I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 3 yrs

Please be sure to clearly weigh in both speeches! Don't just throw around buzzwords with no actual weighing. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be extended in both speeches. I will usually vote off of the clearest link chain in the round. Cards should have quality warrants (less paraphrasing please). Quality over quantity.

I would prefer if offense (and maybe defense if possible, but not necessary) is frontlined in the second rebuttal, and that both teams collapse throughout the round. Do not try to go for too much.

Extend terminal defense in summary.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear.

I never ran any K's, theory, Cps, but will do my best following if ran.

Please be nice to each other!

qzpbellman@gmail.com

I did debate for all four years at Stephen F. Austin High School in PF and LD and was the PF team captain for my junior and senior years. I had some experience in state competitions so I like to think I am pretty well versed in both these worlds of debate and I know what I am doing :)

Extensions: I will not flow anything that is new after the second speakers first speech but sticky defense is fine. Extend arguments that you want to survive throughout the round, if you don't bring them up again I'm going to assume that was on purpose. I rather you extend arguments that directly connect with your impact or framework than just screaming out extensions to say you defended it. Intelligent debating and using things that fit the topic is going to work for you better than just saying words to say them.

Speaking: Spreading is completely fine, if you are slurring your words to much I will say "clear". I don't mind if you finish a sentence or two after time has finished and if you are the other team please don't tell them that time is up. If y'all are going way over I will do something to signal you need to stop. When doing cross ex please speak at me and not at your opponent. Be kind to your opponent, if you are being rude or overbearing I will tell you after the round to be more courteous (please don't take this as a diss on you, it won't destoy your speaks unless you are awful. I understand people often don't know they are being rude but often the judge can tell if you are being too much and it is something to take seriously) I wanna make it clear debate is not a place for sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic language or rhetoric. Our country has trouble with those things and we should want to encourage anyone who wants to be apart of this activity to participate and feel comfortable. If you have any contentions or comments that are offensive comments leave them at the door, it won't be tolerated.

Argumentation: I honestly value long term impacts more than I value short term impacts. I would like you to tell me how it affects the grand scheme of things in the world, not what it will do for the next five years. That doesn't mean you can't win off of short term impacts but honestly it will be harder. Also, if you give me a framework you should either connect it to the argument as a whole or you should tell me you are dropping it. There is no shame in saying you are dropping your framework and accepting your opponents but if you say your framework is "US hegemony" and than you don't talk about it once I'm usually gonna vote for the team that reinforced there impacts better. I will also often favor arguments that have numbers and statistics but you still need to support those well. If I look and realize your numbers just aren't true I probably won't vote for you.

Lastly if you have a question about anything please ask me. I will take the time to answer as many questions as I can and the only stupid question is a question you do not ask. I prefer a more casual debate setting (no I'm not gonna give you all the highest speaks always) but if you need to take off your jacket or you aren't feeling well you don't need to ask me if you can. I want you to be comfortable because it will in turn make your arguments better. I am going to be completely honest with you because it will make you better debators but I would hope you aren't doing this just because you value winning. I won a lot of stuff and lost a lot of stuff in debate but the great thing is that it is a marketplace of ideas. I will always disclose if I can (some tourneys are weird!) and give advice if I can but don't take my advice as an ultimatem. I like to think I know what I am doing but the art of debate is constantly changing and you may think something works that I don't and that is the beauty of this. Thank you all for reading and I am excited to be judging.

He/Him

I did LD debate in high school.

I read mostly util and am probably most qualified to judge that.

You can read almost anything and I'll vote on it, but I can't say i'm super qualified to judge particularly complicated Th or K debate.

Speed's fine, just email any docs to: joehbridges@gmail.com

Slow down if you really want me to flow something

I award speaker points for the 2N and 2AR based on clarity of your narrative of the round (weighing ect.)

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.

Good with speed, will say a loud "clear" if I can't understand you. If I still cannot understand/hear you I will stop flowing the remainder of the speech. However, if I am just looking at you and haven't said anything, it just means I'm listening. Fine with any argument as long as it is somewhat topical and you extend the impacts. Give me clear voters and always contextualize impacts of argument.

I am a relatively new parent judge. I enjoy listening to and judging debates.

I have interest in politics, investing, philosophy, psychology and sociology. I had my MBA education many years ago and worked in Banking for 20+ years.

For LD debates, I evaluate the combination of the following aspects -

1) Solid case build - proof, the value framework.

2) Clash and rebuttal - I value effective rebuttal and responses using logic and proofs. Please be respectful of your opponent.

3) Delivery - clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. I am ok with spreading and will try to follow your flow.

