Come to University of Houston for LD camp this summer! UH has a great staff, is reasonably priced, and has an excellent staff to student ratio. If you have questions feel free to email me.

Berkeley update not good for strategies that involve upwards of 7+ off case positions.

blakeandrews55@gmail.com email with questions or for email chain purposes.

Head Coach at McNeil.

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Head Coach at McNeil High School

Worked at some smaller camps in the past like MGC for LD and UTNIF for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while and I judge a lot of debates each year. Some local, some nat circuit, some just practice rounds for my team.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you. My favorite debaters have included k debaters/ teams, but I also generally like how greenhill debates( policy and ld).I strongly prefer line by line debate on the K not long K overviews( blah).

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

I have been on staff at a high school for seven years. My degree is in Organizational Communication with a Minor in Business. Much of my coursework and training was geared towards conflict resolution, argumentation and debate, with an emphasis on speech and persuasion.

ARGUMENTS:

Appreciate passionate, not emotional arguments, based on logic and fully supported by evidence that can be substantiated. Focus on the depth and clarity of your arguments.

EVIDENCE:

Must prove the reliability of your evidence and sources.

BEHAVIOR:

I applaud being assertive, but keep away from being aggressive, mean and/or condescending. Yelling at a fast speed is not necessary.

SPEECHES AND PREP TIME:

Keep up with timing the speeches and prep time: I would rather focus 100% of my attention on the content of your speeches than watching the clock. You'll risk me forgetting the content of your speeches if I can't take detailed notes because you have asked for time signals.

LANGUAGE AND CLARITY:

Don't assume I know all of the jargon; explanations are important. At the end of the day, clearly layout what you believe, how you met your burden and how the other side failed to meet theirs.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Please go ahead and include me on the email chain: mdonaldson@connally.org. Quick note on prep time - please have your files SAVED to the flash drive or the email SENT prior to ending your prep. Be purposeful - don't waste anyone's time.

I debated at Waco: Connally HS from 2011 to 2013. We were a successful UIL team, but I understand that debate has changed since then.

I coached at Hillsboro HS from Fall 2014 to Spring 2016 before serving as the coach of China Spring HS from Fall 2016 to Spring 2020. From Fall 2020 to Spring 2023, I was the coach at Grandview HS. I currently serve as the Director of Communications and Director of UIL Academics for Connally ISD in Waco. I have had students medal at UIL State in interp, extemp, LD and CX. I have also coached TFA state and NSDA national qualifiers in policy debate and extemp.

Admittedly, I have transitioned to more of a tournament director/tab staff role in recent years as opposed to that of a judge. I still believe myself to be a capable adjudicator, but you might want to slow down some for me.

POLICY DEBATE:

I am a tab judge who will default to a policy-maker outlook if I am not given any other weighing mechanism or framework to view the round through. I am fine with any argument that you might want to run, just make sure that you are explicit with it and stay organized throughout the round. I like rounds that have a lot of DIRECT clash and have arguments that actually do something in the round as a whole. I don't particularly care for teams to throw out everything in an attempt to see what sticks. Try to be strategic. I will do my best to adapt to whatever strategy you want to use. I am fine with speed, but need clear taglines. I don't like it when debaters just read evidence nonstop - take the time to USE the evidence as a tool to persuade me of something. I understand the necessity of choosing to avoid underviews, but I'd like to see some sort of analysis at least at the somewhere in the speech - whether it be at the top or the bottom. I recognize that your authors are well-versed on the topics that they are writing on, but I really want to see that you recognize how those texts operate in the context of the arguments that you are making.

On a personal level, I really enjoy K debate, but I just ask that you do the work to really make the literature/overarching concepts accessible to everyone in the round (particularly coming out of the first speech). I also really like T debate, but I cannot STAND watching a messy T-focused round. At the end of the day, please don't feel pressured to run a certain type of argument or debate using a certain strategy based around my paradigm. I really do try my hardest to just adapt to what is happening in front of me.

I really don't have a preference about a "type" of round that I would like to see, but I enjoy seeing arguments be contextualized in terms of the greater scheme of the round at hand. I like for debaters to make explicit connections between arguments in addition to making strategic choices when it comes to condensing down near the end of the round. I think there is a pretty big importance in both having strong communication skills/persuasive ability AND making it a priority to resolve all issues in the round, but there is definitely greater importance in handling all of the arguments - be practical: spending 5 minutes on 1 of 8 arguments and dropping the other 7 won't win you the round in most cases. To clarify - this doesn't mean that you shouldn't condense down. I would far prefer it if you did. I just mean that you shouldn't go for the "more is more" approach from the beginning. I want substance and quality over quantity for the entirety of a round...if at all possible.

To sum it all up: do what you do best and do it well. I am just as likely to vote for you in a round that deals with super focused, small scale impacts as one that deals with the most stereotypical terminal impacts that you can imagine. I am just as likely to enjoy the round that is as wrapped up in the stock issues as I am to enjoy one that is super progressive.

Have fun. Be safe. Make good choices!

LD DEBATE:

I don't judge LD as often as Policy, but I like to think that I can handle my way around a round. I was raised around traditional LD rounds but thoroughly enjoy the more policy-oriented approach that has started to worm its way into the event. My biggest suggestion is for debaters to use whatever style they are most comfortable with - I can adapt to whatever you do.

