Hey! My name is Sneha Bhale (she/her) and I did 4 years of Speech and Debate at Westwood High School. I competed in extemp as my main event both locally and nationally and I did some congress. I currently attend UT Austin.

debate events- please add me to the email chain- snehabhale21@gmail.com

Extemp- I prioritize content over fluency. I give the 1 to whoever answers the question adequately and addresses every actor mentioned. The substructure needs to be easy to follow and your impacts need to be realistic and topical. For fluency, fluency errors should not impede my ability to understand you and humor can go a long way. As for sources, please do not make them up and try to diversify your sources (use think tanks and academic journals). As for time, I don't care a whole lot but make sure it's evenly spaced out for every point. Overall, your content should make sense and should have sources, and having humor incorporated and a conversational tone will go a long way with ranks.

PF- Treat me as a flay (maybe a little more flow) judge. I will flow the round and have some exposure to PF. I'm not too fond of spreading but if you speak fast, I would like a speech doc. My flow shouldn't be all over the place and easy to follow. I think weighing is extremely important as well as the continuation of arguments in the summary and final focus. I also would prefer to be added to the email chain and will call for evidence so make sure there is no paraphrasing or twisting of information. During cross-ex, please be patient and polite. Speaks will be assigned based on clarity and overall demeanor within a round. I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments but I will evaluate them. Overall, I like a clean flow, slow speaking, weighing, roadmaps, warrants, and proper evidence protocols.

Cong- The PO should know proper procedures and keep track of precedence and recency well. The PO should also ensure voting happens fairly and keep track of everything efficiently. I will keep my precedence and recency sharts and will double-check. As for the competitors, congress is a matter of participation so make sure you pay attention. Try to pay attention the whole round and ask questions. I'm not too fond of pre-prepared speeches. Speeches that follow the debate and clash go a long way. Rehash is also a no go and I will dock points for it- please bring in new evidence and new points. If you are speaking later in the round, please bring in new evidence and use Clash rather than rephrasing previous speeches. The questioning period should be respectful to all competitors. As a personal preference, I prefer precedence and recency to be tracked online. It gets very messy when it is on paper. Overall, I like clashes in speeches, effective questioning, proper use of sources, and clear speaking.

And most importantly, have fun with it! Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safe place or a better experience for you. Also, feel free to ask questions/clarification on my paradigm or for any feedback after the round.

Hi! I did debate in high school, and I loved it. I also love judging! I’m always willing to give critiques to the best of my ability, and I like to see a lot of clash in rounds. Make sure you address your opponents arguments. Don’t speak too fast, especially not online, and make sure that you are being polite while also maintaining a good presence in the room. Really speak to me and tell me why I should vote for you. I’m good with any type of argument, as long as it is done well. Collapsing arguments should also be done intentionally and only in the case of a wash. I don't flow cross, so bring up cross in speech if you want to use what your opponents says as ground.

I am also traditional in the sense that during round I would like the speakers to be standing up, rather than sitting down, and also facing the judge. Debate is also about presentation, as much as important arguments.

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.

Hello, I am Daniella and I have been debating since 2015. I debated LD in my first year of high school and competed in many rigorous tournaments. I competed as a CX debater my last three years of high school and was district champion in my region and went to compete at the state tournament from 2017-2019. I used to be a college debater for the University of Texas at Austin. I work as a judge for UIL, TFA, and Great Communicator. I plan to attend law school after I earn my bachelor's degree at the University of Texas at Austin.

Add me on the email chain: daniella.cuellar25@gmail.com

My Paradigms for Policy Debate:

I am a policymaker judge and I tend to take the theoretical viewpoint of a "policymaker," and as such, I will vote on which side presents the best policy option. I vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and on kritiks. The basic policy of this paradigm is the weighing of the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages. I will essentially vote on which world is better to theoretically live in, so impact analysis is a must for me to evaluate which team will win.