About Me:

Jack C. Hays High School CO'2019

UT Austin CO'2023

Add me to the email chain: jackcoffey@utexas.edu

Events I have experience from actually doing in High school: Extemp (FX/DX/UIL Extemps), Congress, PF, LD, World Schools

I have experience judging other speech events too: Info/OO/DI/HI/Duo/etc.

My primary events overall were extemp & congress and I have experience on the local, state, and national level after having competed all throughout high school.

PF/LD Debate:

For PF, I generally always vote based on impact calculation. So pretty much tell me why your side does more for whoever or why the other side doesn't do enough for me to vote for them. Weighing on what side is more important and which has more to gain is really how I prefer to do my ballots. Always tell me what side is winning and why I should vote for them and how the debate has progressed to preferring their side. For framework, I won't vote based on it unless you make a point out of it on why I should. Really framework doesn't make or break a ballot from me unless a team explains why it's relevant and why it essentially causes one side to win over another. Overall, the easiest way to get a ballot from me is through impact calculation on which side brings more to the table or why the other side does not do enough. My biggest evaluation for a ballot is always impacts. Please avoid spreading and watch the speed. I am a more traditional judge so speaking so fast to the point I can barely understand you is not always going to be the best option for you. Please avoid speed, especially when explaining things. Being a bit faster on reading cards is okay I guess, but I prefer having less speed overall.

For some niche things, if you do not mention an argument from either side or touch debate it in any way, I am just going to assumed it has been dropped. While I can keep time if you want, it is not preferred, so please time yourselves.

In regards to presentation, since it is PF debate and meant to be easily accessible to the public, please don't spread especially in the later speeches. More speed will make me less likely to understand what is being said and gives me little reason to vote for your team. Pretty much consider me more of a lay judge than anything. For speaking, just be clear and concise really. Also I really don't like rude or spiteful speeches no matter how the debate has ran.

More LD Specific Stuff:

I am not a totally progressive judge when it comes to some arguments so if I do not mention them below, just assume I have no experience in those types of arguments and avoid running them at your own discretion unless you think you're just that amazing to introduce me to a new argument and compelling enough to get me to vote on it:

Plans/Counterplans (CP) - Completely cool with me, just be sure to explain what it does and how it causes your side to win the debate. Plans/CPs are acceptable in PF for me.

Topicality (T) - Topicality is cool as long as you explain why the other side violates topicality in regards to the debate.

Kritiks (K) - I am very new to this kind of debate, but I am generally okay with it as long as you don't have a ton of speed whilst explaining. Additionally, you need to explain what harms/impacts are brought on when you assert your opponent violates the K argument. For example, if you run capitalism K, explain to me why capitalism is bad. So many people have just said that I should vote for them because capitalism is bad without explaining much how or why it is bad. I know this is super basic but you have to explain why other teams violating the K argument is a bad thing (whether it be capitalism, settler colonialism, states, etc.). Tell me why capitalism is bad and why I should vote for you!!

For speaker points, I generally give higher speaks to people who are more clear, articulate, and organized. The lowest I usually give to people is ~27 unless they have done something so bad such as being rude or very disorganized throughout the whole round to warrant something lower. Speed plays a part in speaks in that I do not prefer spreading and speed is not my forte in a round. Overall, as long as you are organized and well articulated and respectful throughout the debate I will give you decent speaks.

Extemp/Speech:

I did both FX & DX in high school so I have experience in these events and know what an appropriate speaker looks like. For your speeches, you should obviously be well-spoken and organized in throughout your round. In particular for content, good extemp speakers are able to articulate information from a wide array of sources and convey it in a manner that is articulate and entertaining. Specifically, I prefer speakers who are informative and/are entertaining by incorporating humor, emotional content, pertinent information and a wide array of relevant sources. Being funny when relevant and doing it well will always gain good points with me! Additionally, always be sure to EXPLAIN EXPLAIN EXPLAIN. Many people often just give me some facts and expect the audience to make something of it. Explain what information is important and why! Tell me what it means and how it pertains to the question of your speech. For the beginning of your speech, it should be a well done introduction that at least initially catches my attention through a thought provoking or funny statement, provides some background to your topic, tells me the question verbatim, provides me your answer and a preview of your points. For your actual points, you should aim to provide at least 2 sources of relevant information and have some structure within each point to have some flow and organization. Within each point you should again always explain the information you present to give some good insight into the importance of each point and why the audience should essentially care.

In regards to performance and presentation, I prefer speakers who speak clearly with adequate speed since a lot of people get nervous and tend to speed through their speech and use up their time. As a speaker, you should aim to be relaxed and be able to balance the time you are given throughout your speech to make the most of your presentation. Moreover, having a good physical presentation is preferred such as a good usage of hand gestures, appropriate movement (such as a slight walk when transitioning between points), and maintaining eye contact with your audience.