I am completely fine with speed as long as I can understand your tags. I like to see a lot of evidence in LD rounds, but analysis is definitely welcomed. I'm going to be honest: I LOVE a good framework debate in LD, but I am often left unimpressed with them. Basically - if you're gonna go for it....GO FOR IT.

I think that LD-ers tend to struggle with time management between the different positions that they are arguing. Work hard to stay on top of each of the arguments of the flow and try not to waste time by overextending yourself. Please be sure to highlight clear links in each of you arguments and try to sell a believable impact story. Perhaps most importantly, try to remember that your advocacy does not exist in a vacuum. Please give a detailed impact calculus throughout the round that highlights the differences between the world of the aff vs the world of the neg. Show me why you are winning!

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

I hardly ever judge PFD, so I'm not totally up to date with any trends. You can look at my other paradigms to see what I generally look for, but please be mindful of the time constraints of this event.

SPEECH EVENTS:

I prioritize answering the question/providing a clear thesis above all else, but speech structure and style matter a ton to me. I enjoy well crafted attention getting devices and place a lot of emphasis on quality transitions. Please work to contextualize each of your (sub)points in relation to your thesis.

INTERP EVENTS:

I enjoy seeing interpretations that are organic/genuine. Your character(s) should be discovering these words for the first time. Dramatic arc is a MUST - work towards the climax and show me how your character is changed by the journey that they take. Please avoid messy book work/physicality and watch for monotonous vocal patterns.

GENERAL:

I try to write a ton on ballots and work to give pretty detailed notes the moment that something happens, so if I'm not looking at you, don't think too much into it. I like to put things down that I thought were successful as often as I put things down that didn't work for me.

Please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round. It won't hurt my feelings.

Please go ahead and include me on the email chain: mdonaldson@connally.org. Quick note on prep time - please have your files SAVED to the flash drive or the email SENT prior to ending your prep. Be purposeful - don't waste anyone's time.

I debated at Waco: Connally HS from 2011 to 2013. We were a successful UIL team, but I understand that debate has changed since then.

I coached at Hillsboro HS from Fall 2014 to Spring 2016 before serving as the coach of China Spring HS from Fall 2016 to Spring 2020. From Fall 2020 to Spring 2023, I was the coach at Grandview HS. I currently serve as the Director of Communications and Director of UIL Academics for Connally ISD in Waco. I have had students medal at UIL State in interp, extemp, LD and CX. I have also coached TFA state and NSDA national qualifiers in policy debate and extemp.

Admittedly, I have transitioned to more of a tournament director/tab staff role in recent years as opposed to that of a judge. I still believe myself to be a capable adjudicator, but you might want to slow down some for me.

POLICY DEBATE:

I am a tab judge who will default to a policy-maker outlook if I am not given any other weighing mechanism or framework to view the round through. I am fine with any argument that you might want to run, just make sure that you are explicit with it and stay organized throughout the round. I like rounds that have a lot of DIRECT clash and have arguments that actually do something in the round as a whole. I don't particularly care for teams to throw out everything in an attempt to see what sticks. Try to be strategic. I will do my best to adapt to whatever strategy you want to use. I am fine with speed, but need clear taglines. I don't like it when debaters just read evidence nonstop - take the time to USE the evidence as a tool to persuade me of something. I understand the necessity of choosing to avoid underviews, but I'd like to see some sort of analysis at least at the somewhere in the speech - whether it be at the top or the bottom. I recognize that your authors are well-versed on the topics that they are writing on, but I really want to see that you recognize how those texts operate in the context of the arguments that you are making.

On a personal level, I really enjoy K debate, but I just ask that you do the work to really make the literature/overarching concepts accessible to everyone in the round (particularly coming out of the first speech). I also really like T debate, but I cannot STAND watching a messy T-focused round. At the end of the day, please don't feel pressured to run a certain type of argument or debate using a certain strategy based around my paradigm. I really do try my hardest to just adapt to what is happening in front of me.

I really don't have a preference about a "type" of round that I would like to see, but I enjoy seeing arguments be contextualized in terms of the greater scheme of the round at hand. I like for debaters to make explicit connections between arguments in addition to making strategic choices when it comes to condensing down near the end of the round. I think there is a pretty big importance in both having strong communication skills/persuasive ability AND making it a priority to resolve all issues in the round, but there is definitely greater importance in handling all of the arguments - be practical: spending 5 minutes on 1 of 8 arguments and dropping the other 7 won't win you the round in most cases. To clarify - this doesn't mean that you shouldn't condense down. I would far prefer it if you did. I just mean that you shouldn't go for the "more is more" approach from the beginning. I want substance and quality over quantity for the entirety of a round...if at all possible.

To sum it all up: do what you do best and do it well. I am just as likely to vote for you in a round that deals with super focused, small scale impacts as one that deals with the most stereotypical terminal impacts that you can imagine. I am just as likely to enjoy the round that is as wrapped up in the stock issues as I am to enjoy one that is super progressive.

Have fun. Be safe. Make good choices!

LD DEBATE:

I don't judge LD as often as Policy, but I like to think that I can handle my way around a round. I was raised around traditional LD rounds but thoroughly enjoy the more policy-oriented approach that has started to worm its way into the event. My biggest suggestion is for debaters to use whatever style they are most comfortable with - I can adapt to whatever you do.

