I am the Speech/Debate teacher and coach at The Colony High School in Texas and although I've judged quite a few tournaments over the past two and a half years, I consider myself still learning about coaching and judging debate and interp events. I pledge to do my best to judge events fairly and accurately. I appreciate articulate and easy to understand speakers and do not like spreading. I may ask you to slow down if you are speaking too fast so that I may adequately judge your speech. I may disclose results to you after your performance or may choose for you to review my comments on Tabroom. I consider myself a coach first and judge second - so if you ask how you did after a round/performance, you may hear some words of encouragement or gentle critique. I would want a judge to do the same for my students.

Know that I am listening intently to your performance or for the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

“As a coach member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence.”

A. General: I find it difficult to vote for an argument that doesn't have proper explanation or analysis. If you only make a claim, I am not likely to do work for you to actually win that claim. You can run any argument, as long as it is not offensive or harmful. I am fine with speed, but I'll yell "clear" if I am unable to understand. Don't read blocks like cards. Tell me what to vote on and why.

B. Read whatever you want. I'll vote on anything.

1. Theory: I evaluate theory as a reason to reject the team, unless told otherwise.

2. Disadvantages: I evaluate on an offense-defense framework. This means that offensive arguments are more strategic, and that impact calculus is important. You can still win with defense though. Links should be contextualized if not specific.

3. Counterplans: It is good to put theory, but to not just stop there. You should actually answer the permutation because I am less likely to buy perm theory arguments. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, that just means you'll have to do more work on them.

4. Kritiks: I'm cool with the K. I haven't read every K, and if I have it might not be as in depth. You can read your kritik, but there should be clear explanation so I know what I'm voting off of and why. Jargon won't get you very far, if your opponent is confused just assume that I am, too - just to be safe. If you only do jargon and bad explanation I'll give you bad speaks and you're more likely to lose. Your links should be contextualized if not specific.

I want to be on the email chain kasiadrewniak@gmail.com

I am cool with everything, I am in my 4th year of debate I run krtical arguments on a daily but that doesn't mean just pull random k for your teams back files I might know what it means but unless you do i wont vote for you. The biggest thing have fun don't be racist or homophobic or sexist and exct.

I will give you extra speaks if you show me your flows by 0.1 FLOWING IS IMPORTANT

If you have any questions just ask trust me I am not scary I am a tiny little polish girl

Extemp

• I encourage a conversational tone that is engaging. The student's tone should not be too formal nor too relaxed.

• When explaining certain topics, make sure you explain them in-depth and in an understanding way that is not condescending.

• I support jokes as long as they are appropriate and fit the topic of discussion.

• Make sure to keep a steady pace. Each body paragraph should be around the same length. Within paragraphs, I would like to see at least 1 piece of evidence used, including the introductory paragraph.

• The camera position should be placed directly in front of the student. I should be able to see enough of the student's body to see their five-point-walk.

Oratory/Informative (also see extemp)

• Oratory should be engaging. I enjoy characters throughout the speech as long as they are purposeful.

• Movements should always be purposeful. No need to act out a scene just to act out a scene.

• I would like to see numerous pieces of evidence in each body paragraph including the introductory paragraph. Each piece of evidence should bring something new to the table.

• The camera position should be placed directly in front of the student. I should be able to see enough of the student's body to see their five-point-walk.

Oral Interpretation

• The introduction should be around 30 seconds and should be spoken by the student's true character.

• Teasers are great. Make sure they give us some sort of insight into your piece. Don't just choose a random teaser, it should have symbolic meaning/personality.

• All movement should be purposeful only. Do not pace around. I do not encourage acting out a scene just to act out a scene or have movement. Your movements should tell a story. Bring the characters to life through tone, vocal variation, infliction, body language, and movement, etc

• The camera position should be placed directly in front of the student. I should be able to see enough of the student's bodies to see their movements. Try not to be too far from your microphone.

• I enjoy character work. Although, characters should also be purposeful and distinct and accents fall under this. If you do decide to implement an accent, make sure it is consistent throughout your performance. Make sure you implement different levels to your characters. You do not need to constantly be intense to get the point of your character across. Subtle characters and small movements also add to your performance.