For cross-examination, I don't put too much emphasis on this as it is not something I would consider making or breaking your speech. Really, I just look for speakers who are kind and respectful and are able to defend their points and know their own topic well. Pretty much just don't be rude or sarcastic and you'll be fine with me.

Congress:

Pretty much refer to my extemp/speech paradigms. I have tons of experience of doing Congress from high school so I know what to look for and how good speakers are supposed to look. For your speeches, aside from the first or second affs/negs of the bill, all speeches should include some sort of clash or argumentation of the other speakers' arguments. This is congressional DEBATE, not congressional speech giving.

Presiding Officers should aim to be quick, effective, organized, and knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure. Just maintain precedence for speakers and be transparent about what is being done so the whole chamber understands what is going on. Making mistakes is okay as long as it is not a pattern so I know you really know what you're doing. Also it's cool with me if you time with your phone as the P.O., just make sure it does not become a problem through using it for communication or if you have tons of notifications that can be distracting.

World Schools Debate:

Just refer to the Speech and LD/PF portion of my paradigms as that is how I generally judge speakers and how I view a round is supposed to look. I do have experience in Worlds so I am pretty aware on how the event runs. Just be well organized, clear, and articulate. As a side note: avoid using more progressive arguments (theory, topicality, k's, etc.) as they are not to exist in worlds in my opinion. Overall, just provide clear impacts and weighing throughout the round and you'll be fine.

CX Debate:

I have no experience in this event and should not be judging it unless you like relatively traditional PF judges.

I debated PF at Westlake High School.

Constructive

- if your going to use a framework it must be warranted, and you'll need to extend the framework in every speech along with its warrant if I'm going to evaluate the round using it.

Rebuttal

- second rebuttal must frontline turns, but doesn't have to rebuild case (you should still be getting to the important parts of your case obviously, but I'm not going to drop your case if you don't get to every piece of defense).

- I love when a weighing mechanism is set up in rebuttal (if it's applicable to the round so far)

Summary

- if it's not said in summary, it's off my flow except for defense from rebuttal that was not responded to (sticky defense)

- in my opinion it's never too late in the round to call out misconstrued evidence, but indicts and evidence specific responses to need to come before first summary just like any other new response.

Final Focus

- collapse and weigh

- still need warranting, even if it's brief

General

- PLEASE WEIGH

- I'm not going to vote for you if you just tell me you win on timeframe or probability etc. Your weighing needs to be warranted, and it will help you even more if it's consistent (same weighing used in summary and FF).

- develop a narrative, if you and your partner appear to be on the same page it makes my choice a lot easier.

- Theory was not very big when I debated, but I understand the need for it when something offensive has happened in the round. If theory is conducive and topical to what has occured in the round I'm all for it and I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability (if you get up and spread disclosure theory against an obviously way less experienced team your best case scenario is a low point win. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory especially when ran by big schools; in my experience judging and debating I've only ever seen big schools run it who a. have the resources to prep out disclosed cases and b. are typically just using the fact that not all PF debaters know theory well enough to stand a chance, and I dislike that.)

- I'll do my best to evaluate more progressive arguments but I'd prefer that they're topical (plans, CPs, Ks, etc) but you need to do a good job of explaining/warranting them since I never debated them. Again, it should be topical to the round/topic.

My professional background is closely related to multicultural collaboration, I have exposed myself to as many opportunities as possible to work with different teams and for that reason respect, civility, and good manners are highly appreciated. Clarity is a must, I don’t care much about showing a jammed packed speech if it was a speed show. I will keep true to following the roadmap and observing the standards that make your argument strong, and savvy rebuttals totally get my attention.

I'm a Junior Math and Finance major at UT Austin. I did not do debate at an American high school, but I've been judging PF (and extemp) in Austin and am very familiar with the structure.

First half of the round:

- If you choose to provide a framework I will evaluate the round using it as long as it's warranted well and you extend it

- 2nd rebuttal doesn't need to rebuild

Back half of the round:

- Weighing is the easiest way to get my ballot, especially probability: in most cases the magnitude of your event is only significant to me if you prove that it's probable.

- If your opponents bring up new evidence in 2nd summary or 1st final focus, don't assume I noticed, point it out in your speech

General:

- I'm fine with speed (but not spreading) as long as you are clear; I will dock your speaks if you don't speak clearly

- I expect that you're keeping track of your own prep and speech time, unless you ask me otherwise

- I'm not familiar with theory/K's/plans/counterplans but I'm not opposed to voting for them as long as they are well explained

Eric Lanning

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Houston. 20+ years of experience with policy debate. I debated for both MSU and UH.

