Speech: Long history judging/coaching all events after competing in policy debate for both high school and college.

Extemporaneous speaking: 1. Avoid the generic attention getters and jump into content as quickly as possible. 2. Cite lots of sources (accurately and fluidly--I'd aim for about 10); 3. Delivery/style: word economy is crucial in this event...rate is conversational, but 7:00 is not a lot of time to answer a complex question; 4. I will keep close time and look closely at the extent to which the speech is balanced. 5. All this said, I appreciate a good joke and an effort to breath personality into the speech--be bold and don't be afraid to take chances.

Platform speech events (oratory, informative, etc.): 1. A lot of my thoughts on extemporaneous speaking are applicable, recognizing this is a different genre of speech--it's geared to reach a broader audience. Thus, I might temper my comments on word economy a little--probably makes sense to take your time a little more and utilize a pace that provides more time to let points sink in, etc. Still, I value a quantity of information over cheesy jokes, etc. 2. I really, really appreciate a speaker who digs deep and finds a unique topic that is meaningful to her. So often, especially in out rounds, speakers are very equal in a lot of ways (organization, delivery, etc.), and it's the topic that helps provide a degree of separation--generic topics are fairly easy to spot. This is your chance--you can pick any topic to talk about; make it worth your while--this will make it worth my while.

Oral Interpretation: I'm not the best oral interpretation coach in the world--just never did it myself or anything like it. But, I'm not the worst either and have seen/judged a lot of INCREDIBLE rounds at the highest levels of competition. The great oral interpers make me forget that I'm judging for a few minutes. I definitely recognize great interp when I see it and am more impressed by performers who move me through pace and facial expressions than I am through volume--though the great interpers will use all the vocal qualities and have a knack for what is needed in each exact moment. The material is key--I love seeing unique themes and performers choosing material that they personally identify with. The introduction is incredibly important--here you have the opportunity to take any topic and make it your own--a source or 2 in the intro can often be effective at contextualizing your message. Take risks. Have fun. Speak your truth.

Policy Debate:

Philosophy/Overview:

I began policy debate decades ago as a policymaker (1990's when a good counterplan/disadvantage strategy ruled the day). Critical arguments are fine but don't assume that's a beginning point for me--be sure and frame the debate by discussing its pre-fiat implications. As far as performative based arguments and other more progressive styles of debate, I'm not against them...just don't have a lot of experience with them--definitely not my starting point--be sure and invest time helping me get there. Generally speaking, I feel the Affirmative should Affirm the resolution and any arguments ought to have a pretty specific link/buy-in to it. While I don't consider my understanding of debate to be inflexible or permanent, a few very gifted and persuasive college NPDA/NPTE teams have tried to convince me that the topic doesn't matter and haven't been successful.

Delivery:

Once upon a time, I erroneously gave myself credit as being a speedster from both a delivery and flowing perspective. I've gotten older (OLD) and am not in that kind of shape any more. I haven't coached or judged national circuit style of debate in a LONG time. I value efficient, quick delivery with lots of arguments--but; word economy is more impressive to me than the rate of speaking. If you must talk as quickly as possible, I'll do my best to keep up but don't be surprised if I miss stuff and/or don't have enough time to process it in a way that does you a lot of good. Definitely go slow on tag lines, game-winning arguments, transitions between arguments, and anything that you'd like to have show up on the RFD. If you enjoy "rapid fire," I get it--it's fun and I want you to have fun--and I don't question the pedagogical value in any way; but if you want me to get most of everything on my flow, I recommend slowing it down to at least 75% of your norm.

e-mail: timothy.doty@lubbockisd.org

LD - Need to see adequate value clash. I'm traditional with my LD. I don't like Ks in LD. This is value debate, your value is paramount. I prefer debaters not to spread, but will do my best to flow it. Clarity > speed. Drops are pointless unless you tell me why they impact the round.

CX - Tabula rasa - Ks welcome, but I'm more traditional than progressive. I like to see stock issues. I’m bad at flowing spreading CX, especially at virtual tournaments, so clarity > speed. I like to know your roadmap before each speech.

PF - In my understanding of and experience with PF, this is supposed to be a quick punch-punch type of debate. As long as there’s no glaring errors or things that need to be corrected, a general overview of each point is more than sufficient in this type of debate. This is not CX. It’s its own type of debate, and while you can do some types of argumentation that’s similar to CX, you need to be more concise. I don’t need to see 17 cards as long as you can come to a consensus on definitions of terms and the broad strokes of the debate. Link to the resolution.

