New cosponsor of Elkins High School debate team.

email: Spencerbenton06@gmail.com

I do LD but Iḿ familiar with policy debate and Public forum.

Iḿ okay with spreading but I rather you don´t, but make sure you say your taglines clearly because I judge off of my flow.

Make sure to contextualize and show me how your plan will work. Asking for clarification during Cross Examination is completely fine. Counterplans and Kritiks are okay but make sure your argument is still topical.

And as always HAVE FUN! and be respectful.

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.com. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

Hello, my name is Ray Chacko.

I believe how we say is as important as to what we say. Teams, during debates, ignore the fact that their facial expression, tone and respect for the rules are delivering a subtle message about the team. They may have empirical arguments with supporting evidence but I believe in order to create a solid impression on the judge, each team member needs to adhere to the ground rules of respect, display a pleasant demeanor and be willing to express their opinion without argument or insults. I believe they also should take criticism of the opponents creatively and be willing to adjust the tone/message accordingly.

I have judged Public Forum once previously, one weekend of 12 rounds. I am a lay parent judge.

So please, no jargon.

1.) experience in debate/judging?

-been in debate for three years

-judged at the LCHS competition

-judged middle school debate

2.) How do I judge?

-I will flow your presentations and typically base my winner on the amount of non-dropped points.

-I will also look for the delivery and execution of argumentation.

3.) Preferences?

-I don't mind if yall talk fast, just please don't talk so fast that not even you know what you are saying.

-please show respect toward your opponent

-don't yell when presenting

-I love a good intellectual debate!

4.) P.S.

-I LOVE a good lively cx! Feel free to get snappy and try to outwit your opponent! Feel free to let loose as long as it doesn't get aggressive! :)

-I bring extra chargers, paper, and pens, so if you need anything, feel free to ask! I just need it back at the end of the round!

-I also reveal the winners at the end of the round!

-you've probably noticed typically go for the aff. Please don't let this worry you. I will vote for whoever not only presents a good debate but can answer the other's questions etc (as listed above)... So please do your best! Don't let my past scare ya ;)!

Any questions? Please email me or ask me in person!

Ava.Daugherty@hotmail.com

I WISH ALL OF YALL LUCK!! ♥

Summary:

I competed in speech and extemporaneous speaking for 3 years years in a 5A high school. I competed in the Texas College circuit for 1 year in CX and speech events. I've started teams/coached at a 5A school and have been judging for approximately 10 years. I try to answer questions before the round within reason. I have taught Science for approximately 3 years. I judge CX/LD/PF/Extemporaneous Speech regularly.

Round Preferences:

Stylistic Preference:

-Speed is fine -- Be clear on tags and citations.

-Road maps and sign posting is preferred.

-Don’t yell at me or your opponent; be mindful of your volume and aggression level as needed for the circumstance.

-Do have eye contact with me when possible. Lowest speaker points will be 26 unless your behavior and performance warrants something lower.

-Perform with professionalism. Try to refrain from flailing hands, pointing, "knife-handing"

Theory:

-I operate as the affirmative plan should/ought to be considered. It is the negative's job to have a justified alternative or find the holes in the affirmative's case.

-The affirmative can only fiat components that exist in the status quo (as in the should implies could and will work if it were to be adopted).

-I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting it without valid justification

Preferred Quality of Arguments:

- Quality over quantity of evidence is important.

- A variety of sources is smiled upon.

-Don’t waste time on evidence that will not come up again. If you want me to vote something up or down then spend the time to explain it.

-If you want me to call for evidence, flag it in the rebuttals. Complete warrants are NECESSARY for each argument. (abuse, education, permutation)

Topicality:

-The quality of a definition in context is important to me.

-An analogy or example is preferred for better limits.

-Be clear on standards if they are not provided I will default to reasonability.

Counter Plan:

-Topical CPs are accepted.

-Single agent of action is better than multi-agent.

-Plan inclusive counter plans are accepted.

-1NC must indicate conditional, non-conditional, or dispositional.

-A Net Benefit DA will make the CP more in your favor.

Disadvantage:

DAs will be weighed at the end of the round. I will vote for the team with the better impact calculus. I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts.