I would like to be on the email chain (ericlanning @ gmail.com and uhoustondebate @ gmail.com) but willnot be reading along with your speech!

I prefer to judge a debate about the topic and will not evaluate interpersonal disputes that occur outside of the round.

If you think an argument is important for resolving the debate - you should say so clearly in the final rebuttals!The key to winning my ballot is identifying the most important issue and making it clear through emphasis, coverage and explanation. I am unlikely to prioritize an argument in my decisionmaking if you did not do so in your speech!

I find myself agreeing more with the negative on theory (plan-focus framework, conditionality, and counterplan competition/legitimacy) than ever before... But I still don't love the idea of voting for a 2NR that includes "our counterplan results in the ENTIRE affirmative..." Counterplans should compete textually and functionally.

I flow every speech and CX on paper. Please flow! Jot that down. Seriously, please flow! If you don't write down or type out the things your opponents say as they say them - I am probably not a great judge for you. I care about persuasion. I do not like "6 minutes of reading into a screen".

Debaters work really hard and deserve judges that respect their time and effort. I try to give each round my undivided attention and minimize distractions by staying off electronic devices. After the debate I give feedback to help you learn and improve, not just commentary on what happened in the debate.

I am very expressive. I frequently react to the speech as its happening. This is usually me shaking my head in confusion or nodding along in agreement.

email: teresa@luo.com

i debated for westlake for 3 years (graduated 2021), and i did pf and some extemp.

i would consider myself to be flay leaning tech.

1. WARRANT. i need more than just jargon.

- this goes for everything in the round (responses, weighing, etc).

- i am tech over truth (excluding offensive arguments), but you need to warrant everything out.

2. collapse and extend too.

- defense is not sticky; pls extend.

- i will only evaluate what has been extended in summary AND in ff. don't bring up new stuff in ff.

3. an argument is dropped if there is no response to it in the next speech.

4. be respectful to everybody in the round.

feel free to ask me questions before or after round! :)

he/him

I did PF at James Bowie HS in Austin, TX for 4 yrs, graduating in 2019.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. Don't just say the words extend + the card author. Please actually extend argument. If you don't, I will look to vote elsewhere. Weighing is very important. Please give me a way to evaluate the round.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear. For online debate, I think its good practice to send speech docs prior to constructive given connectivity issues. If an email chain is used, I would like to be added.

I'll attempt to evaluate any argument you read in front of me, but I am more comfortable with standard stuff. I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. Feel free to ask me specifics before the round!

Lastly, please be nice to each other.

If anything in here was unclear, I'm happy to answer your questions!

Extemp: I'm a big believer in the AGD - make me want to hear more. Be as creative as you'd like in coming up with an AGD or "hook" - but you definitely need something to make me sit up and pay attention. Answer the question. The more sources, and the more variety in the sources, the better. Be engaging and conversational - I want to see your personality shine through your speech. Don't forget to answer the question. Analyze your points thoroughly. Tie your conclusion back to your AGD or intro. Make sure you answer the question.

OO/Informative: Defend your thesis throughout your performance. Be engaging and conversational - I want to see your personality shine through your speech.

POI: Don't forget to refer to your manuscript throughout your performance - this event is not memorized. The best pieces are the ones that transition between genres seamlessly - unless the sharp contrast between prose, poetry, and/or drama is intentional. Characterization is huge - let me see the personality of your characters.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET: Please don't confuse me with too much blocking, or blocking that is overly specific and detailed. I want to see YOU - not some tiny imaginary thing you're holding. Be animated and as engaging as possible.

TFA/ NSDA IE Coach:

24 years / TFA Hall of Fame member

Coached 2 National DI Champions: 2000 and 2012

Coached 2 TFA DI Champions; 1 HI Champion; 1 Duet Champion

Numerous Rounds at Nationals; several TFA DI, HI, DUO Finalists

UIL One Act play winning director ; State / Region competitors , 1st Runner Up, Samuel French Award winner

Current UIL One Act Play Adjudicator/ judging Zone through Region

UIL Congress State Coach in LD, CX and Congress 2019, 2021

UIL State Coach Prose

Professional Actor (AEA) for 25 years; BFA in Acting University of Texas, MFA in Acting the American Conservatory Theater

Even though I am currently coaching LD debate my focus is on IE'S

Medium use of spreading

Squirrel cases that don't make any sense at all.

Extemp: Speaking 60% Supporting material ,Organization 40%

Oratory: Speaking 60% Content 40% ( less debate style more universal content with some IE touches)

IE'S : YES to teasers, open minded regarding pieces. School approval only thing that matters regarding material.