In all types of debate, I like to see good time management, links to the resolution, signposting, and clarity. Spell it out for me — if I can’t follow your brain, your opponent probably can’t, either.

Good luck, Debaters!

THIS HAS A POLICY,LD, AND ANPF PARADIGM- SOME OF THE IDEAS OVERLAP.

I competed in Policy in 2010-2012 competed at UIL/TFA States (Texas), and NSDA. I consulted teams for 6 years and have coached for the last 5.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: brett.howard@canyonisd.net

TLDR:

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear and POP TAG LINES, you can go fast, however if something does not make the flow it doesn't count in the round. I am from a slower circuit and thus have a hard time keeping pace at the highest speeds. Policy Debate is a game of Chess, not a truth seeking format for me. This means I want to see the strategies being played out by both teams, I want to see the clash, and I want you to tell me how/why you win. Do not assume that I will give you a win just because your argument is more "realistic." I try to be as much of a blank slate as I can.

POLICY DEBATE

General:

• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim. Claiming someone dropped something does not inherently mean it matters, do the work here.

• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates.

• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments.

• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.

• While I tend to believe that CX is not binding, if I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, I will flow it against you.

Framework:

• Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.

Topicality:

• I enjoy a well ran T this year. I believe this topic lends itself to the T well as a way to correct lazy habits. This does not mean use them as time sucks.

• T is one place where I have a hard time going tech over truth, not that I have not voted tech on well run T’s but just keep this in mind. The work has to be done here for me to buy it.

• I'm a stickler for the quality of a definition, especially if it's from a source that's contextual to the topic, has some intent to define, is exclusive and not just inclusive, etc.

• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structured speeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.

• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

• Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.

• I don't mind the role of the ballot args, but you need to explain to me why that's the role and how I as the judge am impacted by it. I’m not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out.

• NO K IN THE 2NC - There is literally not enough time to debate framework and grasp the depth of the K that is required for the debate. I literally will not flow this argument. It is a waste of my time and yours. Use your time well, create good clash.

Counterplans:

• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.

• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.

• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

• I think that CP’s provide a good amount of clash whether Condo or Dispo. I will defer to the Neg strat being Condo unless specifically argued otherwise. Again I prefer Tech over Truth as much as possible.

Disadvantages:

• Most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims. DO THE ! CALC

• I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic.

• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disadvantage is probably background noise.

Other

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important.

• Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE

• I am from a more traditional LD circuit and thus I prefer to see that style of debate. If you want to switch to a different style I am open to it just make sure you have a framework to justify it.

Framework

• If I am not told otherwise I will defer to a morality based framework. I am open to a policy framework but know that the burden of clash increases when this framework is used. I will defer to moral framework if the work is not done here.

Value/Criterion

• I love to see a good literature based value debate. The more that you know about what you are saying the better the debate is.

Policy in LD framework

• I love the CP/DA strat if you justify this framework but know that it is your burden to prove why the Aff must provide solvency and not just an ethical position, especially if you are going to reject the moral framework that is inherent to LD.

K's in LD

• I will listen to anything as I try my best to be Tech over Truth, but a K in LD is a high burden to assume. I am less likely to accept a K that has no link to the Aff position. The internal Link chain needs to have a good workup. Prove to me the role of the ballot, never assume I will just flow K neg.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

• I am from a more traditional circuit and thus I prefer to see that style of debate. The intent of PF is to debate to the masses and prove your position. That is my expectation.

• K - I am generally opposed to the K in PF. If you want to run this perspective your link to either the topic or team must be crystal clear. Otherwise stick to topic discussion

• CP - Will instantly vote against CP/P. This is not a debate of policies, but preferability of position, keep it that way.

• Evidence analysis is underutilized here and clash in PF seems to be lacking as of late. The more you directly clash with the position, the more likely I am to believe your position.

• 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.

• 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.

CX: Honestly, get out there and do what you do best... Debate! All I ask is that you provide me with decent clash and voters at the end of the round. I'll listen to pretty much anything, but be warned that CPs must be run correctly and adequately apply for them to be a significant voter for me. Also, just know that I can count the number of times I've voted for a K on one hand, as most of the time they are run incorrectly, provide zero education in the round, and/or are just vague and silly timesuck arguments. I'm not saying I won't vote on a K, just be cautious in doing so. I'm fine with DAs, Ts, Theory, and all other on-case, as long as it's relevant and applies. Additionally, don't be afraid to run new on-case arguments in the 2NC; after all, it is a constructive speech. Finally, please don't waste our time playing games with technology or running arguments you plan to kick later. Time is a very valuable resource, so if you don't plan on seeing an argument through to the end of the round, please just don't run it to begin with. Other than that, be decorous, communicative, and most of all have fun!