Kicking:

Do be clear about what you are kicking and remind me in 2AR and 2NR or I will count it as a drop. Don’t kick something unless it is necessary. I expect you to run arguments that you plan on keeping, not time wasters.

LD Debate:

Value and Criterion-Must be able to measure your value; while not my primary means of deciding the round, it is a factor depending on how it is used.

New assistant debate coach this year--still learning the ropes of speech and debate in general and the judging for both.

I am primarily an AP English 3 teacher, and that informs my judging. Make your argument as if I am entirely unfamiliar with the topic.

I have only judged LD, PF and several speech formats at this time and am still learning the other debate types.

In judging, I look for:

-Logical consistency in your argument: your framework should carry through your arguments.

-LD - value/criterion/framework. I like to see the connections of how the framework influences your cases and argumentation.

-PF - I'm always looking for argumentation and clash.

-I value the quality of the argumentation over attempts to win points on technicalities.

-Speak at a normal conversational pace. Do not spread or rush your speaking--if I can't follow what you're saying, I can't fairly evaluate your argument, and this will work against you in terms of both speaker points and the overall quality of your argument.

You may find feedback from me in your online ballot after your rounds. As a general rule, I do not do orals.

Rice University Classic/NPDA Paradigm 9/22:

I'm Bryce - I debated for and ran the University of Minnesota Parliamentary Debate Team when I was in college and graduated in 2020. I am now the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. My full time job is speech and debate, but at the high school level, not the college level. My HS team competes in all of the events, but our largest squads are doing national circuit HS Public Forum and Congressional Debate. We mostly do UIL (local TX) CX, rather than national circuit HS Policy. I judged a couple of NPDA rounds at Rice last year and hadn't judged before that since McKendree 2020/NPDA 2021. I'm back to cover McKendree's judge obligation at Rice and I'm helping them in the prep room for the tournament.

As many judges do, I will do my best to evaluate whatever round the debaters in the room want to have. I will not be upset at, or outright reject, nearly any non-"ist" thing you do in a round. So, if you would prefer to have a round that goes against the below listed preferences, I'm going to appreciate and respect you all the same: I just might view the round differently than you do, and I think that's okay if you're okay with it.

That said, as many judges do, I have preferences for what I like to see and what I think makes for a good round. Here are some of those thoughts:

• Cowardice is a voting issue. Debate to win and be bold.
• When I debated, I primarily read topical affirmatives and went for (very silly) theory/topicality arguments, topical DA/CP strategies, and the Cap K most commonly on the negative.
• I would prefer the affirmative be related to the topic in some way (does not have to be USFG/fiat/etc, but you should be prepared to defend your method) and I probably err negative in an evenly debated T-FW vs non-topical aff round.
• I would prefer that advocacies defend something material and for advocacies to clearly delineate what that material thing is - I am more compelled by "you don't do anything, so vote neg on presumption" than many other judges.
• I would prefer your arguments be as specific as possible - I like excellent warrants and small but deep debates rather than LOs reading 7 off and MGs reading theory.
• I like reading evidence and hearing evidence comparison in HS debate rounds I judge. Examples are evidence in NPDA - for every claim or logical warrant, you ought to have an example to explain how the thing you say is true has been empirically proven or otherwise validated in real life.
• When making decisions, I primarily decide rounds in terms of which impacts each side best solves. Does the plan or the counterplan solve war with Russia? Does the interp or the counter-interp control the best link into limits? Judge instruction, impact calculus, and link comparison goes a long way in close debates.
• I like LO strategies that spend lots of time on case.
• While I think that what you say in a debate round matters and that debate trains some cool skills, I find the technical aspect of the game more interesting and I'm more concerned about you making good strategic decisions to try to win the debate.
• The affirmative may always read a permutation. I have never understood the "no perms in a methods debate" argument despite going for it myself sometimes.
• The status quo is always an option. If I think the CP or K is less desirable than the plan, I will evaluate the status quo/DA versus the plan unless instructed otherwise.
• If a team wins some "we meet" articulation on theory, it's terminal defense and the rest of the sheet of paper almost certainly does not matter. I do not understand the concept of a "risk of a violation."
• I am willing to vote on terminal defense to an interp or offense based on poorly-worded interps.
• I am willing to vote on terminal defense in general. This would mean the round has gone very sideways indeed.