I am completely fine with speed as long as I can understand your tags. I like to see a lot of evidence in LD rounds, but analysis is definitely welcomed. I'm going to be honest: I LOVE a good framework debate in LD, but I am often left unimpressed with them. Basically - if you're gonna go for it....GO FOR IT.

I think that LD-ers tend to struggle with time management between the different positions that they are arguing. Work hard to stay on top of each of the arguments of the flow and try not to waste time by overextending yourself. Please be sure to highlight clear links in each of you arguments and try to sell a believable impact story. Perhaps most importantly, try to remember that your advocacy does not exist in a vacuum. Please give a detailed impact calculus throughout the round that highlights the differences between the world of the aff vs the world of the neg. Show me why you are winning!

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

I hardly ever judge PFD, so I'm not totally up to date with any trends. You can look at my other paradigms to see what I generally look for, but please be mindful of the time constraints of this event.

SPEECH EVENTS:

I prioritize answering the question/providing a clear thesis above all else, but speech structure and style matter a ton to me. I enjoy well crafted attention getting devices and place a lot of emphasis on quality transitions. Please work to contextualize each of your (sub)points in relation to your thesis.

INTERP EVENTS:

I enjoy seeing interpretations that are organic/genuine. Your character(s) should be discovering these words for the first time. Dramatic arc is a MUST - work towards the climax and show me how your character is changed by the journey that they take. Please avoid messy book work/physicality and watch for monotonous vocal patterns.

GENERAL:

I try to write a ton on ballots and work to give pretty detailed notes the moment that something happens, so if I'm not looking at you, don't think too much into it. I like to put things down that I thought were successful as often as I put things down that didn't work for me.

Please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round. It won't hurt my feelings.

CX: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 policy rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I will let you know if you are going too fast. It is typically theory/T standards/voters where I will lose you if you spread through them. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I would say that I am more a policy maker judge than anything else. This means that I will vote for the best advocacy in the round, which means you have 3 options as the negative (squo good, CP, or K). I would say very much tech over truth. Default condo good. On T I prefer a well developed standard debate. I tend to default reasonability but at the end of the day if you can sell me on competing interps, I'm not opposed. This should be the only thing you are going for in the 2NR if this is your strategy. DA's - I love good uniqueness updates on DA's and 2AC N/Us. Love a good Politics scenario. Will vote on the impact turn on either the DA or the ADV. I'm cool with CPs. On the K debate, I am unfamiliar with a lot of K literature, I know the basics of Cap and Security but because I haven't engaged with the arguments in a few years, I'm definitely a little hazy on the details. If you are going to run a K or a K AFF please make sure you can explain it well. I want to feel comfortable after the initial cross-x that I know what your world looks like. I will vote on Framework regarding the K debate. Finally, on the Theory debate, make sure there is a clear violation and that you have some real offense coming off the argument if it is something you are going to commit to.

PF: I typically judge policy debate. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. I need reasons why your world is a better world for me. I don't think PF is the place for frivolous theory. I don't mind voting on critical arguments although I will grant leeway if you butcher the explanation of the criticism to your opponents. I am cool with speed, however, seeing as we will be online I urge you to stay at about 80%. Defense isn't sticky. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. I would like to be on the email chain. Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com.

LD: To be honest over the last 3 years, I have transitioned primarily to a tournament director. I judge maybe 20 rounds tops each year of varying skill levels. My ability to keep up with speed has faltered as a result of not keeping in form. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. I evaluate and compare arguments through an offensive/defensive heuristic as well as impact calculus. Please slow down for theory spikes, any analysis, or what you deem important. I flow on paper, if I can't write it down it doesn't show up on my flow. I prefer not to flow off the document, if you are going to go so fast that I need to, send me your analytics. I would like to hear taglines. During the rebuttals when you are doing comparative work, please please please slow down. I'm not the fastest flow judge anymore. I will vote on the RVI especially if you can link in round abuse. I'm not familiar with the skep stuff. I'm not familiar with most K literature. I understand the basics of Cap and Security but outside of that don't assume I know your author/method/K. Your lack of explanation on the K lowers my thresholds on what it takes for your opponent to beat it. I feel you should probably defend some sort of alternative/advocacy statement. Feel free to reach out for any other questions. Add me to the chain Julian.T.Erdmann@gmail.com please.

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.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

Contact Information:

smgreen@conroeisd.net

DEBATE

Speed:

I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.

LD

I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.

Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?

Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.

K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.

Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.

My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:

1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?

2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?

3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Extemp Speaking

Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.

I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.

AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!

Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.

Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

Congress

Policy

I'm a stock issues judge. However, in general, the affirmative should have a robust plan text. Just repeating the resolution is NOT a plan. It may be included in the solvency, but I'm looking for a legitimate plan. I'm not looking for a vague semblance of what we should do, but what exactly we need to do to solve the problem.

Negatives I don't take a card dump as good refutation/proving their case is flawed. Show me the cards uniquely link. Generic arguments are awful.

PF

Extemp Debate

BQ

Most of my LD paradigm applies except for the LD-specific ideas like value and criterion. In general, I do not believe in the burden of rejoinder/“silence is compliance” in this debate, but I’m going to weigh the arguments that, in totality, support each side. Each side does have an affirmative burden of proof for their respective side. In general, convince me. Make me feel the arguments and reasons I should believe you. I’m looking for people to debate the resolution, not just each other.

INTERP

It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:

Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.

Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.

Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.

Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.

Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.

Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.

Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

If you want to put a title on my debate philosophy, I’d call myself a policymaker.

When I judge a round, I pay attention to my flow. I care about dropped arguments, and I don’t like the neg to run time suck arguments and then kick out. That said, be sure I can take a good flow by speaking at a reasonable rate of speed. If you feel you must speak quickly, at least give me a chance to catch your tag lines and source citations, or, better yet, provide a link to your case.

I have no issues with theoretical debate or critical arguments, so long as you make me understand them. That said, I still prefer to judge a round about the resolution instead of a round about whether or not someone was abusive.

LD should remain value based. Although some recent LD resolutions cry out for the debaters to present a plan, please don't neglect the value framework tradition.

In CX debate, I consider T to be an important argument in the round but will not vote on it unless I judge there has been actual in-round abuse.

LD debate should have a strong value component and avoid overt policy-making.

I judge Congress on content and delivery. This type of debate demands a strong and passionate public speaking style. Questioning is crucial to final score. I strongly dislike rehashed arguments. Clash is important, but it needs to have actual refutation and not just mentioning the names of previous speakers. I object to the recent trend toward doing all prep work in-round and the abuse of in-house recesses to allow this.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

I tend to lean more traditional and prefer debaters stick to stock issues. I'm ok with speed, but I don't have the best hearing, so try to be clear and loud. Make sure you slow down and emphasize taglines. I'm fine with you debating K's as long as you fully explain the kritik.

I am primarily a policy coach/judge, but do have experience with LD and PF. I have been judging for more than 15 years and have judged on the UIL, TFA, and NSDA circuits.

In CX, I consider myself to be a policymaker judge, but what it comes down to is that the debater that convinces me is the debater that is going to get my vote. This means that I am looking for strong evidence as well as good analysis. I am looking for arguments that make sense. I am looking for cases that not only prove their own points but counter the opponent's points, as well. I strive to start the round with no preconceived notions. I want to see strong framework and strong impact calcs.

Do not make the mistake of presenting your case without arguing your opponent's. Yes, I am repeating that statement. It bears repeating.

Speed is ok, but at the end of the day, I still like to hear good speaking. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then your speaking habits are not showcasing what you should be doing. I would rather hear fewer quality arguments than to have so much crammed into your time that I am unable to see clearly how it all works together.

While I do not judge as much LD as I do CX, my paradigm remains much the same. I like very structured speeches with clear signposting, clear organization, and delineation between arguments. I want to see evidence early in the round but more analysis as the round progresses. Make sure that your Value and Criterion are strong and show me why I should vote on those - and back that up with what you are presenting with your evidence and analysis.

In Congress, it is important that you are active in the session. I know it becomes a game to see who can get the most speeches in, but unless they are quality speeches, it's going to backfire. Speeches should be quality speeches. And on that note, while I know it is super easy to read straight from notes while competing virtually, I don't like it and will not score a speech high if you are reading straight from your paper. Evidence is important and I want to hear sources. You should have at least one, and preferably two, sources per point. Once the initial speeches are made, it is vital that new arguments to keep things fresh and to promote clash are essential. The PO should have control of the chamber and be confident in his or her style and movements. A good PO will keep things flowing without stifling competitors and will manage to get an optimal number of speakers in. '

In IEs, I look for poise and confidence, good speaking style, strong movements and posture. In INF and OO, as well as extemp, quality evidence is essential but should flow seamlessly with the information. In all events, including interp, I would like to see you far enough away from the camera that movement is natural and not distracting. In OO and INF, as well as in interp, I would like to see a connection to society and/or to your own experiences. For me, the best pieces do both.

In interp, intros should be casual and conversational. Tell me why your topic is important, even in HI. What is the connection to society? To yourself? Blocking, movement, and bookwork (POI) should be natural and not distracting. Characters should be distinct and recognizable, vocally and physically. I don't mind the use of curse words, but do want to see pieces that are true to the author's intent.

I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have coached some CX, and I married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.

LD Debate:

I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

PFD:

See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.

CX/Policy:

I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.

EXTEMP DEBATE

This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.

Nothing special. I judge Congress/PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.

For TAB: Prefer judging Speech/Interp/BQ

--Debate Paradigm--

--General--

1. Speeches build on top of each other. Arguments not responded to in the subsequent speech are conceded, arguments in later speeches must be present in earlier speeches to hold substantive weight.

2. No “evidence paraphrasing,” taglines can paraphrased but they have to have evidence.

3. No Theory/K/CP, acceptable arguments are Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality

4. My default framing is the burdens if none other is presented.

5. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. No spreading.

--Notes--

1. Debate is an education place, do not run progressive arguments to exclude your opponent.

2. I am a lay judge, treat me as such.

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

Speech: For oratory and Informative speaking, I am looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose. With Informative, inform me. I don't mind advocacy but I am not looking for a Persuasive speech.

Interp: I try really hard not to take notes during your performance as I want to give you my full attention. If you can make me forget that I am timing you, that is great. It means, you took me to a new place, time, thought and away from the real world for the moment. That means you hit the mark! I love that. I enjoy all types of selections, those with many characters and those with one. I judge on how well done you performed that selection.

Congress: Congress is a wonderful event. I want you to clash with the other debaters in the chamber but in a professional way. Don't be snarky. If we are in the fourth or fifth speech on a particular piece of legislation, you better be bringing something new for argumentation or your speech will not be ranked high. You need to embrace the role of an elected representative/senator. You are not a high school student during this event.

