I say my paradigm before round its pretty basic. I'll accept most arguments if they're presented well and link. The only exclusion is that I will NEVER vote on non disclosure, its not a real argument and is counter to debate and seeks to prep out cases and place the burden of pre round prep on your opponent

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

Meghan Clark (she/her)

Experience:

–competed in LD on the Texas UIL circuit

–coached LD for 7 years, policy for 5, also on the Texas UIL circuit

–currently coach extemp/platform events at Plano West

PF:

--I am a fairly typical flay judge.

--Truth over tech. I do not particularly like kritiks or other non-resolution based arguments (not a huge fan of progressive debate). Don’t run theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, etc. - I have zero interest in judging this. I strongly dislike frivolous theory arguments and tricks. Don’t run them.

--Make sure that you extend your arguments and signpost clearly. No sticky defense.

--I care a good deal about weighing impacts in the back half of the round. Make sure you do this. Don’t introduce new arguments in the second half of the round, and I don’t want arguments that consist of three blippy arguments with buzzwords. I would vastly prefer substantive weighing of impacts. I generally default to probability over magnitude.

--I care about quality rather than quantity of evidence. You must have clear taglines for your evidence. Don’t paraphrase.

--Make sure you are courteous to opponents and don’t speak over them during crossfire. I expect professionalism, respect and civility towards me and towards your opponents. If you are verbally or non-verbally showing disrespect towards your opponents or me, expect to lose speaker points. It goes without saying that you should not be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/etc. in any way during the round.

--I do not like spreading. PF should be accessible to a wide audience, and spreading makes that difficult. Speak at a normal rate of speed if you expect me to flow your argument. Extreme speed will most likely result in lower speaks. If I call “clear,” slow down.

--In final focus, make the case for why you deserve my vote - don’t demand my vote.

--Strike me if you’re reading a meme or social experiment case.

--Stick to the time structure - no skipping grand cross for PF.

--If a card is heavily disputed during round, I will call for it.

I consider myself to be a policy maker; as such, I will vote for the team who persuades me that their proposed policy has the greater impacts. I will vote for almost anything. However, I will only vote for what is said in the round. I will not do the work for you, so do not expect me to have any pre-existing knowledge. Explain all arguments thoroughly, as if I don't know anything. I have judged many rounds during my career, but not a lot this year. Because of that, my ear is a bit out of tune - consider that when opting for extremely rapid delivery. I do prefer real world impacts; I will vote for theory, but you will have to do much more work. If you're looking for an easy vote from me, stick with real world.

If you were to ask me what arguments I prefer to hear, I would tell you to just do your thing. However, if pressed, I would tell you that I don't prefer kritiks; it's not because I don't like kritiks, just that often they are not run well or explained well. If you read one, it should be one for which you have read all the literature yourself, and understand well. As I mentioned above, you should not assume that I have any pre-existing knowledge on the literature you're reading; you have to do the work yourself. Additionally, a K v K round should never, ever happen in front of me. Other than that, I really will listen to anything - as long as it is explained well.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive arguments or behavior in round, including being disrespectful or condescending to lesser-experienced teams. Additionally, I have no tolerance for male teams who belittle women who are being aggressive. I do not care how far ahead you are on the flow; I will vote you down if you engage in this kind of behavior.

Debate:

Please speak clearly. I can keep up with spreading so long as you enunciate.

In LD and PF I think there should be an element of style/rhetoric but I'm obviously not going to decide based on that. It still doesn't hurt if I enjoy listening to you speak.

I place a lot of emphasis on your ability to link into your impacts, I am fairly pessimistic though so I'll usually believe doomsday links. The hard part is convincing me that your position will stop it.

Speech:

I'd rather you pause for thirty seconds than stutter out filler words for ten.

Plant your feet or be deliberate in your walk.

I'm generally pretty left-wing but I won't place you lower if your opinions disagree with mine. Just have a strong argument and don't advocate for genocide.

Be respectful of your opponents and your opponent's arguments. Clash. Impact your arguments out.

