NEW: please email or flash cases if spreading. saabouleish@gmail.com. For probably my most controversial paradigm, see R.O.B. For the current topic, I've been really vibing with Phil args.

Argument Prefs:

-General: I will vote for anything if the argument is complete and extended. I don't disregard arguments because they aren't reflective of common debate or a universe model. This means it is important to pay attention to what your opponent is saying even if it seems ridiculous or silly. Dropped arguments can be very powerful if your opponent positions them properly.

-Complex weighing: I will vote off of interactive layers. Example: Leveraging K as a meta-theory argument on why theory is bad. Make sure you road map this type of leveraging because I don't want to have to make the connection myself.

-1AC/1NC weighing: If weighing arguments are made in the 1AC, and they are dropped, and they are extended properly, I consider the arguments conceded. When early weighing is present, I don't give analytical weighing responses any special privilege and consider them new arguments in later speeches.

-Ks: I've heard a lot of K's but if you are running something super strange give me some grace and do some explaining. Make sure to connect the critique to a role of the ballet.

-ROBs: If you are asking me to vote based on some ethical obligation to the pre-fiat activities of the round (e.g., vote for the discourse which best deconstructs neo-col), my view is you are inviting the possibility of judge-intervention. For example, if your opponent drops the argument that 'you cannot do the aff with the mindset of the K', but in-round their actions imply them doing the aff with the mindset of the K, I might vote for them. This is because you told me to vote not on the flow, not on truth-testing, but on a personal ethical obligation to the discourse which best deconstructs X issue. Here, judge intervention emerges because the best discourse is not necessarily the discourse of debate norms regarding flow-evaluation. As a result, since the ROB and traditional flow evaluation are not necessarily in-synch, if I am to take the ROB seriously I might vote on what I see rather than what you explicitly say in X, Y, and Z speech.

-Theory: Make sure you are connecting theory to drop the debater. I will also, even in Policy, vote off of RVIs if the argument is made.

-Phil: I'm good with it. If you win the life of 1 is worth more than 10000000, and prove you save the 1, I'll vote for you. Don't be afraid to run Kant.

-Policy: cool. I think policy is super powerful against theory, phil, and Ks. Please don't get from this paradigm I only like abstract arguments. Honestly, over the past year, I've found myself voting more and more for policy args.

-Performance: I always feel like I am in a bad position when I judge performance affs/negs (unless there are tricks hidden within the performance). My struggle emerges from a desire to judge based on the flow. If you are running performance, and the performance does not have tech embedded within it, please give me strong reasons why I should not judge based on the flow.

-Tricks: If your tricks are really hidden, either (a) flash or (b) please have time-stamped versions of your speech docs.

Defaults: These are things I assume unless told otherwise

-Resolution: I default to (a) truth-testing, (b) text not spirit, (c) ought implies morality, (d) ought is weaker than obligation but stronger than permissibility, (e) prescriptive, not descriptive, morality.

-Agents: I default to (a) aggregation of persons is possible, (b) agents are distinct persons (we are not all One entity), (c) substantive free-will is possible where substantive means sufficient to allow for moral valence.

-Ontology: I default to Things (concepts, entities, identities) are constructed rather than non-contingently derived with the exception of Persons and Ethics (how are these two exceptions possible, who knows? My research is on the topic).

-Ethics Violations: I default to (a) ethic violations are violations of the explicit rules of a tournament, and (b) ethics violations require judge intervention if and only if they cannot be remedied by in-round solutions (e.g., theory and other arguments); otherwise, I will let Tabroom untangle the mess.

-Aff/Neg Role/Theory of Knowledge: I default that we assume claims to be false until proven otherwise. As a result, Aff has the burden of making some sort of positive claim.

Speaker Points:

-28-30 unless something really bad happens

-The more progressive the round, the more I base speaker points on good argumentation/strategy. (it seems a bit silly to base speaker points on who spreads the fastest).

-The more traditional the round, the more I base speaker points on oration skills and clarity of reasoning.

CX- 1) no excessive speed. 2) K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ- Aff needs to have caused it. Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD- !) Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond.

I prefer all debate styles, whether CX, LD or PF to have a structure that makes it easy for me to flow. I like 1's, 2's 3's or A B C.

PF 1. obviously clash is a must. I prefer all debaters take part in grand cross fire, but will judge on case by case. Clear impacts and weighing mechanism.

Extemps

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. i liked good, creative intros. Not a fan of the 'extended metaphor' intro.

4. I prefer a natural delivery to a more forced, stilted one.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible. Not a big fan of R rated selections.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Prose, Poetry

1. As with POI, I like to see a manuscript being used at least a little. Something unique is always nice to hear, but nothing wrong with the classics. Again, build to the climax.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker.

3. Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points, naming specific other speaker, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate, a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.

General info for all debate—

1) no speed - this is a communication event

2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.

4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.

Specifics

LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.

CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.

I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next. In Informative, I also look for an overall theme that is informational (thus the name) rather than persuasive.

In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.