Hello,

My name is Justin Dwyer and this is my judge paradigm. A little bit about myself before I get into the specific things i look for when judging each event. I competed in speech and debate all 4 years of high school and also competed for 3 years in college in NPDA and IPDA debate. I at one point or another have competed in every debate type and most speech events. The main outcome that I think debate rounds should have is some educational aspect where each competitor leaves the round better than when they walked in. The other key component to every debate is clash. Clash is important when evaluating debaters and their cases. But now for the line by line of what i look for in each event.

LD:

In LD I was a very traditional debater. The philosophy aspect is huge when it come to deciding the round. That being said, you can win or lose a round with me strictly on the value debate. If you cannot uphold your own value or show me why yours is what should be looked at first it is very had to win. After that it is up to you as a debater to steer me to what you want me to vote for. If the value and framework debate is a wash I will look towards the voting issues brought up by both debaters. That being said, the more flushed out your argumentation is the better. I will not do the work on the flow for you.

CX:

When it comes to CX I am a judge that is very persuaded by the flow. If you do the work on the flow and give me reasons why that is important to the round I will be more inclined to vote for that side. I feel that K's and off case hold a lot of weight if used effectively to combat the AFF. I am willing to listen to any and all argumentations but, if it is more of a out of the box argument then you need to do the work to guide me on how it is relevant and how it adds to the debate. For the Affirmative the best defense is a good offence. If you can prove to me that voting for the AFF would in any way lead to a 1% net positive increase from the status que the round is almost decided for me. At the end of the day just make sure there is clash and all information presented is relevant and realistic to what the topic is asking for.

PF:

When it comes to PF I am a very lay judge. If you can persuade me to vote for you in a realistic way you win my ballot. In PF there is many ways to do that but for me the easiest is the flow.

When it comes to speaker points I feel like I might stray from some judges. I enjoy a nice pleasant voice as a lot of judges do but, the content of your speech also effects your points. Be effective and on topic along with that and you will garner more speaker points from me.

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 32 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well-signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP, and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond rejection.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding-based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree except at UIL tournaments where the rules forbid it. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. I will not vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

LD Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are sometimes out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a huge fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down. When there are policy-based resolutions, they often get my vote.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

PF Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 30 years and coaching 17 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have. In PF in particular, I think slower debate is better since the intent of the event is for everyone to be able to understand it.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the pro wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the con wins framework, I will evaluate that way. In the absence of a framework, you put yourself at risk of me simply judging on policy impacts.

EVIDENCE- I think paraphrasing is fine, but be sure those that paraphrasing can be defended with actual correctly cited evidence.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- In my opinion, there is very little time to flesh out arguments like this in a PF round, so unless they are extremely easy to understand and carefully linked to the resolution, I would prefer debaters not use them.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- While the arguments do not have to be labeled as advantages or disadvantages, in most PF rounds I actually weigh impacts to make my decision so regardless of what you call the arguments, you should impact out this way.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- In my opinion, plans and CP's are rarely a good use of the limited time in PF. Occasionally, CP's work if they provide a counter-narrative to the resolution.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss-based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principle, vote for those engaging in overtly racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the con to sit on the right and the pro to side on the left.

1/8/24-edited to update years experience

Policy -

I would consider myself a traditional stock issues judge. I understand that debate is evolving and changing and I try to consider myself open to new ideas and approaches. Kritiques and new approaches to framework are not my favorite arguments, but I will listen to them and try to evaluate the round based on what I am hearing and not just my own preferences. I value that debaters are professional and courteous to each other. It is acceptable to have command of the CX period, but another to be rude. If you ask a question, allow it to be answered. I will listen to K and CP's but I prefer traditional arguments such as T's, D/A's, solvency, inherency, harms, etc. . I do not mind new arguments in the 2NC. (This is not required but it makes the round more interesting so speeches do not become repetitive.) I do not mind speed as long as I can flow it. Please provide a roadmap before speaking but be aware that I will time them. I will be the official timekeeper, but it is helpful, especially in the virtual platform where I am muted, that debaters also time themselves.

I consider speech and debate to be one of the hardest and most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. Congratulations on choosing it and good luck!

I am a current speech and debate coach in Texas. I have coached multiple state medalist and NSDA qualifiers across the different speech and debate events.

CX Debate:

Topicality: On face topicality is a voting issue for me. It needs to be run correctly with standards and counter standards weighed out in the round. I usually default to reasonability over dueling interpretations at the standards level. To win T the negative needs to prove in the standards why this case is so problematic to the debate space that it isn't worth evaluating.

DisAds: I enjoy evaluating a good link story that has a clear bright line to impact debate. Impacts need to be weighed out in the round and shouldn't be overly weak to thumper arguments. In the impact calculus I care more about probability and time frame than I do magnitude. With that being said if you are running soft/social impacts instead of extinction you need to provide a framework argument for why I should value those over loss of life.

CPs: Counter plans should meet the following criteria or I will have a hard time voting for them. 1) Untopical 2) Competitive 3) Mutually exclusive. Perm arguments need to make since. Perm do the Plan then the CP seems strange if the CP calls for abolishing infrastructure that the plan will live in.

Oncase: Strong up to date oncase arguments are my favorite in the space, because for me they are the quickest way for me to evaluate if the affirmative is a credible policy option. The negative team should try to turn the case or at least go for solvency take outs.

Kritiks: I do not have the time nor the desire to read your literature base. So you should assume that I have not. That being said I will listen and flow the K in the round. If the affirmative team can handle the link argument and/or discredit the alt I will usually go affirmative on the K.

Theory: I enjoy theory arguments in the space, but they really need to apply to something that has happened in the round. Just like with T the negative has to carry the standards and voters of the theory through the entire round if I am going to vote on it.

K Affs: I mostly judge the UIL circuit in Texas so I am not super familiar with K Affs. In round education is not just for the debaters its for the judge as well. I have given up my time to judge the debate and want learn more about the topic. If your K Aff meets the standard of expanding my knowledge on the current topic I am more likely evaluate it favorably.

LD: I will update this later.

i’d say i’m a tab judge, i’m fine with any args and spreading is fine as long as i can somewhat understand you. my main thing is to be polite!! i will not tolerate unnecessary rudeness and arrogance as there is too much of that in the debate space. my only other thing is i like to see direct clash between the args. don’t just spread cards at each other, i wanna see that you’re actively participating in the debate and you know what’s going on (even if you don’t really know lol). just have fun and be nice! and good luck!