This is your round, I'm not here to impose my opinions, and beliefs onto your round. I strive to be a blank slate for your arguments. Keeping that in mind, your words have meaning. I will hold you accountable for problematic arguments.

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

PF Debate

Basically the same as above; theory is cool with me. Also, this is PFD, not CX--we don't really need to be spreading

Email: joshbutdebate@gmail.com

College: UT Tyler 21-Present

High School: Lindale 17-21

General philosophy: Feel free to read whatever you feel most comfortable with. I went for critical arguments almost every debate my senior year, but the previous three years I spent reading exclusively policy arguments and I read a mix of the two in college. You know what is and is not appropriate to say within rounds and if you don't adhere to that, your points and ballot will reflect it. If you have any questions about your argument and whether or not I'd be receptive to it, it's better to ask than be bothered by my ballot.

Comments:

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Tech>truth. A dropped argument isn't assumed true without an extended and weighable warrant.

Depth>breadth. I'm not the best judge for more than 6 or 7 off, but if you feel like you need 13 pages to win a debate, I'll just be sad.

I prefer you to not read 30 cards in a speech. Evidence quality is really important and if you throw that out of the window just to throw the other team off, your speaks will reflect it. Comparing evidence quality is a great way to turn the tide in your favor in debates in front of me, as I will do my absolute best to evaluate only what was said in the round.

If it gives you better context, the most influential people to how I view debate are Cody Gustafson, Quaram Robinson, Yao Yao Chen and Nico Juarez.

Disads

-Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is.

-Zero risk is possible

Counterplans

-Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs

-This is one place I am very up for a theory debate, whack counterplans that wipe out much of the aff lit base are probably bad for everyone, but the amount of times I've gone for counterplans that definitely cheat on some level puts me in the middle here.

-Doesn't really bother me if they're specific or not, but even if you don't have specific cards you should be able to explain why the counterplan solves the specific harms of the aff with a risk of a net benefit

-Generally for judge-kick, you just need to actually say it. This doesn't mean I can't be dissuaded by the other team in the final speech though.

Kritiks

-Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates.

-Framework isn't as important to win on negative in a lot of these debates, but if winning a research method through framework is what your critique is all about, of course you must win it.

-Most familiar with critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism and various areas of literature involving anti-blackness. Have read a bit of PoMo, but it is probably the argument you will need to spend the most time explaining. Regardless of my familiarity with your argument, you should be doing the work as if I've never heard your argument before.

-Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are really important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to get better speaks. The inverse is true as well.

-Impact and alt debates are often very muddy. Explaining your impact in a way that it can result from the links and be resolved by the alternative is something that is important. Alt explanation doesn't have to be hard, you just need to do it. History is your greatest resource in these debates, don't forget about it. Examples and explanations are great ways not just to get better speaks, but to win my ballot.

Framework

-Do your thing here and go for the impacts you are most comfortable going for. These debates often get lost in the internal links and fall short in the impact debate, be very careful there.

-Topical versions are important, but you need to make inroads outside of them to implicate why they're important within the debate. Don't just shallowly extend it or acknowledge it and move on, these can shred most of your offense on either side, but are very important to win when aff.

-Impact turns and impact defense are important here, but fleshing these arguments out is something a lot of teams don't do.

Topicality

-I have a higher threshold for voting for this against policy affs, some of these T interps are getting out of hand. That being said, T and advantage counterplans were my favorite arguments to go for, so feel free to read it if you think you can win it. Sometimes you might need to take these debates a little more slowly, it will benefit my comprehension given there are generally fewer pieces of evidence in these debates.

-Having good definitions (that define words in the resolution) is important.

-Please don't refer to a sheet by the authors name, instead refer to it by the word/phrase that the author intends to define.

Theory

-Please no tricks, they're bad for everyone

-Reasons to reject require warrants and weighable impacts

-Counterplan theory is probably a good idea, look above.

-IVIs/RVIs are cool, but not every sheet is an IVI. For example, if the negative reads a topicality shell in the 1NC and then choose not to go for it, that isn't a reason to vote affirmative.

I am an old school judge. I like framework and do not enjoy listing to spread. I will take some speed as long as I can understand. I do not like theory. Debate the resolution.