HI: don't go too far away from author's intent/ but still be creative!

Thank you!! Break Legs!!!

TFA/ NSDA IE Coach:

24 years / TFA Hall of Fame member

Coached 2 National DI Champions: 2000 and 2012

Coached 2 TFA DI Champions; 1 HI Champion; 1 Duet Champion

Numerous Rounds at Nationals; several TFA DI, HI, DUO Finalists

UIL One Act play winning director ; State / Region competitors , 1st Runner Up, Samuel French Award winner

Current UIL One Act Play Adjudicator/ judging Zone through Region

UIL Congress State Coach in LD, CX and Congress 2019, 2021

UIL State Coach Prose

Professional Actor (AEA) for 25 years; BFA in Acting University of Texas, MFA in Acting the American Conservatory Theater

Even though I am currently coaching LD debate my focus is on IE'S

Medium use of spreading

Squirrel cases that don't make any sense at all.

Extemp: Speaking 60% Supporting material ,Organization 40%

Oratory: Speaking 60% Content 40% ( less debate style more universal content with some IE touches)

IE'S : YES to teasers, open minded regarding pieces. School approval only thing that matters regarding material.

HI: don't go too far away from author's intent/ but still be creative!

Thank you!! Break Legs!!!

I am a coach and teach my kids the traditional formats of speech and debate for all events.

Congress: I am looking for an AGD and proper sign posting in the introduction. I want to see evidence for each point and clash unless you are the first speaker. I don't want to see you bring up a laptop. You should use a paper tablet. Make sure you leave time for a short conclusion. Make sure your pacing and verbiage are in a conversational manner. Answering questions are just as important, make sure you know the topic thoroughly. Activity in the chamber is also important, especially when I'm trying to break ties in my mind. Make sure your questions are well thought out before asking.

Lincoln-Douglas: As stated above, I teach the traditional format for LD Debate. I expect value, value criterion, contentions, warrants, and impacts. If you were taught policy jargon, make sure and convert it to LD Debate format. I do not want spreading. Make good sound arguments. The person who upholds their framework will win the round.

Public Forum: As stated, I am a teacher/coach and I teach and expect traditional form of debate. PF is intended for anyone to be able to judge, therefore, use evidence for your facts and provided impacts to your points. There should be no policy/LD jargon in PF debate. There should be NO spreading in PF debate.

Speaking Events: I am much better at judging Extemp, Original Oratory, and Informative speaking events over the interp events. However, I have judged all interp events at local, state, and national levels.

Congress:

I rank POs. If I didn't rank you as a PO, it wasn't because you weren't considered. I presided often when I competed. This means that I know parli procedure/RRO well, but it also means that I understand the struggle.

Break down what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and sponsor/author. I haven't always had time to read it. Even if I have, it's not nice to assume.

I care most about the content of a speech. You have to clash/extend if you are the fifth+ speaker. Additionally, make sure that your extensions aren't just rehash. This means you have to introduce new information and strengthen the argument. Too many Congress competitors have unclear or missing links. If you don’t follow a link chain through, it will be very hard for me to see your argument as good or thoughtful.

You are also judged based on your kindness/fairness in recesses and before the round begins. Equity is very important to me. I don't care how many speeches you give, unless you a) don't participate at all or b) are rude to someone else in order to give additional speeches.

I don't like cheesy AGDs. Although I don't think Congress should be 100% roleplay, at least try to give serious introductions. This applies x10 if the bill is about something serious. This means no song lyrics/movie references etc. I did Congress, so I know all of the canned intros as well as you do. Don't use them.

Allow me to get on my soapboax: I am really bothered by the recent trend of calling people 'Ms.' or 'Mr.' instead of representative. Look, I understand that it's fewer syllables. I get that it makes it easier to transition from house to senate and vice versa. Too often, people will call male presenting speakers 'Representative' and female speakers 'Ms.' If you do this, it will negatively affect your ranking. It genders speakers in a way they may dislike (Zoom update: online, people can share their pronouns more easily. Some people use this as reasoning to use titles, but just be careful). TL;DR, avoid using gendered titles. If you use them, at least use them consistently instead of using them as a way to devalue female-presenting speakers.

I really like Congress, and I hope everyone has fun with it!

IEs:

I only did extemp and oratory if that contributes to your strikes.

I don't really have a paradigm for prepped events because y'all have been working on them since last July. Just make them yours.

Insofar as extemp, my most important request is that you answer the question. Don't do anything fancy, just lay it out for me. Ideally, I will learn something from your speech. Additionally, I like to know that you understand what you're talking about. You have the internet to search nowadays, use it!