LD/PFD: If you spread you will not get the win. Spreading is for policy debate. Keep it there. In LD, good analogies are just as good if not better than evidence. I want to hear logic and reasoning. Seriously, if you spread, it will be really hard to get the win. In PFD, if you spread you will not get the win. This is the layperson's version of Policy. It's more evidence driven. But it is not policy. Seriously, do not spread.

I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality, however the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counter-plan can solves and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of kritik’s but I will listen and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient. When I am judging World School debate, I want both teams to responds to points of order or to request that they address them once they have completed their presentation.

I am a traditional judge (don’t spread). I encourage you to use Value clash and weighing frequently. Stats and evidence is needed to support your arguments (my coach taught stats)- don’t just state them in your constructive. Your arguments that are extreme (war, extinction,racist, etc) need to be legitimatized. I don’t just buy the extreme arguments unless you prove they’re probable. Philosophical arguments aren’t as compelling without data. Use pathos too, it helps. Furthermore, my decision is made based on the Rebuttal. That’s what the focus of the debate should be. If you want me to focus on a point, say it in the rebuttal for it to factor into my decision. The Neg constructive is also the first neg rebuttal. Also, extend evidence. I admire weighing. Don’t just say your argument is better. Place your argument and your opponent’s on a scale, show me how your are comparatively better. Watch hot words in resolution like “on balance” or “just”. Advance the debate, evolve arguments to respond to what’s being said. Speaker points and speaking ability is a big help and your speaker points will be given accurately. Also, be polite! Use your cx to clarify, poke holes, and expose. Finally, keep your time and remember your prep. JUST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION SAYS OUGHT DOESN’T, IN THE SLIGHTEST, MEAN YOUR VALUE NEEDS TO BE MORALITY!! Your value needs to match the content of your case.

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes two framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I'm up for about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me I will vote almost exclusively on framework and impacts. Not a big fan of speed at all. If you are spreading then you aren't trying to win my ballot. If I can't follow you then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

I am a retired speech and debate coach. I coached almost all the events. I was a policy debater in high school and college (a long time ago).

Congress:

Be prepared. It is frustrating to take multiple in house recesses because nobody has a speech. Be active in the chamber (ask questions, make helpful motions or suggestions). Refute and/or reference previous speakers. Please don’t rehash. I love a good synthesis speech but don’t often see them. Good Presiding Officers are appreciated and will get ranked well.

Speech:

Public Speaking: In general, I prefer a more natural/conversational style and audience engagement. Ideas should be well supported. Transitional movement should be natural and appropriate for whatever space you are in. In extemp, the points should directly answer the topic question and the sources should be recent. I'm big on content so I'm looking for depth of analysis. In Info. I like to hear an interesting topic that isn't something everyone already knows about. Visuals should not be static - i.e. just a bunch of small pictures. In oratory, I appreciate good content balanced with humor. The solution section shouldn't just be a sentence or two.

Interp: Again, I prefer natural, believable characters. I appreciate good technique but it shouldn't be the focus. Put me in the moment with you and make me feel.

Debate:

I default policymaker but will vote for critical frameworks. If you are going to run a K, however, you should assume that I have not read the lit. and will need clear explanation. Things I like to see in a debate round: impact calculus, evidence comparison, clear signposting (If you make me guess where it goes on the flow, it might not be on my flow.) Please, please, please extend your offense. Things I don't like to see: blippy theory arguments, reading 5-10 pieces of evidence that all say basically the same thing combined with no analysis of how it responds to the argument, repeating arguments rather than extending them. Don’t go for everything in 2NR. Don’t kick the puppy rule: If you are clearly winning the round against a much less experienced team, be kind. Please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors (and anything else you want on my flow). I don’t care how fast you read evidence. I broke my right thumb in a car accident and although it has healed, writing is still painful. Speech drop or an email chain would be much appreciated.

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Overview:I am a tab judge and will vote on whatever FW you put in front of me. If I need to default in stock situations, I will default to a comparative justification framework, prioritizing offense and defense. Across all events, I tend to remain the same on most issues, particularly theory. I tend to put theory at the top of the flow and view it as a procedural argument. Furthermore, I tend to prefer more abstract phil arguments, so if you want to run Ks, go for performance, or ask me to engage in a particular role as a judge, I am alright with that.

Please use spiesva@gmail.com for email chains and any questions.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.

Other prevalent issues:

Clipping Cards:

I consider clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence as intentionally altering the text or highlights in such a way as to detract meaning from the card. I realize that is a pretty broad definition, so if you would like to run some sort of indict and theory argument, here are the standards I hold the card to. Is the alteration of the text germane? Is the alteration of the next meant to recontextualize the article from a different conclusion? I also consider the effects of the change to determine intent. The smaller the difference and impact of the clipping, the more sympathetic I am to the argument that the debater made a mistake.

If you are paraphrasing instead of cutting cards in LD or PF for a more traditional judge or tournament, I am okay with that. Especially if I am the odd judge out on a panel, please do not feel like you need to adapt away from this more traditional style. I would ask that you have the articles accessible if I need to access them to check evidence indicts.