• I do not condone making fun of a certain group of people or the use of racist remarks (unless you are using an example to make a point)

• I am fine with cursing and with trigger warning pieces/mature material

• If all your pieces sound like one voice, I believe that you have accomplished the ability to blend and weave your pieces well, and this I support.

• Remember, with POI’s, they are not supposed to be completely memorized so make sure you look at your binder occasionally.

Background: I debated public forum for three years, prob strike me for LD or CX

Email Chain: student.cvms@gmail.com

If you're running to round and don't have time to read everything

1. Don't spread tags, I'll say clear if its a problem.

2. Tech > Truth, warrant it

3. Crossx concessions are generally not flowed. If you want them to be considered then address it in speech.

4. Weigh. And warrant it.

5. There are very few situations where you should extend everything. Collapse and weigh.

6. Summary things:

-Weigh

-Extend defense in first summary

-Extend everything you want to bring into ff. Otherwise, it's dropped.

-Please don't bring in new arguments. New evidence in 2nd summary only if responding to new evidence in 1st summary.

-Collapse on arguments

7. Final focus things:

-don't bring up new evidence or arguments or new methods of weighing (especially not in second ff)

-ff should generally mirror the summary

8. Don't do the double breathing thing.

Longer Form Paradigm

Constructive:

Tabula rasa for the most part. If you're attempting to run something more progressive than the standard pf fare, keep in mind that you're going to have to explain to me exactly your position and the in-round/ greater implications of your arguments. I know a little about running CP's and T but I would advise against running K since you'd probably lose me pretty early on. Disclosure theory is fine. Lmk if you disclosed on the wiki. Otherwise, constructive is up to whatever you choose to read.

Rebuttal:

1r is your time to read turns, delinks, etc. Generally, you don't have to refer back to case unless you're weighing. Preemptive frontlines are kinda weird and a bit of a gamble but I'm not one to dock you for it so feel free. 2r is trickier, I expect at least some kind of weighing and at the very least addressing turns from 1r. Otherwise, you've dropped those turns.

Summary:

1st summary must extend defense and should weigh. Summary isn't the time for new arguments, but it is paramount that you frontline in summary. I don't really see why you'd need to bring in new evidence except for the aforementioned frontlining clause. Don't extend everything, collapse on arguments. A three min summary isn't an excuse to extend everything, especially since ff is still only 2 minutes. For 2nd summary, no new evidence unless responding to first summary. Try and set up summary to be mirrored in final focus.

Final focus:

Preferably line by line, absolutely no new evidence. New arguments will be frowned upon and not flowed. As previously mentioned, ff should mirror the structure of the summary. If it's a slow day, numbered voters are acceptable as well.

Extensions:

I'm somewhat lax on what constitutes an extension. Blippy extensions like just saying a card name here or an argument name there isn't an extension though. Claim warrant impact is what constitutes an extension. I might get more strict in the future with the more recognized Uniqueness, link, internal link, impact structure but those changes will be highlighted at the top if they ever do happen.

Fiat:

If it's in the res, then fine. Otherwise, don't go yelling about fiat in crossx.

Sticky:

Nothings sticky past rebuttal.

Theory:

The logic behind extensions applies here as well. If you want to extend the shell DO NOT DROP the violation. You have to extend the shell to get offense off the voter. Be specific too, 'their whole case' is not specific. I am generally less inclined to vote on theory than on resolution-based case arguments. Consequently, I am more inclined to vote on RVI's. Disclosure is becoming the norm, if you're a big school not disclosing then you better be very convincing.

Speaks:

Don't spread. Don't take too long pulling up evidence. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

Please try your best to not shake your head in abject disapproval of everything your opponent says. I will shake my head when it is warranted. Nodding in approval of your partner is encouraged.

Public Forum Paradigm

I've debated public forum for the last three years.

Content

-I'm generally tech>truth and will hear and flow any arguments.

-Second speaking team has to respond to the first rebuttal (particularly turns) or the arguments are dropped.

-Both summaries have to extend defense.

-I'm fine with nearly all speed but I can't follow spreading; however, I've never been in a PF round where I couldn't understand my opponent.

-Extended arguments have to be well-warranted. I'm far more likely to flow something if I understand the argument, and won't flow blippy extensions: "extend Wallace 13."

