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!

James Allen
Hallsville '9-'13
University of Texas - Arlington '13-'17

I competed extensively on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits in North, East and South Texas as well as the TOC. Given the meta of that judging pool and its exceptionally diverse preferences on various aspects of debate, I highly value debaters' versatility and adaptability in meeting judges where they are most comfortable adjudicating rounds. Despite this, I believe my paradigm is more adaptable to debaters than is typical because I adjudicate based on what participants have to say, not on whether their content more closely aligns with my assumptions on a given topic. I frequently endorse debaters whose argumentation exhibits effectiveness and efficiency even though I might disagree with the logic of a particular argument.

Thusly, I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.

On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences:

I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds. Clarify before the round if necessary.

Topicality- Please shell and make flowing easy. High standard for T but will vote for the argument.

Disadvantages- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a utopian/dystopian CP.

Kritiks- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects. If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in a rebuttal if the argument is legitimate and strategic.

Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.

Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework, which for my taste, will revolve around argumentative agency.

Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere or disingenuous.

Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Extensions- I will account for the time skew in the 1AR if I feel that it is necessary. You must extend the warrants and implications of arguments in the rebuttals for me to consider it as offense. If I end up having to intervene, I will be considerably displeased and will be lazy.

Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.

To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how and why I should vote. Analyze offense, offense, offense. Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to the quality of argumentation.

Notes regarding the virtual nature of online tournaments:

I would advise disclosing advocacies in constructive and rebuttal speeches through file sharing to avoid the tragic scenario in which connectivity issues degrade clarity. I suggest utilizing OBS to record speeches so that they may be made available in the event of technical difficulties. I most strongly advise that you disclose all of your evidence and strategies on the open evidence wiki.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.

Most of all, I must express how grateful I am for the opportunity to listen to what you each have to say. Thank you for challenging yourselves, facing your fears, and letting your voices be heard. Cherish this opportunity and wield it on your journeys to becoming the best version of yourselves.

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

I normally do not disclose at the end of the rounds. This goes for paneled rounds and elimination rounds as well. I also try to let the contestants time themselves, but if a team absolutely wants me to time as well, then I can.

I've judge the TFA circuit for about 6 years now, and judge just about any event there is. Although I only participated in LD and Extemp in high school, I have a grasp of just about every event there is and talk to other judges on the circuit to gain insight on resolutions and paradigms.

I am OK with speed, but not at the expense of clarity, so I'd like it if you could slow down for main contentions, taglines, your values, criterion, voters, etc.. I will also say that it is important to highlight your voters at the end of a round, and to give no more than 3. Honestly, 2 voters is a fine number as well. 1 voter would probably be too little, and 4+ would be too many.

Please do NOT just flat-out spread the entire round. If you must spread, then please do so during a card. I have never had to yell out "CLEAR," and hope I never have to.

I would suggest using all of your prep time and to not yield any unused time unless absolutely necessary.

I really shouldn't have to say this, but based off of what I have seen in the past, I feel the need to remind you that you need to respect your opponents and should not sass them. Please do not be rude or condescending towards them. I have voted people/teams down just because they were super rude, and that's despite them winning on my flow. Also, please do not be rude or unprofessional towards your teammates or me.

I love unique arguments and cases, but don't push too hard just for the sake of being unique. However, ways to be unique include giving me observations, telling me who has the burden and for what, and using clever definitions, standards, and tests. A lot of great work can be done with your framework so do not neglect it.

I also love it when you tell me what the turns are. A lot of arguments do turn on themselves, so if you point that out to me, I'll give you a lot of credence and that will work to your advantage on the ballot.

I do look at how well you work with your partner too (for PD and Policy), so teamwork and chemistry are a part of the ballot for me. Also, I do look at pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos does not mean you should just yell the entire time. Please do not do that. As for ethos and logos, I will say that I went to law school, so I know a good source when I hear one, and I know how arguments tend to be flawed and I know how they can become more logical. With that said, logic is different from intuition. Keep that in mind. Logical arguments are great, but intuitive arguments can be strong as well.

For policy debate, I'm a cross between stock issues and policy maker. I love a good K and I really enjoy it when you can set yourself up during Cross-Examination and such. I don't like it when people start talking about space, and I think that extinction is overplayed. I have also voted purely off of T before.

I try not to overthink it. I always ask myself "who do I think should go to the next round?" At the end of the day, I do not want to think I let someone down by not voting for them, so I try to find peace and resolution with my final decisions.

A lot of times, confidence goes a long way, so even if you are unsure of yourself, portraying a sense of confidence really helps on my flow. The way I see it, you all are still young, so you have time to acquire knowledge, so what you need above all else right now is confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Please don't be arrogant or cocky either.

On the whole though, I would describe myself as a pretty laid back person and judge. I am a bit quirky though, so my apologies in advance if I type something out in the chat and it throws you off.

Honestly, I'm almost never swayed by abuse arguments. That doesn't mean you shouldn't present them, but if you are, then make sure they are legitimate. I've seen too many compulsory abuse arguments. Look at the other side's intent. Can you prove it? Was it just an accident? Is your abuse argument about a fundamental issue, or is it just merely procedural?