Also, I hate that this has to be said, but...don't make up evidence. It's usually obvious, and even when it isn't, it's unethetical.I care most about content of a speech. Too many debaters have unclear or missing links. If you don’t follow a link chain through, it will be very hard for me to see your argument as good or thoughtful.

PF/WSD:

Mom judge. Flay. Be nice.

I would prefer offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal, but it's not required. Any unaddressed defense doesn't need to be extended in summary. Any offense that you want me to vote on must be fully extended in summary and final focus. This means I should hear the warranting behind the complete link chain (just repeating the taglines or solely extending the impact is not sufficient.)

Please collapse in the back half of the round. If you go for too much, you won't be able to extend the complete link and impact story for any singular piece of offense. Weighing should be present in summary and final focus. If there is no good weighing I will default to the team with the most coherently fleshed out link chain.

Unless the piece of evidence is literally made up, I am never going to vote off an evidence call. It will just make me grumpy.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

I never ran K’s/theory/CP’s/etc. So, you're probably better off not running these arguments in front of me unless you do a really god job making it sound lay.

I believe debate is a unique opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, open-mindedness, and sharpen articulative and persuasive abilities. As such, I believe judges should serve as an example of open-mindedness and critical thinking ability as well. Its far more important to me that a position be won on the merits of persuasion and good argument, rather than that it appeal to my personal biases. I'm happy to listen to nearly any  argument (with the exception of a few clearly, morally outrageous positions i.e. racism good, genocide good, things like that) as long as you can tell me why you win it. It should be noted, however, that certain argument styles are more persuasive in certain events. 

I debated policy in high school, and policy and parliamentary in college. I have judged tournaments for the last two years in CX, LD, PF, and Extemp,  and contributed to research and argument construction for central Texas schools in those areas as well. 

Earl Warren '19

UT Austin '23

Email: morgan.tucker02@gmail.com

I primarily competed in Congress primarily but also did LD, DX, and IX.

Overall, I'm cool with just about anything. Do what YOU want, but do it well.

Congress Paradigms

Please engage in clash if you're past the 3rd speaker. i mostly give 4-6 rankings for speeches. i'll normally rank the PO 4-8 if they didn't mess up big time.

LD and PF

- don't be mean.

'Progressive' Argumentation. I am willing to evaluate essentially all arguments and am somewhat comfortable evaluating most args. I am most familiar with framework, meta-weighing, kritiks, plans, cps, disads, and (kinda) theory. trix are bad but I am able to evaluate those args If I must—run them at your own risk. Run what you want to run because that's what I did when I debated. I think that limiting different/"progressive" forms of argumentation in any debate space is bad.

Extensions. Extensions are really really important. I see too many talented teams lose because they don't extend or don't extend fully. All dropped responses are conceded—100%. Extend your link(s), warrant(s), and impact(s) if you want the argument(s) to be evaluated, especially if it's contested. If the argument is not correctly extended entirely through, then, it cannot be evaluated. With that in mind, please extend what you want to win on in every speech. My threshold for extensions on K, theory, etc. is higher than it is for substance, please explain every part of the arg in every speech so I can follow.

Weigh. You should weigh, it will likely help you win. Like most args, conceded weighing is true weighing. Use it to your advantage. If there are two arguments, then I will default to ANY weighing that is present. If there is no weighing, I will be forced to make the decision on my own.

Speed. Speed is fine as long as I can understand/follow, but keep in mind that I have never been the best at flowing. I am very comfortable letting you know if I can't keep up. I will say 'clear' three times before I dock your speaks if you don't slow down.

Team cases are the worst, I prob won't be very happy to hear and judge a case that I have heard before and will likely give lower speaks. Team cases ruin the integrity of debate and make me sad :( -- The purpose of debate isn't to win, it is to develop yourself and your cognitive reasoning. Case writing and research is essential to that.

Read me. If I look confused I'm doing that on purpose; it's because I'm confused. If I am nodding, it means I agree with you. I tend to be pretty expressive and I will when I am judging too.

I competed in public forum and extemp, and occasionally congress, for three years in high school. I've judged tournaments both online and in-person and am familiar with the format both ways.

Public Forum

I am fine with most types of arguments and will flow them in round. State an off-time road map outlining your speech prior to reading it.

I am not flowing/voting off of crossfire, but rather listening for knowledge of your own case and ability to ask questions to minimize confusion in round (clarification, contradictions in evidence, etc). Note that crossfire is not the time to continue an argument, but rather to ask and answer.

I am great with any speed. I flow contentions, impacts, extensions, statistics, and weighing of the round. Make sure you have a warrant and extend your impacts throughout the round. Know when to drop certain aspects of the round, and hit hard on why your team wins by weighing in final focus (mag, prob, time, etc).

