. Debate on a topic should eventually boil down to specific issues rather than repeating generalized overarching political beliefs.

Presiding is difficult to do when we're online, but POs should try to control the room as best they can with an emphasis on fairness, and an attempt to encourage less participatory members of the room to participate as much as they can.

Speech

Extemp: Should be conversational but informative; evidence should be used frequently. I prefer a minimum of two citations in each main "point", but more is always welcome. However, evidence should not be the main focus of the speech, rather, it should complement the argument you are making to make you sound convincing. For virtual delivery, moving around the room is awkward, so try to find any way to demonstrate you are moving from one point to another.

Oratory and Info: Make deliberate but sparing use of pauses and vocal emphasis (don't overdo it since it loses meaning). Evidence here should be complementary to the goal of the speeches, and doesn't have to be purely academic/research - stories, anecdotes, etc, do count! I think virtual delivery does not necessarily negatively affect the content of speeches, so just try to make sure you are being as engaging as possible.

Interp: Teasers/intros are preferably entertaining and have a "hook" but not too overwhelming in content/do not confuse the audience. Blocking should be deliberate and not over-animated, as gestures need not distract from the actual content. Since movement is limited in virtual settings, I won't be looking for it - just don't try to overcompensate for lack with movement with excessive blocking or gestures. Character work is appreciated.

Author intent needs to be appropriate and realistic enough, I guess. I don't think I appreciate it when competitors use a piece that is too mature for the setting or has curse words just for the hell of it; most important is that you show me you understand the topic and its gravity.

World Schools

I have judged one round of World Schools this year and I have enjoyed it. I believe I was the chair for the round. I like to flow WS like I flow LD, with a particular emphasis on sources and impacts.

I would liken World Schools to a pragmatic team strategy game; a team must understand how to respond to arguments and which to prioritize to best demonstrate their understanding of the topic and the strength of their advocacy.

With regards to practical vs principle arguments, I take a pragmatic approach; if principle arguments are well-crafted and clearly dominate the round, I would be likely to weigh them more. If principle arguments are more muddled, I tend to fall back on practical arguments.

I would deduct points if a speaker is speaking too quickly. An important part of debate is demonstrating that you are able to craft an argument in a concise manner. Speaking quickly is an attempt to get around the time limit rather than actually engaging in what I consider the difficult but rewarding aspect of debate. This in particular flows together with a speaker's strategy: if you can condense your speech down to the most compelling arguments while discarding those that are less convincing, you are demonstrating your understanding of the topic and using it to your advantage: strategy.

To resolving model quibbles/countermodels, I prefer to weigh the strengths and weaknesses to see which form is most convincing and follows rational logic best.