Theory: Theory args are unacceptable for me to vote on unless you can CLEARLY articulate a scenario for abuse. Otherwise, I probably won't flow it because I'll just feel like one of the teams is using theory as a last resort.

T: T debates are fine, if a good case could be made on a T argument I will vote on it. I would like an emphasis on standards and voters.

Counterplans: Counterplans are cool, make sure they’re competitive, make sure there’s a net benefit. However, counter plans like word PICs aren’t my favorite arguments to vote on, but I’ll vote on them if you articulate a net benefit.

Disadvantages: This is my favorite negative argument in the debate, make sure your disads are either net benefits to the CP or are packaged with some case turns/impact defense.

THE KRITIK: If K’s are run by the negative team they MUST prove how the alt will solve with a good link story. I competed in high school as a cap debater, so if the neg decides to run it they should be warned that I get extremely critical on it because of my familiarity and experience. Nonetheless of a K is run, the neg team must make sure the alternative can resolve the impacts of the case.

Case: Case debates are really underrated, but do what you have to do for your negative strategies. I like to hear teams read on impact defense. This is the traditional aspect of the debate and I really like it when debaters show me the flaws of another card.

Impacts: I really like comparative impact calc because it makes resolving debates much easier for me. Questions of magnitude, timeframe, and probability are important and you should talk about those, but take it to the next level and talk about how your impacts interact with each other.

My Paradigms for LD Debate:

I can follow complex philosophical arguments well, but it's probably best to assume that I don't know the lit for everyone's benefit. Frameworks that use util/deontological norms of LD are my favorite, but I would love to see the debaters challenge themselves with other unconventional values. Make sure you actually know how the value works before you use them in the round.

Ks: Ks are decent when they're done well, but I wouldn't recommend running one of them if it won't be clear for everyone. Don't assume I know the literature, explaining is everything! I might know it, I might have run it, but I still want you to explain the theory anyway in a way that someone who is less acquainted can understand. Make sure you do the necessary work on the link and alt level. I want to know exactly what the link is and how it applies to the aff (where applicable) and I want to know exactly what the alt does and what it looks like.

Theory: Not a fan, but if run well I am more than willing to listen and vote on it.

Plans/CPs: Love them, but make sure counterplans are competitive. Perms are a test of competition.

Speaking:

I'm usually okay with spreading but since we are online and there's bound to be a slow connection, I am less tolerant of it so please be fair to the other team and speak at a pace everyone can understand. Accommodate for virtual debate. If you think something is important, slow down. Please don't be rude during cross-examination or points will be docked off, to an extent, it includes repetitive interrupting but the person in question also can't speak forever on an answer because I will recognize they're just trying to waste the time of their opponent. Nonetheless, have fun and be kind! :)

Speaks: I really, really don't like speed. I'm not even talking about spreading. If you go fast, i'll flow it and i'll evaluate the arg, but i won't want to, so if you dont want to take the risk on your speaks and/or the ballot, go slow.

Evidence: I will always call for evidence. Especially for args that are critical to the round. Don't misrepresent, or you're pretty much screwed. Also, I don’t flow card names in constructive/rebuttal, so if you want me to notice a specific piece of evidence, tell me what it says on top of its name.

Extensions: Offense needs to be extended in all speeches except for maybe the 1st rebuttal (if its offense in case). Some judges ask for 2nd rebuttal to be interactive with the first rebuttal, and while i agree its definitely helpful if you don't have to respond to everything in summary, it isn't necessary to secure my ballot. Impact extensions can be really short, since i would prefer to see more clash in the links.

Args: Don't run progressive arguments. Also, i'm tech over truth, but i will really not want to give you the ballot if you run bad args like extinction (unless you really convince me it will happen!). If one of yall is throwing on purpose, lmk beforehand so i dont have to flow.

General Speaking:

1) If you don't signpost, you're gna see me not flowing, so if you want what you say to be on my flow, please tell me where you’re at.