Theory is fine, but if competing against novices, think twice about its usefulness before bringing it up in round. Don't bring up new arguments in summary or final focus (general rule), especially if there's no direct connection to any of the arguments carried throughout the debate. Use prep time if you're going to ask for multiple cards in round.

LD

I did not debate LD in high school but have judged rounds. Explain technical lingo when using it and I will judge similarly based off PF. I will look at how your framework fits your case and encourage clash with your opponent.

Send cases to dishadots@gmail.com.

Speech

I am familiar with judging speech events, including extemp, and will look for overall presentation, understanding of text/topics, connection with audience, body language, and vocal variety (if applicable). For extemp, I prefer a formatted speech with intro, main arguments, and conclusion for ease of comprehension.

Update 10/29 for Florida Blue Key:

Interpretation:

POI and DI: I am a parent judge who would like to be entertained by your performance. I judge performance over piece.

Please give me any trigger warnings about sensitive issues before you begin.

Please time yourself during your speech, and ask if I am ready before you begin.

he/him/his

Parent of Arjun Raman, a speaker at Westwood

He wrote this paradigm

I'm the father of Westwood's Speech Captain, as a lay/IE judge, I can judge extemporaneous speaking, original oratory, and Congressional Debate (not as a parliamentarian).

Extemporaneous Speaking:

Answer the question as you got it, not as you wished you had got it.

To be ranked highly, have solid argumentation and sourcing and good humor and delivery. I judge more on content than on delivery. I won't dock speaker points or rank you lower for a few fluency breaks here or there.

Try not to go overtime, but if you go 7:00 or 7:30 exact I'll be pretty impressed.

You should ideally have 7 sources but 6 or more is fine if you have good enough analysis to back up your arguments.

Again, answer the question! I also love humour and wit in a speech and, when used well, will definitely increase your speaker points, and might increase your rank.

Lastly, speak with conviction, extemp is an advocacy-based event so passionate speeches will always be appreciated by me.

Bigotry/racism will get you dropped, viewpoints so extreme, (i.e unironic Q-Anon), that they border on the former won’t be appreciated either.

Public Forum Debate - lay judge, truth > tech

make a speech doc and send it to me at raghu.venkataraman@outlook.com

I'm a lay/parent judge with no formal experience in judging competitive debate. Please don't spread, and please clearly expand upon and explain your argumentation.

Speaker Points

30 -- if you give the best speeches I've seen

29 -- if your speeches are near perfect

28 -- average speaks I'll assign, if your speeches lack major technical flaws

<27 will only be assigned for bigotry in round

Congressional Debate:

Presiding Officer - know what you're doing and you have a place on my ballot, I'll forgive any minor mistakes with regards to precedence or recency. Offer time signals to people that want them (not as necessary in virtual), and keep track of speaking time and recency.

Giving two good speeches is better than giving three mediocre ones, good analysis is essential to being on my ballot -- 2 points, at least 2 sources per point of analysis.

Try to make sure there's a decent aff/neg split and clash as a chamber.

Portray yourself confidently.

Don't be overly aggressive in cross, especially to womxn debaters.

Just like the other events -- no bigotry.

Speaker Points (applies to debate/extemp) -

25 or lower will only be given if your speech/debate is insensitive or bigoted (for which I will DEFINITELY rank you down).

No speaks that are a tenth of a point or anything.

In PF, all you need for high speaker points from me is to debate ethically, respect your opponents and your partner, and speak with conviction.

My paradigm is simple: topicality, inherency and harm. While debating, present good, relevant information and cards that uplift your resolution. As a debater, you should aim to create "good" clash and discourse between you and your opponent, but at the end of the day proving why your affirmative/negative position is ultimately better is what gets the vote. Your delivery, responses, and material is what makes up your speaker points.

i'm probably a pretty standard tech judge but please check for my opinions on things that might be important to the way you debate (ie theory, ivis, speed, docs, tko, tricks, ks, etc.)

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years (graduated 23) and qualled for TOC 3 times (kind of)

email cheriewang835@gmail.com. send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but at least send to me)

almost every default here can be changed if you warrant that. e.g. if you forget to extend something in summary but warrant why extensions don't matter during final, i will disregard the lack of a summary extension. however if you say something racist you will not change my mind about if being racist should be allowed.

IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND SOMETHING say goodbye to it. if your opponents do not extend something please say something!! and then u don't have to respond to it.

conceded defense is sticky - if you don't frontline one of your contentions in second rebuttal don't go for it in summary. if ur first speaking u don't need to extend defense against a dropped contention. if second rebuttal drops one of the pieces of defense on a contention they do go for, i would like the first summary to explicitly extend the response but you could argue that you don't need it idc

PLEASE TIME SPEECHES cus i'm not going to. stop your opponents if they go 10+ over

things i like (order is prioritized):

• speech docs/disclosing
• bears trick
• early weighing/collapsing
• impact turns/defense
• polls trick
• cool arguments
• wolf in sheeps clothing trick

things i don't like (in no particular order):

• reading progressive arguments poorly

• most IVIs (read my section on IVIs if u plan to read one)

• going too fast for me

• signposting poorly.

• being offensive

• the liar's paradox (and most other paradoxes)

• not doing speech docs. if ur opponents doesn't want speech docs u don't have to send them, but if ur the team saying no speech docs i will dock speaks

tech>truth. i judge how i am directed to in round. my preferences will reflect in ur speaks but generally, read and do whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow.i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me.for reference u should top out ~900 words in constructive and that's being pretty generous. I DO NOT FLOW OFF DOC.

be nice or get 25s.

SIGNPOST. i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact, they are all meaningless to me so i won't bother flowing them

u are extremely welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late) or via email. i am happy to answer questions about the decision/strategy/etc. i do not expect teams to always agree with me

random things

my 2 biggest pet peeves are 1) fake norm setting and 2) wasting my time.

PLEASE DO NOT pad your time by reading the same responses with different cards multiple times. instead do weighing or make analytics i don't care if they are bad, i would rather flow that than another card saying the same thing.

hege args need real warrants too. also i will not like it if ur hege warrants are kinda racist.

if you read weighing and call it a prereq when it isn't actually one, i will not treat it like one.

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like those ones. generally speaking i like bears)

i don't believe in TKOs or 30 speaks theory and probably won't waive that

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to. i really like being able to see strategy in every speech and largely decide speaks based on this.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. i will do literally everything i can think of to avoid presuming if no one tells me to presume, especially in a substance round.

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF. please read impact defense when someone reads a terrible impact

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times it isn't going to trick me into thinking you read more than one response. i cannot stress how much it annoys me to hear a rebuttal with no strategy

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST

trigger warnings. they're getting their own section now

u don't need to read this section if u aren't reading/hitting tw and don't need a tw for case--generally, i believe trigger warnings should be read for graphic arguments that talk about traumatic subjects, that's all u need to know.

trigger warnings should have an opt out dont just list a bunch of triggering things prior to talking about them for 4 minutes.

trigger warnings have real impacts on safety that are key to preserve the balance between people reading arguments about serious issues and people not being triggered in a closed room for 60 minutes. i feel strongly that they should be read. if you read something graphic i will be extremely sympathetic to tw theory against u.

performative theory that pretends to set a good norm and does a bad job of it is one of my biggest pet peeves in debate and often actively harmful. please do not read trigger warning theory in front of me for no reason. please give good opt outs. if you are trivializing this issue i will still evaluate the round but i will tank your speaks.

IVIs

other prog stuff is below this. i need a section for IVIs sorry.

IVIs on bad ev or offensive behavior are totally fine. would love to evaluate both of those actually BUT U NEED TO ARTICULATE THEM CORRECTLY. if u want me to care about an issue and independently vote on it, u should care enough to build up that issue as an independent voter (what did they do wrong, why is it bad, why should i down them).

the two scenarios i described are the only ones where it makes sense to me to read an IVI instead of a shell. do not read disclosure in front of me and call it an IVI. do not read spec as an IVI. do not read T as an IVI. T is T.

i also believe that IVIs are often used as a way of doing more performative theory while skirting RVIs. please do not do that. i will tank your speaks forever. i am not forgiving on this issue.

theory

i love judging theory but i will take mediocre substance over bad theory any day (this does not refer to people who are new to reading theory all i'm saying is your brain should be on when you read theory no matter how advantageous it might be for you).

friv is great if you are chill and do a good job reading it.

i should never feel bad for your opponents if you initiate theory, especially friv. you should be the most polite person ever if you initiate theory. do not play dumb in cross fire. explain how to engage with the shell.

all parts of the shell + implication need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals.

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan of os disclosure. down to evaluate marginal misdisclosure shells if you can do a good job reading it.

my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

tricks

don't really know what i'm doing but these are fun and i'll vote on them

don't really like paradoxes. i think polls is funny. eval after 1ac and gcd are ok. i dont know that many tricks

i need to see them on the doc! if i missed them, i will be a lot less willing to evaluate tricks and very open to hearing reasons the way the trick was read is unfair and should disqualify it. don't hide them in the card but the tagline is ok

Ks

please talk to me in round. if you don't talk to me before round i will probably just not vote on it.