Here are some other NPDA-specific quirks and preferences you may find useful to know:

• I'm fine with you calling points of order and indeed would prefer you do if you think an argument is new. Unless I'm on a panel and another judge would prefer I not rule, I will rule on the point of order.
• I have never seen a good LOC that was more than 3 off and case.
• Unless instructed otherwise, each of the following positions will get their own sheet of paper: plan text/solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, theory interpretations, framework arguments (not impact framing), kritiks minus the alternative, and the alternative itself. I'd prefer you give the order with this in mind - i.e., don't say "the aff," say "plan text, advantage 1, advantage 2"; don't say "the K," say "the alt, then the rest of the K".
• Please read all plan texts, interpretations, etc. slowly and twice, and provide a written copy for both opponents and myself. I will use the written text of the plan/CP/interp to decide arguments based on what the plan/CP/interp is, not what was said. If I think there is a discrepancy between what I have flowed and what has been written down, I will verbally clarify before starting flex/the next speech.
• The lack of a backside rebuttal in NPDA = the MO should probably not be making new arguments. New MO arguments = new PMR golden answers, including golden turns, offense, theory.
• I will almost certainly flow the LOR on a new sheet of paper. I will flow the PMR on each sheet of the debate, next to the arguments the MO made. The LOR's framing claims will inform and break ties between the MO and the PMR.

I have my full high school paradigm below, should you care to read more. Ask me other questions before the debate and I am happy to answer them, provided they were not answered above.

---

Overhauled on 7/19/2023 for PFBC and the 2023-24 competitive season

Who am I?

Pronouns: he/him/his

Here's my experience. This largely does not matter, but it might help you get a sense of how I think about arguments and where I'm coming from before the round:

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp, Minneapolis, MN: September 2021 - Present

Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2021 - Present

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate, Seven Lakes HS, Katy, TX: August 2020 - July 2021

Assistant Debate Coach, The Lakeville Debate Team, Lakeville, MN: September 2016 - August 2020

NPDA/NPTE Parliamentary Debate, University of Minnesota: November 2016 - March 2020

Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate, JMM/Vel Phillips Memorial, Madison, WI: September 2014 - June 2016

Additionally, I serve on the PF Wording Committee for the NSDA. Your feelings on the current PF topic are partially my doing. If you would like to influence me one way or another, please feel free to email me or submit topic suggestions to the NSDA at speechanddebate.org/topics.

General Thoughts

This will be my 10th full year involved with speech and debate. I still absolutely love the activity, and I'm finding new depths to all aspects of speech and debate with each passing year.

Speech and debate is an inherently competitive activity grounded in vital critical thinking skills, including the skills of reading, writing, research, public speaking, logic, argumentation, and persuasion. The best competitors, no matter the event or arguments being made in the round, are excellent at all of these vital critical thinking skills, and more. The further away from being a competitor I get, the more I care about the educational and life-enriching qualities of speech and debate, and the less I care about the pure drive to win a tournament (though that still matters to me a great deal).

I have no strong preferences on the arguments that you make in the round, and I will evaluate any round based primarily on the technical skill exhibited by the competitors in the round. That said, I find it more enjoyable to vote for those competitors whose arguments are clearly excellently researched, written, and considered before the round.

My biggest non-negotiable rule is that you treat the community that you have voluntarily chosen to take part in with respect. Be kind to your opponents, your teammates, your coaches, tournament staff and volunteers, your judges, and (least importantly) me. While I firmly believe that speech and debate is vitally important, it's all an elaborate game at the end of the day, and I think you should treat the other players in the game as kindly as possible. If you intend on making the round unpleasant, either through poorly considered research skills, poorly considered in-round strategy, or poorly considered behavior, do us both a favor and strike me.

You should debate to win, and have fun doing it.

Debate

I don't think there is a big enough difference between debate formats to necessitate different paradigms for PF, LD, and CX. I think good debate is always good debate. Good debate should come from well-considered positions constructed from good evidence and presented in an entertaining, persuasive, and thoughtful manner.