I'll generally allow anything, but I am a bit old school and think that LD should still be Value-Criterion centric, CX should be policy, and Public Forum should be more communal, values based, and domestic. PF shouldn't just be another way for policy debaters to compete, but I also see PF as more than just LD with teams. I think PF is kind of a blend of the two where evidence and cards can be read, with some actual policies pointed out as well. But please don't turn PF into mini-CX.

Drops happen, so don't fret over accidentally dropping something, and if the drop was major, then please extend it and give me impacts and its significance. Please don't just extend without any kind of elaboration on the matter. Just telling me to extend doesn't really help me out, but an elaboration, justification, explanation, etc. will go a long way.

Crystallization is super important. Please tell me what the 2-3 main areas of clash are in the debate and why you should win on those grounds. These are essentially what your voters should be, but they should also help guide you with your rebuttals and the other speeches you have before the round ends.

Please don't forget to make extensions. Drops happen, but at least extend your own arguments. At times I've voted down a team that had a winning argument mainly because they failed to recognize it as a winning argument, and therefore didn't extend it properly.

Don't overlook the power of sportsmanship and following ethical guidelines.

Please type in the chat box how much prep time you have left and/or how much you have used. That would be very helpful.

I've viewed all of NSDA's Judge Training videos on YouTube and would HIGHLY recommend that all competitors view them as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq8gnbXDO10&list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJn2GAhHcWe6xIRj2NWPpgk&index=1

Sometimes it helps to look at the videos for IEs and such too. Speaking style is a mode of persuasion, after all, and IEs can show deep reflection. Such deep reflection can be important in a debate round, but is likely more important when conducting your research and creating your cases and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJLJUgov9kj8kGG1A75q5Nl&v=TEWolJf0F2g&feature=emb_title

If you have any other specific questions, then feel free to ask me before the round.

Please include me on any email chains. My email address is kevin.kalra5@gmail.com

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

Traditional judge, I prefer no spreading or Ks. I won't take off for them, but I encourage you not to!

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

I have been involved with debate as a participant, judge, school coach, national team coach, and UDL Executive Director. I have coached multiple state and national championships in the following events: Congress, LD, Policy, and World Schools Debate; Extemporaneous and Impromptu Speaking; and Prose/Poetry/Program of Oral Interpretation. I coached the 2023 WSDC World Champions as well.

I believe that speech and debate provides transformative life skills and that my role in the round is adjudicator/educator.

All speeches should be communicative in delivery, persuasive in style, and adhere to ethical standards in every aspect. Respect should be displayed to all involved, at all times.

In a competitive space, your role as a speaker/performer is to persuade me that your arguments/reasoning/evidence/performance is more compelling than the other competitors in the round. I will endeavor to base my decision on what happens IN the round and what I write on my flow, but I don't leave my brain at the door. Act accordingly.

I currently judge more WS rounds than anything else. WSDC/NSDA/TSDA norms should be adhered to. Speaking should be conversational as regards speed/style. Refutation may be line-by-line or utilize grouping, but you need to be clear where you are on the flow. Weighing is key. Stick to the heart of the motion and avoid the extremes. Unless the motion is US-specific you should provide international examples. Make it clear what your side of the debate looks like: what does the world of the Prop look like? the Opp? Framing/definitions/models should be fair and in the middle of the motion. Stakeholders should be clear; put a face on the motion.

A good debate round is a thing of beauty; respect your craft, the event, and your fellow competitors.

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

PF

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

LD

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

Wylie High School '17

University of Houston '21

Please put me on the email chain: jacobw9997@gmail.com

Policy Debate Thoughts:

I'll listen to anything you want to read but be sure to explain denser critical literature bases or more complex policy scenarios. I default to competing interps and am a really big fan of well researched and prepared positions, whether that's critical or policy.

On some more minutia:

I'll vote for the politics disad as I lean tech over truth but I generally believe the politics DA as its often constructed isn't true and can be defeated by some good analytics or evidence comparison in the 2AC in many cases.

I will vote on presumption I think lots of 1ACs are bad and more time should be spent on case in the block. I really love a good case debate. Having good cards against their aff is good but so is reading their evidence and making good analytical arguments.

I think generally on framework debates that the aff's should have some relation to the topic or a good defense of why that is bad. I think clash is very good and the more the better.

Generic arguments like topic disads and kritiks made specific to the aff through evidence rehighlightings and comparison will be rewarded.

Don't just read your arguments at each other and let me figure it out at the end because it may not come out the way you want. Tell me how your arguments interact and apply to one another. Close doors and tell me why to sign my ballot for you.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask before the round.

Public Forum Thoughts:

I competed for a year in public forum in high school but have done policy ever since. I am comfortable with speed but I've noticed in PF especially the shorter speech times means debaters can get kind of blippy when responding to arguments. Clearly marking new arguments or slowing down slightly when you have multiple warrants or arguments you want me to flow in a row would be helpful and will be rewarded.

Having lots of impacts at the beginning of the debate can be a good thing but I find I'm voting for teams at the end of the debate with one or two impacts that are clearly articulated with strong internal link stories and explanations of how they turn the other sides impacts. Most of the debates I've judged have come down to one or two impacts both teams claim to solve and so warranted internal link analysis will be heavily rewarded.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask before the round.