2) WEIGH WHAT YOU SAY IN ALL SPEECHES. The worst thing as a judge is to intervene because each side had an argument get extended. In that case, i will just vote with my gut feeling, and you probably won't like it. Also, weighing doesn't just mean throw out buzzwords like "we out weigh in scope" and then say something completely unrelated.

3) Give me a roadmap, and if you tell me you're starting with an overview, please tell me where to flow it.

4) I was hella abusive in crossfire when i debated, so i won't straight up down in you speaks for being a bit rude. However, if you're not letting your opponent talk at all, i'm probably not gna like you, and if i don't like you, you won't like your speaks.

5) I’m not a big fan of funny tag lines. It doesn’t matter too much but I personally think your tagline should get right to the crux of the argument so i know what im looking for.

6) In a bubble round, if you ask me how to get 30 speaks, ill tell you, and if you don't screw it up completely, you will probably get at least a 29.

Other Stuff:

1) I'm generally gonna disclose and give the exact rfd as to how i made the decision from the perspective of the flow. However, if you have any questions about speaking, feel free to ask me.

2) I probably won't be giving all my attention to crossfire, and i probably wont be flowing it either. If you wan't something to be evaluated that came from cross, bring it up in your speech.

I am a parent judge and have been judging extemporaneous speaking and other speech events for 3 years. Many years ago, I competed in persuasive oratory, dramatic interpretation, and duo interpretation.

As an extemp judge, I look for organization, analysis, sourcing, and strong delivery. If you are making a persuasive argument, then you should consider addressing the other side of the argument at some point in your speech. Also, please state your question before you start and give me time to write it down.

I have taught and coached at Round Rock Christian, TX, for 15 years across events. I am passionate about this activity and its value for competitors to 'find their voice' in their events. Please ask if you have any questions about my paradigm.

In Round Conduct

I have zero tolerance for bullying and disrespect directed toward anyone in the competition space. I have and will stop rounds if it is taking place. If you are competing against someone who is less experienced, please be gracious to them. We are a community and with that comes certain expectations of how we interact with others.

Time use

Across events, your strategy for time use will be noted on the ballot.

Overall thoughts

I favor bold, energetic, engaged debaters who best represent what the event they are competing in asks of a competitor. Teach me something new. I believe each debate event has something unique about it and do not consider events to be interchangeable.

As a communication activity, in my opinion, spreading does not enhance the education space. If you choose to spread, please sure to signpost effectively. Avoid it in rebuttal speeches. I refuse to yell out things like clear, as if you have any question about whether I understand, you need to adapt your delivery. While some jargon is warranted, the over use of it is not effective communication or an argumentation strategy.

I will weigh first on framework, then the contention level debate. Theory arguments will be dealt with secondarily.

Please note, linking everything to nuclear war without proper warrants is not effective. I am looking to see how your argumentation speaks to the resolution and what it asks of each position in the debate.

Giving voters allows you to narrate the round for me. If you cannot articulate why you won the round, you likely did not.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I favor a traditional style with lower speeds and attention to the value/criterion, but I can adapt to more progressive style of argumentation. This event is not policy debate for one. If you spread, please sign post effectively.

Public Forum

My paradigm is convince me. I strongly dislike the Negative team going first and I recommend that you do not.

Congress

Delivery: this is a competition and delivery style will be a factor in ranking. Please exhibit the expected decorum in a Congress chamber because I do drop ranks for behavior that is unbecoming, including being rude or yelling.

Speeches: I expect a balance between preparation and the ability to navigate through the arguments so far in the round. Crystallize. I am looking for more than a surface understanding of legislation and its impacts. Questioning: use questioning as an opportunity to showcase your knowledge on legislation and your ability to expose issues on the opposition. Avoid: wasting chamber time with irrelevant questions, unnecessary motions, being dramatic about taking a first speech, or ignoring Presiding Officer gavel taps. Being gaveled down is not a flex.