Troll Theory:I would argue 99% of the time, students know what they are doing when they run a more troll-type theory strategy (League Theory, Shoe Theory, Font Theory, ect.). I understand there is value in running these extreme arguments to draw attention to issues in the debate community or a particular debate circuit. However, I also feel that these arguments are run against unsuspecting competitors as an easy way to the ballot. Unless you have, IN FRONT OF ME, asked both your opponent and me if it is okay to run this type of theory, and we have both consented to it, then the round will be a tough uphill battle for you, and I will most likely give you an auto vote down.

Extreme Arguments:I am not very sympathetic to extreme arguments like spark or wipeout. Running these extreme impact turns seems to be a strategy that is used to make an easy way to the ballot when facing a newer competitor or one that comes from a more traditional circuit. Also, I am uncomfortable with allowing students to advocate for things like nuclear war or genocide, so even if your opponent can handle the argument on a tech level, I will still most likely vote you down.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Theory/ T:Much like in the overview, I tend to put this at the top of the flow; for me, theory has to be procedural as I am resolving a rule to the game to determine who won the game. For example, I can only determine who won a Game of Magic: the Gathering by determining if the goal was to get my opponent's life down to zero or some other win condition.

RVIs:I think RVIs are crucial for getting the theory offense of the flow for your opportunities. When considering the offense of the RVI, I would like to see work done on the voters for the in-round abuse story. I delineate this standard from what I most commonly see: if you give me some unfairness/ abuse story but do not tell me why I vote on it, I am less inclined to provide you with the offense because I feel that point I would be interfering. When answering the RVI, I am not super sympathetic to just kicking the theory argument, especially if the RVI goes for some sort of time-skew argument; I think the much safer strat for me would be to put actual ink on the argument.

The most important part of T and other theory shells:I see many students who focus on the top half of T and do little work when it comes to extending or interacting with the standards (ground, limits, predictability) and voters. For me to even consider T as an issue in the round, I need to see some sort of offense coming from the bottom half of the argument.

Disads:Defenitly okay with you going for disad offense in the round. If you are in front of a more traditional panel and I am the odd duck, do not feel obligated to go beyond this offense into some other argument if the judge will either a) not flow or b) hold it against you in some way. Oftentimes, I see that students will avoid going for straight defense on the D.A. I am assuming that is because I put such an emphasis on offense in my paradigm. If that is the case, feel free to go for defense and indict parts of the D.A. I just ask that you flush it out, or if you are using it as a time suck, avoid making it a huge voter in the back half of the debate.

C.P.'s: As a straight policy argument, I am okay with all C.Ps. What I see students shy away from in the back half of the debate if they choose to go for straight N.B. offense is extrapolating or citing evidence as a reason why I buy the N.B. Be sure to spend some time explaining the evidence. This is not so much because I do not flow; rather, I like to make sure I am not interfering with the net benefit, as that seems easy to do. Of course, I understand that most of you will go for a more theory-oriented argument on the C.P., so here is a summary of my thoughts. Multipleworlds: Yes, I evaluate all C.P.s through a multivariate argumentation lens; however, because these types of arguments create a different space, I buy perms and conditionality as its own space as well. In other words, I am okay with you, waiting to go for the test in the last debate speech.

Kritiks:

These are my favorite arguments to evaluate; however, please do not use them as an easy way to the ballot, which I think can happen in two ways. First, debaters will use the technical nature of the Kritik to overwhelm more trad circuit students or newer debaters. Second, debaters will use identity politics, not their identity, to win the round. Please DO NOT exploit other people's identities and experiences to get my ballot; this will be an auto-vote down if it occurs.

In terms of evaluating links, this is where Kritik debates can get messy for me. I find that most debaters will read literature for the link and focus more on the impact of the K itself. I understand that this is a time choice; however, keep in mind that the more specific the link, the easier it will be to pull the trigger of the K. Often, I think this issue can be solved with a particular FW for the K.

I do put the alt at the top of the flow as a method of framing unless told otherwise. Whether pre-fiat or post-fiat, resolving the impacts of the K requires me to view the round through the alt mechanism of the K.

In terms of authors a literature, I am most comfortable with gender, set. col. and biopower type literature. I am familiar with most other common K lits, but if you are reading someone you want to make sure I know, feel free to ask, and I can give my knowledge of that particular author or literature.

Lincoln Douglass Debate:

Regarding progressive or more circuit-style LD, please see my above paradigm, as I feel this will answer most of your questions.

Trad and UIL Style LD:

I try my best to adapt to students insofar as letting them the types of arguments they would like to run. However, I would discourage you from running highly technical arguments in a traditional LD setting. I totally get that winning on tech is an easy way to the ballot. However, I think especially at smaller tournaments; keep in mind this may be one of the few tournaments your opponent may get to attend within the year.

Value Framing:

I have four standards when considering values as a functional for framework:

1)It's an end in itself and necessarily apropos to another value. This generally means the value should have more terminal impacts (not necessarily existential) coming out of the 1AC.

2) I am generally sympathetic to intrinsic links to the resolution as a form of offense for the debate. I think debaters ought to qualify this offense by telling me what they are bringing to the debate and using that value to meet the intrinsic part of the resolution.

3) Values should impact a world generator, meaning I should have a clear idea of the world I will live in when I sign my ballot.

4) Values should have some inherent competitiveness towards other frameworks unless you go for some permutation or link turn on framing.

Furthermore, values are inherently abstract as they seek to generate space or a world. However, unless you want me to go straight off/def for the round or plan to collapse, I think providing some sort of phil framing for a lens to your impacts is a good idea.