Please create an email chain. Put bryce.piotrowski@gmail.com on the email chain, along with the corresponding Seven Lakes Google Group, depending on what format I'm judging: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes + sides of each team. This helps me keep email chains organized, which I frequently go through after tournaments to review arguments and evidence made at tournaments. Please create the email chain as soon as humanly possible, even (especially) if I am not yet at the room or if your flight has not started. Please be ready to debate at the round start time.

Evidence read in a debate should be able to withstand scrutiny well after the round is over. If you have read the above paragraph and are uncomfortable creating an email chain because I am going to "steal your prep" or "prep you out," I would invite you to consider what your ideal evidentiary standards in debate look like and whether the norms of distorting evidence beyond recognition, withholding evidence from opponents (even when that evidence is requested), being unable to produce the original copy or a cut card of evidence upon request, lying to opponents about evidence or source quality, or intentionally misleading opponents as to which evidence was read at a point in the debate truly lead to better debates, or whether they are a tool that you are attempting to use to gain a competitive advantage on questionably ethical grounds. If you feel called out by any of this, I'm a bad judge for you, and you should strike me.

At a minimum, you must follow the NSDA rules regarding evidence citation and its exchange. If you do not do that, I reserve the right to vote against you if I feel the violation is egregious enough, regardless of whether or not your opponents make an argument that you should lose because of your representation of evidence.

I would strongly prefer that evidence is read in the format of a cut card when first presented, and that you send a document containing all of the cards that you have read, in order, either immediately before or immediately after the end of your speech. I do not need anything that is not carded evidence other than plan texts or theory/topicality interpretations. If you refuse to share carded evidence with your opponents for any reason, including being "unable to find the card," I will vote against you -- that is a violation of the NSDA's rules regarding evidence exchange, and an exceptionally shady practice that I wish to punish with my ballot.

All things being equal, I would prefer that you read fewer individual cards and read more warrants from better cards. The trend towards reading a new piece of evidence every 10 seconds is antithetical to my request for well-considered and researched positions.

I will flow the debate carefully. Sometimes, I flow on paper, and sometimes, I flow on my laptop. My preferred rate of delivery is a quick conversation, but I can flow faster debates, and I will not feel bored by slower debates. My issues with rate of delivery typically stem from the fact that as rate increases, clarity often decreases, and I end up missing things. I will make every attempt to keep up with you and flow what I can understand from your speech. I will not read the speech document to fill in warrants or cards that I have missed. If you don't see me writing or typing for an extended period of time, it's because I can't understand you for some reason, and you should slow down or speak more clearly.

I would prefer to vote for arguments that in some way center a discussion of the topic. This is very open to the interpretation of the debaters in the rounds, and I will not dogmatically ignore certain content because "I don't want to hear it." I am frequently entertained and delighted by well-researched critical positions on both the affirmative and negative, huge extinction impacts, soft left high probability impacts, and everything in between. However, the more that your position could be copy-pasted from one month's file to the next, the less likely I will be to enjoy listening to it.

The above paragraph also encompasses my thoughts on theory, particularly in PF and LD. Most theory debates end up being tired and recycled, with debaters deploying these strategies with little regard for their applicability to the debate at hand. I'll vote on it, but I would be more enthused if you would pick a more interesting strategy, and your speaker points will probably suffer. That said, if you're reading theory in a way that contextualizes a specific violation to this particular round or position your opponents are reading, I will be far more interested in what you have to say. I have a soft spot for reasonability claims and creative we meet arguments from teams that may be technically losing theory, but probably have not done anything wrong. In short - if you have a different strategy, I'd probably prefer to hear that.

Topicality is different than theory, because it involves the affirmative's specific advocacy. I'm more than fine to listen to these debates. I'm a sucker for excellent, clever, and context-specific interpretations, and typically decide these debates based on questions of ground quality and quantity for each team.

Regardless of which strategy you choose to employ, you always need a link and an impact to win the debate. This also means that all advocacies, plan texts, etc., should advocate for something to happen and should defend the material consequences of that thing happening. Teams should debate the solvency of the advocacy more.

It will dramatically help you to spend a lot of time in the last couple of speeches explaining why the links and impacts you have chosen are the arguments that will win the debate, rather than just arguments that could win the debate, through evidence comparison, weighing, and impact calculus.