I expect competitors to come prepared on legislation and yes, I am listening when the chamber is planning the docket.

For the Presiding Officer, I expect a fair and efficient chamber. A strong PO will rank high, but it is not an automatic 1st place.

Interpretation

My paradigm for interp events is whether you are believable or not as your character(s). Do you have advocacy in events that traditionally expect it? What about your time use? I will be looking at your introductions that they are carefully put together. I am looking for a polished performance that demonstrates a fine attention to detail. Your performance across events should have layers, demonstrating nuance and complexity in characters. We don't like music played with just one note, don't perform any piece with no vocal, emotional, or pacing variety.

Artistic plagiarism: as a coach of those in the interpretation events, I take this seriously. If you are performing a piece that has been on the national stage, make it yours, not a duplicate of the performance.

Platform Speaking

Whether you are in oratory, info, impromptu, or one of the extemporaneous speaking events, try to stand out by not sounding canned. Teach me something new. Humor, well used, is always appreciated. Like debate, your use of time will be reflected in the comments.

Hendrickson '19 | Texas A&M '22

Email: bryce.hann@gmail.com

I was a 4-year PF debater for Hendrickson HV with vast national circuit exposure. I’m now studying political science at Texas A&M.

General Philosophy: I’m your typical flow judge but I’m a sucker for a good speaker and great persuasion. The quickest way to my ballot is providing quality warrants to weighed impacts in a persuasive manner. Meaning, don’t just extend through ink. I love the flow, but presentation and persuasion are huge.

Be intelligent. Please do not say the same thing over and over again. Find new ways to develop complex arguments delivered in a simple and succinct way. Warrant everything.

If you're able, I strongly prefer that you stand up during your speeches. It builds character lol

Arguments need to have purpose. Blippy responses in mass quantity in rebuttal are a great way to show you’re not persuasive and can’t actually interact with your opponent’s arguments.

Truth > Tech. I do think debate is a game, but not at the expense of truth. PLEASE don’t make ridiculous arguments that have no real-world application. On the off-chance that ridiculous arguments are cold dropped by the other team, you’ll probably win the argument but your speaks will suffer.

2nd rebuttal needs to answer the first. At the very least, turns HAVE to be answered. In summary, defense DOESN'T stick so you need to extend it.

Weighing is the most important thing. Do it or lose.

Speaks: As I mentioned above, I love a good speaker. Speaks depend on both strategy and speaking ability. I range from 26.5-30.

· Minimum speaks are reserved for those who are offensive and/or belittling to opponents or anyone else OR for those who break rules

· 26.5-27.5 = below average

· 28 = average

· 28.5-29.5 = above average

· 30 = stellar performance

Speed: Do NOT sacrifice clarity and persuasion for speed. I can usually follow but won't be kind on the speaks side if you’re on the verge of full on spreading. If you need to be fast, then be fast with a purpose, not just to be fast. If I can't understand you, I will say "clear" once and one time only. If something doesn't make it on the flow because you went too fast, that's tough.

Theory: Unless there is a clear violation in the round, I believe theory has absolutely no place in PF. That being said, I will always listen to what you have to say but we both know there is not enough time to develop a good theory argument. If you truly think you can do it, then by all means roll the dice and try to impress me.

Evidence: *** Please be able to produce your evidence when it's called for. You might as well save them as PDFs to avoid internet issues. Be able to highlight what you cite in the article. Evidence is crucial. When a debate is close, the better evidence is usually a good indicator of what team wins, so please do comparative evidence analysis. PLEASE do not miscut or misconstrue evidence. If you do, your speaks will suffer. It is your responsibility to understand what your author is saying and the methodology behind it. If you want me to call for a card, tell me in your speech. Also, evidence with important claims need to be warranted. Don't just say "X author says Y will happen so vote aff". Explain why X author says Y will happen.