Criteria

Opposite to the value, I think the criterion for one particular framework should be specific. Generally speaking, I would argue this revolves around the brightline of the criterion. Totally understand that bright lines are controversial, and some would even say that criteria do not produce a specific brightline, or if they do, interps and definitions vary. With that being said, here is how I evaluate a brightline:

1) Brightlines should be active as they either decrease or increase sunstance. In other words, criteria should have a verb to describe the action of the framework to achieve the value.

2) The brightline ought to be measurable, even if abstract. Using terms like increase, decrease, and maintain is totally fine; however, I need a metric to determine if the ball moved. The less work I have to do, the more inclined I am to pull the trigger and avoid interference.

3) The criterion should be intrinsic to the value. I think if you do not go for an intrinsic link, I am much more sympathetic toward link turns as a method for gaining access to the framework.

Standard:I am okay with standards; just be sure you give me a way to pref your offense under the standard.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

SPEAKING AND INTERPRETATION:

I look for the three "P's" when judging events of this type:

(A) Is PRACTICE/PREPARATION evident?

(B) Is the delivery POLISHED?

(C) Is the delivery of the speech (and the behavior and attitude of the speaker, especially towards other competitors) PROFESSIONAL?

If applicable to the event, I also look for a deep and solid analysis of a topic. For example:

(A) Were objections to the speaker's position/thesis thoughtfully considered and addressed in a serious manner (i.e. not just mentioning an objection and then dismissing it outright as ridiculous without further argument)?

(B) Are statements overly general or well-supported by facts, evidence, or specific examples?

(C) Does the speaker, in their speech, contradict themselves or fall victim to the very biases or errors they are advocating against?

DEBATE:

You are there to persuade me, the judge. This means three things:

(A) You must speak clearly and at a rate that I am able to flow as you speak. This means DO NOT SPREAD. It does not matter how many arguments you have, if I as the judge cannot follow and understand them, I cannot be persuaded by them and you will not have time to sufficiently explain and defend them.

(B) You are there to persuade me that your argument is better than your opponent's, not to make your opponent cry. That does not mean you cannot be firm in defending your case and attacking your opponent's, but there is NO excuse for being rude or unprofessional.

(C) Never assume anything about your judge or audience. Do not get caught up in jargon or assume that your listeners know what Kant's categorical imperative (or anything else for that matter) is. If you're going to throw a term or thinker out there like that, you must define and explain it.

For LD, argue from your value and criterion, and use evidence (as needed) to support your arguments. Do NOT turn the debate into a debate over evidence. Persuade me that your value, criterion, and arguments are better than your opponent's, not that you have a “better” or more recent source/card.

Finally, you MUST keep to the allotted time limits, including prep time. "Brief off-time road maps" should be no more that 3 seconds. Period. If your prep time has ended, do not proceed to take 20 more seconds to collect your notes, stand up, and take a drink of water. If your prep time has ended, your prep time has ended.

I am a high school science teacher and speech and debate coach. I've coached speech and debate for 9 years. I competed in speech and congressional debate in high school, then some speech in college. I am very passionate about the power of communication. Above all, it is extremely important to me that you articulate and enunciate well. This can still be accomplished with reasonable speed. Take care to explain your arguments well. I strongly prefer constructive speeches with resolutional analysis, framework, key definitions, and a standard that I can use to weigh arguments. I should have a solid understanding of what you think are the most important issues in the round. Please use voters! If you want me to vote on it, please make sure it is in your final speech and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.

Arguments

Argue on logic, not emotions. Construct well-impacted, well-supported arguments. Quotations have no meaning without explanations. Therefore, always explain the significance of your evidence. The debater that most clearly presents a logical argument AND effectively refutes the opponent will be the victor.

Evidence

I may ask you to post your case or cards, if a virtual tournament. I may call for cards if your opponents ask me to, if the card is widely disputed during the round, or if it sounds exceptionally sketchy. According to NSDA rules, you can also access the Internet during round if you need to show your opponent the full citation.

Speed and Flowing

Anything below spread speed is fine. If you go fast, you should: SLOW DOWN when using tag lines and signposting. Give clear citations. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow (off time roadmaps). Please look out for physical cues if you are speed-talking. If I look visibly confused or if my hand isn’t moving, that’s probably because I can’t understand you. While I don’t flow crossfire/cross-ex, I’ll remember anything exceptionally witty or smart you say. Make sure you repeat anything significant from crossfire/cross-ex in your next speeches. Rebuttal speeches should be well organized. Please go straight down the flow.

Behavior

Don’t be mean. If you’re mean, my brain will naturally find a way to vote against you. Being assertive is valued. Being aggressive is unnecessary. There is a difference between a passionate debater and an abrasive or condescending debater. Crossfires/cross-ex needs to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I enjoy good clash.

Specific to LD

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing value and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Impact all your contentions back to your value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross examination will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Speaker Points

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Virtual Rules: Your camera should be on at all times. If for some reason there is a lag or connection issue, we can address it as it comes up, or I will attempt to turn my camera off temporarily to help boost the connection strength. When performing in extemp, you should be standing away from your computer, not sitting down. You definitely should NOT be reading a speech from the computer or a legal pad that's sitting beside you. I will make a note of it on your ballot and you will be ranked lower as a result.