I will time the debate, generally on an analog timer that will beep when your time is up. I will flow everything that you say up until the timer beeps. You are free to keep talking after the timer goes off, but it will not go on my flow. If you keep talking for a ridiculously long time after the timer goes off, I will probably cut you off and act annoyed. I will also time cross-x and prep time. Please clearly tell me when you are starting and stopping prep time. Timer shenanigans will result in decreased speaker points.

Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing the round's result (UIL, NSDA Nationals, etc.), I will disclose my decision and what set of arguments led me to that decision at the conclusion of the round, in as much detail as I possibly can fit into the time I have to render and deliver a decision. You are always welcome to ask additional questions at any time, as long as you're being reasonable and respectful.

Congress

Most of my thoughts on debate, above, apply here. Congress is best when speakers engage in a deep debate on the couple of issues of clash that are most obviously presented by the legislation that is presently being debated. Think of yourself as "working with" speakers on your side and "against" opposing speakers to advance debate on the item on the floor.

I am more interested in hearing the round progress as a PF, LD, or CX round would. That means the first couple of speeches should set up constructive arguments, the middle couple of speeches should introduce lots of refutation and extension of arguments that came before them, and the later couple of speeches should synthesize the arguments made on the item and paint a compelling picture as to why each side has overall won the debate. If we're getting to the 6th or 7th cycle of debate, you would probably do better to save your precedence for the next item up for debate.

In general, I think Congress should debate more bills and have fewer cycles of debate on each bill. I also think Congress would be way better if each chamber was run more similar to a speech tournament - with each round having 10 competitors, 1 or 2 adults serving as the PO and scorers, and each round having a single specified item that everyone gives one speech on. I think this would standardize the role of each speech across each cycle of debate, eliminate the randomness and unfairness of scoring a PO alongside speakers, and ensure all students were scored based on a roughly equal amount of participation in the round.

If you're the PO and I have to score you as a speaker: you'll start as my 5. A PO will improve if I think debate in the chamber is bad, they have clear and consistent procedures for recognizing speakers, questioners, and motions, and if they minimize delays to facilitate the most debate possible. The PO will be harmed if there are many excellent speakers, making it difficult for them to stand out, or their procedures are inconsistent or unclear.

Delivery is secondary to content, but can still influence your rank, especially when poor delivery makes it difficult to follow your content.

Please do not yell at or over each other during questioning.

Speech:

I do not have a strong preference on what you're bringing to the table with your piece, and I doubt that you're going to change much because I'm on your panel. That's more than fine. You do you, and I'll evaluate it and try to leave my thoughts and helpful feedback.

I come from a debate background, where truth often goes out the window and I'm evaluating arguments as close to a blank slate as possible. I will likely be evaluating the technical merits of your piece more than other judges you might have (e.g., blocking, precise rhetoric, structure of a body point, etc.) and using those to determine my ranks more than some big picture stuff (e.g., how did it make me feel, do I think your piece is 'important', etc.)

I am more familiar and comfortable judging public address events (Extemp, Oratory, Informative) than Interp. I have no theater or acting background. That said, one of my favorite speech events to judge is POI - it's all of the best parts of interp combined with the research and argument synthesis of debate.

If you're in Extemp, follow this checklist: explain why the question is important to ask, answer the question, explain why your answer is the best answer to the question and not just ananswer to the question, and make good arguments. Everything else is secondary.

I am a parent judge who is a dad of past debaters and a current debaters.

Please do not go too fast when speaking, or else it may be hard for me to understand what you are saying.

If you go at an understandable pace and present good arguments, I will vote for you.

Affiliation: Strake Jesuit

Treat me like a traditional judge with an emphasis on clear communication. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Please do not assume I know the jargon you use. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Signposting and crystallization are hugely helpful. Telling me where to start on the flow is a great idea. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend through every speech. I want to see lots of weighing: rounds without weighing are very difficult to adjudicate. Make it easy for me to vote for you.

Please speak clear and at a medium pace. Participants to manage the clock.

Looks for clarity in arguements, promptness in rebuttals, logical prgression of thoughts while talking and in responses, and knowledge/ understanding on the subject matter.

Results and feedbacks will be posted in Tabroom.

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.