Intervention: The last thing I want to do is intervene. If I have to then chances are it won’t be great for either team. Do your job well so mine is easy!

If you have any questions then feel free to shoot me an email.

Thanks and gig em

LD: I'm generally a tab judge so I really don't care what you run as long as I can understand you. Spreading is fine and if I can't understand you I will let you know. I debated primarily in a more traditional setting however I'm familiar with everything. Have good clash and be respectful to your opponent.

I'm a recent high school grad and primarily competed in LD/IX/Congress. Ask me anything you like before the round and I will always give feedback if I am permitted.

Lay judge - Second time Judging

Don't forget to extend your arguments

Continuously weigh arguments

PF Paradigm:

The number one priority of Public Forum Debate is that it remains accessible at all times.

Debaters are expected to time themselves and their oppenents. If there is some discrepancy on time, your speaker points will be in jeopardy. Please be responsible.

Go at whatever speed you are comfortable as long as it is not spreading.

I will flow what is said during speech, but not crossfire. I expect you to extend arguments from crossfire if you want to use them.

You must provide your win conditions. I need a framework to interpret how the round will be judged. That also means that weighing needs to be considers as well.

Don't assume definitions especially in the resolutions.

I will look at evidence only in the case that both teams appear to have evidence that contradict each other.

InterPA

Tech

Diction matters more in online competition than in face to face competition. In synchronous rounds, please emphasize your diction more.

You are welcome to ask for feedback regarding your placement within the camera.

I'd recommend you make sure the camera is perpendicular to your eyes/face. The angle coming from below sometimes makes viewing facial involvement unclear.

Preferences

Content Warning before your pieces. If you have any belief that your content could upset someone, you owe it to your audience to prepare us. Plot twists are not worth hurting your audience.

I really evaluate the quality of the cut/writing in close rounds.

A cut needs to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. The beginning means the characters, relationships, and problems are introduced. A perfect teaser has these element. The middle shows the characters attempting and failing to resolve a problem. The end discusses whether characters resolve or fail to resolve the problem and then what happen because of that.

Public address speeches follow some kind of previewed and road mapped structure to the speech.

Event Specific

Info

I don't evaluate lack of VAs as negative. I evaluate overused or nonhelpful VAs as a negative.

I don't really care about how you move in your speech.

OO

I follow PCS and CES structures the best.

I am sucker for empirics. I don't believe something is inherently a problem that affects everyone until you show me with a source that it affects people more than yourself. For example, if your speech is about how "We say no too much," you better prove beyond a doubt that we empirically say "No" a lot.

DI

I'm kind of over traumatizing DIs. DI is my favorite event though.

I value verisimilitude in the characterization and the blocking.

HI

Characterization matters the most. I value clear characters and efficient movement between the characters.

I also really pay attention to the resolution of the problem in HI. If the problem is resolved in a sentence or through an apparent unknown force. I blame the cut.

Duo

I hate how its done digital and really hope no one assigns it to me.

Blocking should highlight the conflict between the characters.

I find speaking towards the camera instead of pretending the two are in the same piece to be more believable.

POI

Characterization should be clear. I shouldn't doubt the differences between the characters.

Binder tech or lack of binder tech is irrelevant to me.

Extemp:

Tech

Time yourself for synchronous rounds. I don't trust internet connections to be consistent to allow me to give you effective time signals.

I can tell if you're reading off of your computer.

Sitting or Standing don't matter to me.

Preferences

I will flow the speech.

I don't look down on speeches past 7:00, but 7:20 is a little risk

Link back to the question always. Tell me why you are answering questions.

Fluency matters insomuch that I can understand you. Short pauses and disruptions will not be marks against, but if I cannot follow what you are saying then I will have trouble evaluating your speech.

email: lishujun@gmail.com

For Interpretive Speech Events (POI, DI, DUO, HI) I prefer a clean presentation of book etiquette in the events that a black book is needed. Clean page turns and blocking with your black book is preferred.