-I default util. Don't bother extending your framework if your opponent's don't contest. I think weighing as you go would be a lot more effective.

-Summary has to reflect final focus and you should collapse on arguments. I certainly won't vote on something not mentioned in summary and certainly won't vote on a 2 second extension.

Speaks

-I'll disclose speaks after the round if you care.

-While I won't vote off of speaks and feel very comfortable giving a low-point win, I still think that public forum has some elements that should appeal to the average citizen.

-Paper cases are cool

-Minimizing computer use in general is cool. I'm fine with you paraphrasing your cards in rebuttal.

-Giving really clear and appealing analysis to the arguments that matter.

-That's where the majority of the speaks will come from, but I'll take off speaks for things like running a double-turn or a turn and a non-unique.

Affiliations and History:
Please email (damiendebate47@gmail.com and tjlewis1919@gmail.com) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).

Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: About 40 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 30 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020)
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.

Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.

I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.

Decision-making:
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.

The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.

I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.

Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).

I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.

If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.

In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.

I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.

While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.

I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.

CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'

Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand

Judging

Background

I did Congressional Debate for two years... idk what else to say, I've seen a few things.

Quick Notes

If it is five minutes before the start of the round and you're panicking, here's a TL:DR - Aggression is okay, ask good questions, be present and make your presence known in round.
Just be civil when debating but if you can make it interesting with good questions and points, you'll do well.

LD PARADIGM

- Please don't spread, I have a Congress Background. You can read fairly fast but I will appreciate and understand your points better if you don't spread.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

- Clash is essential. This is congressional debate, debate is in the name for a reason. Mention other speakers, show me you're paying attention in round.

-PO. If you are POing, your job is to make sure the room debate flows smoothly. Good POing means I do not have to interfere with the round.

-Good questioning is a good way for me to rank you up. Ask essential questions that relate to the topic. Don't start attacking each other on political stances, I don't care.

-I respect those who can be aggressive in round, however, I prefer diplomacy over aggression. If you can go up, make your points, and have a civil debate that others can learn from, you're good. The whole purpose of debate is the clash of different mindsets and to see new perspectives.

-The intent is one thing, but results and impacts on the people you represent are the reason why you are debating and role-playing as a member of congress.

Hello!

My name is Krish. I was a competitor on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, competing primarily in Extemp (FX main) and occasionally in World Schools Debate. Along with qualifying for all nationally qualifying tournaments (including TOC, ETOC, NIETOC, and NSDA Nationals), I competed in the Texas local circuit - breaking to semi-finals in the TFA State tournament 2/4 years. I am also the author of "The Extemper's Bible," an educational book on Extemp. In Worlds, I was a 2x member of Team Texas World Schools Debate. Sufficient to say, I have plenty of experience in Extemp and Worlds.

EXTEMP PARADIGM

As a judge, I am split between delivery and content.

As for delivery, I appreciate clean, fluent delivery, humor used wisely, and overall efficient delivery. For tougher rounds, I look towards voice inflection, pace, and the ability to use emotions in a speech to make a decision between similar-tiered speakers. I WILL NOT BE OFFENDED BY LEFT OR RIGHT-LEANING JOKES.

As for content, I emphasize a clean, efficient background with proper substructure used in points. The fewer sentences it takes for you to help me understand a concept, the better. Use examples and statistics to enhance your analysis! Regarding sources, I look for a variety, locality of sources (if FX), and recency.

Extemp is an event where you should have fun while speaking and researching, so don't stress in round!

WORLDS PARADIGM

Regarding delivery, please be slow! Worlds is not an event where spreading is encouraged, please respect the event's integrity.

In terms of the round itself, please narrow down the debate towards the end towards the main points of clash and make sure to do WORLDS ANALYSIS in the last speech!

Paradigm:

I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold  That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them.  One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down.  That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative.  So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.  

Speed:  

Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed.  If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me.  Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear.  Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context.  Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.

Flashing:  

I'm evolving on flashing.  I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting.  This is an unfortunate habit.  I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine.  I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent.  But you still have to be understood by your judge!  Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain.  I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing!  It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them. 

On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says.  Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash.  So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!

This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that 

1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution.  For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense.  If it doesn't, then not so much.  I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.

2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event.  I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience.  That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.

My email address is icowrich@yahoo.com