I don't mind speed. As long as you don't sound like an auctioneer or like you're about to pass out, we should be good. I will not tell you if you're going too fast or can't be understood. You should know if you're adequately communicating with the room or not. The biggest thing to remember is that this is a communication event and you should not expect me to figure out what you're talking about on my own. Explain, communicate, and remember that I don't have the cards in front of me to refer back to (nor do I want a copy to refer back to). Remember, if everyone in the room does not understand what is happening, then it isn’t debate.

LD: Probably the most important part of LD is the value/criterion debate. If you can show that your value/criterion frames the resolution better than your opponents, then that's a pretty easy win in my book. Otherwise, the main thing I look for is legitimate clash between opponents. I don't mind some progressive argumentation, but remember that at the end of the day value debate isn't about providing a plan to solve a problem. If you want to do that, you might consider switching to CX.

Background-

I did basically all events in high school and am comfortable and experienced judging everything. In college I debated parli for 4 years at Texas Tech University and was very nationally competitive by the end of my career. I have been coaching for 15ish years and judging for even longer than that.

Here are specifics for debate:

What I vote on-

I default Netben unless told otherwise. Impacts and solvency are the best things to convince me to give you my ballot. Be civil or be tanked on speaks.

LD-

I don't mind hearing policy style or critical arguments, but you still need to engage with opponents that use Value and Criterion. You can't just format your opponents out of the round. For me, it is all about the line by line and how you structure your framework. The easiest thing for me to vote on are solvency and impacts. I will listen to theory, but there needs to be clear abuse. I am probably not the guy to run super experimental or out there arguments with. I don't mind hear critical stuff, but it is very easy for me to attach myself to arguments that simply say your K has no impact, perm do both, or just reading theory. I would say K's are not my strong suit, but I'll listen to them.

CX-

I'm good with everything. Don't name/card drop at me assuming I have heard the card you are talking about. (Cause I probably don't remember it lol)

Speed-

I'm ok with it as long as your opponent is ok with it. I refuse to let someone just spread a newer and/or traditional debater out and not allow them to engage in the debate. I will tell you to slow down if I need you to. Particularly so on online tournaments, speed needs to be accessible. I'll be honest, my ears are not as fast as they used to be. You probably just need to plan on going a little slower for me and give me access to evidence.

K-

Don't name drop and assume I know what your talking about. I expect links and impacts just like any other argument.

T-

Need to prove abuse, don't just say it is unfair.

CP/DA-

Absolutely my favorite thing to listen to in debate.

i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.

Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.

i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.

I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.

if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.

Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.

Speaks

30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.

I am a stock issue/policy maker judge. I will weigh theory in a round but is must be presented properly and it isn't given any inherent weight. I will also consider any other factors in the round but they take a backseat to stock issues and advantages. I want to see class and professionalism in the round and courtesy towards opponents.

• Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. Not a fan of Kritiks and some theoretical arguments.
• Policymaker: At the end of the round, the judge compares the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the status quo. Whichever one is a better policy option is the winner. The better policy option is determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each.

I tend to be a more traditional judge, but that does not mean I oppose different styles of LD Debate. While I am not fully accustomed to CX-style debate in LD, I am comfortable with CX arguments. If you feel more comfortable running policy arguments, go for it. It won’t impact your ballot simply because it is policy.

Spreading: I’m pretty comfortable with spreading, but if I can’t understand you, I will put my pen down and stop flowing your arguments.

Impacts/voters: Please weigh your impacts in your final rebuttal! Give voters! If you don’t tell me why I should vote for you based on the arguments in the round, I will default to your opponent's voters.

Overall, keep it classy. I will dock major speaker points if I feel a competitor is deliberately attacking their opponent.

OO/INFO/Extemp:

As long as the speech is organized and easy to follow, how you organize it is up to you. I know there are different standards everywhere. Make sure you back up your points and arguments with sufficient evidence!

INTERP:

I have no preference for how you put together your piece as long as it helps the plot structure overall. I love good character work! While pops and tricks are nice, what really wins me over is getting lost in the character's story when it is genuine.