Clean and syncopated blocking and use of tonality and vocal expression is preferred. Also scenes from exposition to rising and falling action should be well expressed with a variety of emotions and transitions should be clearly articulated in a way that connects audience with characters and literature.

For Debate (CX, PF) I'm a solvency person. Show me plan text and why it matters and how it translates into tangible results that can either maintain or improve the SQ. Overall, as long as AFF and NEG stick to STOCK Issues, I believe it will enhance the overall debate and educational outcomes. I'm open to Kritiks as well.

(LD, WSD) how does your presentation make the world a better place both practically and theoretically. Whichever team can uphold its criterion and prove how the world is a better place under the construct of its case will win.

For INFO, OO, EXTEMP, I prefer quality sources and clean speaker transitions throughout the speech.

Im an experienced debater. I competed at nationals and tfa state three straight years in pf debate. In cx I competed at UIL state three out of four years, making it to semifinals and winning third in two of those years. I’m open to any argument as long as you have a clear link, get creative!! I don’t want to watch a card dump round. No spreading will be flowed, I’m okay with speed on case reading however.

For email chain, Kolban.mills@gmail.com

general debate tips

1. line by line is so important and how i'll be following the whole round. more so in the rebuttal and final focus Clash is veryyyyyy important, the less clash the less I'm going to listen to you. Use your time effectively, don't consistently repeat yourself.

2. impact calc is so important, show me what I have to weigh in the debate and why i should vote you (magnitude, timeframe, etc) and especially in pf be concise on why your impact outweighs theirs.

3. time yourselves

4. be nice to one another, I will destroy your speaker points.

5. if you are gonna read a framework please use it during the rest of the debate also. If you are not gonna use it dont read it, but if you do read one its usually where I start when looking to make a decision in the round, because I believe the framework is supposed to frame the round, which means all of your args should probably be filtered/tied to your framework.

6. I'll listen to any argument, just prove it to me

7. For CX, if you run a topicality run it well. If its broken, abusive, or confusing I wont flow

8. Most importantly have fun, debate is supposed to be fun

PF- line by line is so important and how i'll be following the whole round. More so in the rebuttal and final focus Clash is very important, the less clash the less I'm going to listen to you. Use your time effectively, don't consistently repeat yourself. I don't want to listen to a card dump, don't do it. Have analysis of your evidence, not just reading as many evidence cards as you can. Because its PF, evidence and analysis will be equally needed.

Hi, I'm Katherine Peckham, a junior at Westwood and I'm TFA qualified this year. My background leans more towards foreign extemp but I'm well versed in all current events. I evaluate presentation a bit more strongly than content, but I expect well developed content.

Sensitive issues: 

Racism or bigotry in your speech will get you dropped ranks. I personally don't need any trigger warnings, but please check with anyone else in the room. My pronouns are they/them and consistently misgendering me will get you dropped ranks.

Pre-round:

Let me know if you need time signals, I'm comfortable with the standard 5 down but let me know what you prefer. I am also okay with virtual competitors timing themselves as long as you tell me where your flow is.

Content:

My perfect speech is like an essay. I want to see well warranted claims, clear subpoints and interesting on-tops along with . Ideally, you would use higher-level sourcing as well, but relevant and reputable sources (especially local sources) work well.

Presentation:

For presentation, I prioritize vocal variation over fluency but in close rounds, I will use fluency as a metric to compare one speaker against the rest. I don't mind if you use your hands more often as long as they are used intentionally. I'd prefer to see a variety of well-chosen hand gestures than very few on only important words. 

anooprac@utexas.edu

I debated for Westwood for 4 years and debated on the national circuit for 2 years. I haven't done anything debate-related in 2 years so please go slower AND BE CLEAR, especially on tags, and keep in mind I have 0 topic knowledge. If you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll say slow and clear like 3 times and then stop flowing if it happens again.