Speaker Points: These are based largely on your fluency, use of filler words, and general "good manners" in a round. Don't be overly, unnecessarily aggressive during CX, especially if it is obvious you have the stronger argument or are the stronger speaker in the room. As an example, I've had one of my own seniors on my team come out of a round at District laughing because they made a freshman opponent cry during CX. Sure enough, on the ballot, the judge made a comment about being unnecessarily aggressive, cutting his opponent off before allowing him time to respond. He docked my senior speaker points, and I'm telling you now, I will do the same. Be kind, and let's have a fun debate!

LD: I haven't judged many rounds yet on either the NSDA or UIL topics, but I have coached and taught Lincoln-Douglas for three years. Don't spread in LD. If I can't follow your case because you're reading so fast it's just mumbling to me, you'll lose the round by default. This doesn't mean you can't read fast. If you're familiar with your case and you've rehearsed and practiced in round (and practiced and practiced and practiced some more), your fluency will be flawless and you'll be the faster - and better - speaker in the round. I weigh each debater's value, criterion, and arguments, and I vote on who upheld them better. Drops don't necessarily lose a round for me if the drop was insignificant in light of their stronger argument.

Jimmy Wolf / Last Updated 11/30/2023 for CapCon

Email Chain - (jimmyjimwolf@gmail.com)

*I prefer email chains, TLDR in bold

August 2016 - June 2020: Competed at THEO

--PF Paradigms--

--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.

1. No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.

2. No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.

3. If your strategy involves reading more than three off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

4. Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents’ advocacy).

--General--

1. All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)

2. My default framing is cost benefit analysis (CBA).

3. Absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in the round and I will default CON on the ballot.

4. Given the times in PF I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).

5. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

--Non Negotiables--

1. The second rebuttal must respond to turns.

2. Summary should consolidate.

1. Extensions must include warrants.

2. Final Focus should be voters and weighing, most rebuttals in FF will be dropped. Arguments in final focus should also be presented in the summary to weight. My RFD is heavily based on consolidation and the arguments presented in the FF.

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both me and the other team the doc if spreading.

--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.

1. Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.

2. Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.

3. Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality

--LD Paradigms--

--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.

1. No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.

2. No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.

3. If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

4. Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).

--General--

1. All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)

2. My default framing for LD is utilitarianism.

3. For policy based resolutions, absent offense (reasons to vote for your advocacy) by PRO in the round and I will default CON on the ballot.

4. Given the times in LD I am okay with poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. as impacts. I would prefer quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.).

5. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

--Non Negotiables--

1. The 1AR must respond to turns.

2. The back-half of the NR and the 2AR should be voters and weighing. Most blocks in these speeches will be dropped, frontlines will flow through though.

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give both me and the other team the doc if spreading.

--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.

1. Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.

2. Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended.

3. Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality

--CX Paradigms--

--Strikes-- I won't vote on any of these things.

1. No “evidence paraphrasing,” tags can paraphrased but they have to be carded.

2. No counter interpretations/”tricks” in debate.

3. If your strategy involves reading more than four off case and kicking all of them but the one your opponents didn't catch or have time to respond to.

--Preferences--

1. Offtime Roadmaps

2. Signpost

3. Formality

4. Majority of rebuttal should be defense (reasons to reject your opponents advocacy).

1. Final focus should be line-by-line voters on framing and weighing. Weighing can be easily done on impact calculus. Please only do crystallization if you and your opponent are ignoring framing. Rebuttals in final focus will most likely be dropped.

--General--

1. All kinds of arguments are acceptable in debate (Framework/Evidence/Definition/Topicality/Morality/Theory/K/CP)

2. My default framing is stock issues.

3. I am tech>truth. I evaluate strictly on what is presented in the round. I will inevitably have to choose one argument over the other but I will base those interpretations on warrants and analysis presented in the round - not outside information.

--Non Negotiables--

1. The second rebuttal (1R) must respond to turns.

2. Summary should consolidate.

3. Extensions must include warrants.

4. Counterplans must be competitive/unique

1. Given the times in CX I want quantified terminals impacts (recession, war, etc.). There is more than enough time to extend these from poverty, unemployment, GDP, inequality, etc. impacts.

--Style--

1. Speaker points are on presentation, not arguments.

2. Speed: I will say clear if I cannot follow, if it continues I will drop my pen till I can follow. Slow down on argument tags and cites. Give me (and the other team if they request) the doc if spreading.

--Progressive Debate-- I’m okay with progressive debate but a few notes if you are running it.

1. Debate is an education place, run progressive arguments to exclude your opponents and I’ll give you 25 speaks low point wins at best.

2. Please know/understand what you are reading. Do not read something for the sake of reading it. K’s/Theory need to be well explained and extended to vote on.

3. Theory/Topicality Defaults In Order: RVI, Drop the Debater, Topicality

--Congressional Debate--

1. Speaking is important in this event for me. I judge probably 65/35 on arguments vs speaking, respectively.

2. This is a mock Congress. Debate as such. Do not forget that you are a Representative/Senator.

3. I also take participation in the chamber into account. Ask questions, call motions, vote, etc.

4. Please present clash if you aren’t giving the authorship/sponsorship. Simply saying the name of another student and claiming they are wrong does not count.

5. I try to stay pretty educated on politics, but I won’t know the ins and outs of every bill/resolution in the country. Make sure you are clearly explaining what you are talking about