Policy Debate - I'm open to both traditional and progressive styles, I enjoy all kinds of well-constructed, interesting, arguments that young students are learning and able to articulate well (including theory and kritikal arguments). Resist the temptation to run an argument that you don't understand or read an author whose work you are not familiar with. Hyperspreading (giant gulps followed by high-pitched, rapid, stutter-inducing speech) is heavily discouraged due to my hearing impairment - depending on whether or not i can understand you, it won't necessarily cost you speaker points - but I'm a flow judge, and if I don't flow it then it didn't happen. Roadmapping, sign-posting, and internal organizational labels are heavily encouraged - and will be reflected in increased speaker points - and ensure that what you say makes it onto my flow. I like a brief underview at the bottom of an argument but it's not required. If you have time it's a nice communication moment. Arguments should be fully articulated (in other words, include analysis on your T standards and voters, impact calculus, and solvency frontlines. The quality of your evidence and your demonstrated understanding of the evidence and how it impacts the arguments in the round are more important than the quantity of evidence that you read. Having said that, YES, you should have plenty of evidence supporting your case/positions, just remember, I am not judging your ability to read allowed, I'm judging your ability to understand and critically evaluate what is being read allowed. I've been judging CX Debate for 32 years, competed in CEDA and Parliamentary Debate in college, and have been a certified teacher/debate coach for 23 years. I enjoy Policy debate. Refutation should be well-organized and include sign-posting so that I know what arguments you are responding to.

LD Debate - I competed in LD Debate in High School in the early '90s. I have a Degree in Philosophy & Political Science from Texas Tech University (emphasis on political and social ethics). I have judged and/or coached LD Debate for 32 years. I enjoy a mix of philosophical and pragmatic argumentation in LD. Your framework (Value/Criteria) should include explanation of your Value and analysis of why I should prefer it as well as a clear, well-explained criteria for evaluating whether or not you have achieved/increased access to your value. In other words, don't just work on the contention-level debate, do the work on the value/criteria as well, if you want my ballot. Cross apply all organizational preferences from the CX debate paragraph here. (See what I did there?) :D

CONGRESS - Remember that you are operating as a member of the United States Congress and make arguments from that perspective. Arguments should be well-constructed and supported (like other debate formats) and should be responsive to the previous speeches on the item being debated (except for the author/sponsor, of course). There should be absolutely nothing even remotely resembling "spreading" in Congress. Speeches should be clear, passionate, and well-spoken. Your ethos in Congress includes your personality as a speaker, in addition to your preparation/research. I have been judging/coaching Congress for 23 years. Attach your refutation of previous arguments to the speaker who made the argument you are refuting, when possible. Show respect for your fellow congress persons when debating, avoid personal attacks.

Public Forum Debate - I prefer not to judge this event and I don't coach it. But if I am judging it, it shouldn't look like a policy debate round because then I will be annoyed at all of the tournaments struggling to make numbers in BOTH policy debate and public forum and the entire round I will be thinking about why we added another debate event that is just splitting the numbers and is looking more and more like the original debate event... So, no spreading, less evidence cards, more analysis and clash of arguments. Speak like an orator, not like an auctioneer. Thanks. And show some personality.

World Schools Debate - I enjoy this format, it's new (to me) and fun and emphasizes a holistic rhetorical strategy, including strong argumentation and persuasive speaking style. I also like that the topics change each round, it's a challenge event that really tests the students' ability to analyze a topic, work as a team, and effectively persuade an audience. I have coached NSDA teams at nationals, but I do NOT coach this event on my own team as a regular thing and I don't judge the event often. When I do, I like to see polite, organized, logical speaking and personality from the speakers. Humor is appreciated, where appropriate.

ALL DEBATES - ALWAYS BE HUMBLE AND KIND. Rolling the eyes, huffing, cutting people off rudely, yelling, etc., will not be tolerated and will be reflected in significantly lowered speaker points. Avoid villainizing, condescending to, or underestimating your opponent as a rule. Remember the rules of evidence governing this activity. Avoid asking "where did your evidence come from" when it's included in the speech or the case materials to which you have access. Flashing/file sharing should not take an inordinate amount of time and may be included in your prep time. If you can't get it shared by the time CX following your speech is over, it will cut into your prep. Stronger arguments look at the root of the opposing positions and attack there. Weaker arguments deal with dates of evidence. I have instructed in CX, LD, and Congress at camps in Texas over the past 18 years and have coached UIL State champions in Congress and LD and UIL quarterfinalists in CX; TFA finalists and NSDA semifinalists in Congress. If you have questions about my thoughts on anything and it's not covered here, just ask.