Read what you want in front of me (granted it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc) and I'll do my best to understand it. But based on my experience, I am most comfortable with policy, theory, some philosophy, some Ks (cap, antiblackness, set col, psychoanalysis). Regardless, I still want a good explanation of your argument in speeches and lots of impacting and judge instruction.

Tricks and friv theory are fine, but don't be super blippy and please please please weigh so debates are resolvable. I'll try my best to evaluate it but I was never a tricks debater.

Things I like (good speaks):

• impact turns
• weighing
• collapsing
• good overviews
• being funny
• efficiency
• good line by lines

Things I don't like (bad speaks):

• being mean
• stealing prep
• if you're debating a novice please don't blitz through everything and make the debate un-educational for them
• not signposting and jumping around the flow
• clipping cards
• being dodgy and sketchy in cross ex

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before round.

Also make sure to have fun :3

I debated for four years in Texas in PF and briefly in LD. I have a solid knowledge of critical arguments and theory. I currently compete for the Texas Speech Team in Extemp and all the Public Address Events.

My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward.

- Impact calculus is important to me, I want to see a clear weighing of both worlds, especially in the summary. With impacts, I prefer you give me clear material impacts on people, rather than just saying things like nuke war. Contextualize your impacts!

- I like clean, straight down the flow debate with a lot of clash. Sign-post during speeches.

- Not the biggest fan of card-debate. Use that time to make arguments rather than harp over minor things in cards!

- Make extensions that clearly tell me what exactly I'm supposed to extend, not just dropping a card name.

- If you introduce a new argument in the Summary, I won't evaluate it. Stick to extending already established offense/defense.

- I'm good with speed (just enunciate as much as you can) and pretty much all types of critical arguments.

- Be conscious of your positionality and how you treat others in round. Rounds can get intense but at the end of the day, debate should be a space that is safe and empowering for everyone involved.

In extemp, I value unified analysis, a solid demonstration of background/historical knowledge on the question, and confidence in delivery. Using substantial and diverse sourcing (so like in international speeches, don't only cite Western outlets) in each point while weaving in the analysis is a marker of a good speech for me.

For Duet, I don't want to see any unnecessary PDA.

Hi there,

I did PF for 4 years in high school (2014-2018) at Clements High School in Sugar Land, Texas, with exposure to TFA State, NSDA Nationals, and Gold TOC.

I would say I’m pretty flow, so the best way to win my ballot is to win the flow.

How to Win My Ballot:

1. PF is research based, so I expect all args to be well substantiated and warranted

2. Second rebuttal MUST respond to 1st rebuttal offense (mainly turns) if you are not kicking out of it, but how you manage that attack/defend time split is up to you. I find 3-1 to be the most useful.

3. I do think that Crossfire is an important part of debate, so use it wisely to gain concessions, lock in double binds, etc.

4. Extensions should include the link and impact

5. Signposting is critical, if I don’t know where to flow something I won’t flow it

6. I was a first speaker, so I heavily evaluate the summary. Summaries should crystallize, possibly introduce voters, frontline critical offense, extend turns, terminal D, etc.

7. I am a line by line judge, but I also expect some big picture implications, especially in FF

8. WEIGHING IS SUPER IMPORTANT AND SHOULD BE DONE IN MOST SPEECHES otherwise I will have to intervene, which is usually a bad thing

General Stuff:

1. Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic, just use common sense

2. No new evidence is allowed to be read in FF or Second Summary

3. Each speech should feed off the previous one, so all collapsible offense in the FF should be in Summary, but only go for the issues that will win you the round

4. I trust you to time yourselves, but please be honest

5. I have a high threshold for theory/K acceptance, unless the abuse is clear and of high degree

6. DA’s, CP’s, Plans are fine, I think they encourage more direct clash. I am a more traditional judge though

7. Offensive OV’s are fine in 1st Rebuttal, just don’t make them insanely long/abusive

8. Speed is fine, but I will only yell clear ONCE: continued lack of clarity will result is speaker point drops. Don't gut spread

9. I do not believe in case disclosure, so I will not incentivize teams to disclose

10. Teams should be ready to go as soon as possible; that especially means PREFLOWING BEFORE ROUND

11. Flex prep is fine

12. If you run FW, you must link back into it, otherwise its a waste of speech time. Competing FW's are fine, but keep it consistent

Evidence:

1. Severely miscut evidence/fake evidence = severely penalized

2. Paraphrasing evidence is fine, but it should not be power tagged

3. All cut cards must be present and easily accessible to your opponents and me. For each minute you take to find a cut card you will lose 1/2 a speaker point

4. I generally will not call for cards unless it seems to be blatantly miscut or your opponents tell me to call for it during their speeches

Speaker Points:

1. I start at a 28 and move up/down in increments of 0.5, primarily based on your fluency and argument execution

2. The funnier you are, the more reward you will see

3. Being rude will cause you to lose speaks

4. The occasional cuss word is fine, as long as it is not derogatory

5. This will not affect speaker points, but I enjoy witty taglines

End Notes:

1. I’m a very chill/easy going judge, so don’t hesitate to ask me questions

2. I will usually disclose at the end of round and give verbal feedback. If not, it will be on the ballot

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, even though debate is a competitive activity, it should be FUN, so if you are not enjoying debate, something is wrong

Contact Info:

If you have any questions outside the round, don't hesitate to reach out to me at ani.thakur@utexas.edu or message me on Facebook

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 am a parent from Westwood HS. My son competes in extemporaneous speech. This is the second tournament I have judged.

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 and have only judged rounds. Explain technical lingo when using it and I will judge similarly based off PF. I will also look at how your framework fits your case and encourage clash with your opponent.

Send cases to dishadots@gmail.com.

Policymaker paradigm, but open to all arguments.

Quality > quantity of arguments.

Speed isn't an issue, but analysis of arguments > speed. Evidence is necessary, but reading a bunch of cards back to back isn't a substitute for analysis/explaining the impact of that argument in your own words.

Feel free to ask specifics prior to the round.

IE: I believe that whatever you can bring to your speech or performance that is unique and authentic, while drawing an audience in to be fully present with you displays a certain kind of creativity and skill to be appreciated.

Speech: Structure and content are in focus with an appreciation for originality when possible.

Interpretation: Flow of storyline, depth of character, authenticity, as well as the minute details you’ve added throughout your piece displays how much effort and thought have gone into your performance.

Hi!

I’m rarely on the judges side of things I’m usually working tab and organizing tournaments so it’s very exciting to be returning to the judges table for a while!

I will vote off progressive arguments in fact they are my favorites!

Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! Warrant your arguments! I want to see that you care! I want you to impact out your arguments beyond the first world! Focus on those historically ignored!

I live with seven roommates so things can get a little hectic! Bare with me!

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.

For extempers:

Content is very important-- your points need to be logical, easy to follow, and specific to the question. If you don't explain your content properly, even if I know what you mean, you will probably get ranked down. Treat me like a lay judge that reads dailies.

- Please back stats, info, etc. with credible SOURCES: source name, date with month/day/year

* if you use cool sources like thinktanks, books, etc. you will impress me more than random dailies.

Fluency is important. Make your speech interesting and engaging. I love humor, but anything in general that draws me in is great.

- Timing is kinda important-- if you go way under (<5:30 min) or way over (>7:30) I will likely rank you down. Between 6:50 and 7:00 is *chef's kiss*

* remember extemp triangle!

- If you have a funny AGD and good on-tops, you will impress me.

For impromptu:

Again, fluency is important. Draw me in, make the speech your own. Appropriate humor stands out.

For debate, please add me to email chain: oliviadanyang@gmail.com

- Please keep your own time

Good luck! Y'all got this :)