Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

I am a mom of a kid who debates in Public Forum, so I mostly end up judging Public Forum. My paradigm is for that.

1. Please be respectful to your opponents, especially during CrossEx. This might affect your speaker points.

2. On top of that, please take turns asking questions in CrossEx. You are not talking to me, you are having a conversation with your opponent. Let your opponents finish their thoughts before interrupting but do not spend too much time on the same issue. Please bring important points made in CrossEx in a speech.

3. Please speaker slowly and clearly (conversation speed). If I can not comprehend you, I will not be able to give you the argument.

4. Please don't use any technical debate words and try to stick to simple words.

5. Please do offtime roadmaps. Helps me be organized.

6. Please do the weighing for me. If you leave the weighing to me, I might not be able to do it "the correct way."

I am a parent judge with no experience in this event. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.

Speak slow and explain your arguments clearly.

Good luck and have fun!

My name is Matt Gill (He/Him), I graduated from Texas Christian University in 2023. In college, I competed in NPDA and various I.E.s, in high school I focused on PF. I can judge all debate, but I am most comfortable in PF and Parli.

Make an email chain before the round and include me. matthewkgill@gmail.com

In Person Rounds -I don't judge many in-person rounds anymore, but when I do I am flexible and default to the most stringent preference in the room (including masks) and I expect you to do the same. Generally, I prefer not to shake hands in a round, but I am a friendly guy and don't mind most things, within reason. If your opponent shakes my hand and you don't want to, don't feel pressured to do so; rest assured my ballot has never and will never be won or lost in the pre/post round niceties. Do what makes you comfortable.

The other important note about in person tournaments is the email chain. I don't really want to read evidence off of your laptops, so please include me in the email chain so I can read evidence when you ask me to (and do ask me to read evidence! Lots of rounds come down to miscut evidence). I flow on paper but will always have my laptop with me. If I am being shown evidence you may always assume that I want it in context, not just a cut card.

Trigger Warnings - I appreciate trigger warnings. Failing to do so won't hurt you, but it definitely helps me as a judge to know what kind of sensitive content I need to expect to hear. Barring extreme circumstances, I won't tell you not to run the argument, I just prefer to know before your speech.

Speed - Speed is fine depending on the event, but please note I am not the fastest and I didn't compete with speed very often, so a speech doc is to your benefit if you want to go really fast. PF is meant to be for the public, so I will frown upon speakers who use speed excessively in the format. I will say clear (politely) if I am having a hard time following, so you don't need to guess at whether your speech is too fast. I vote off my flow, so make sure I can understand what you are saying enough to flow well or give me a speech doc. Feel free to go as fast as you want on evidence as long as I have a copy in front of me, but sign post so I know how to flow.

K's - K's are fine as long as they are well made and well presented. K's are a very important piece of agency and expression within debate, please don't abuse them just for a win; your K should truly justify bypassing topical arguments. I'm fine with K Affs, but the bar is higher. It's also worth noting that I don't presume K over T or vice versa and I love debates about what I should evaluate first. My preference is a topical debate but I definitely enjoy a good K round. (PF specific) I am also of the opinion that, if you are planning on running a K, you should disclose that to your opponent and do your best to not be exclusionary; i.e. if your opponent hasn't even heard of a K, I'd encourage you to run a topical case or work your K into a topical framework. PF is constrained with regards to time and is also a great event for newer debaters or debaters without wide access to advanced debate tactics, so please be mindful of your opponent and make the round a positive experience for everyone. Please remember the role of the ballot or I have no way to evaluate your K.

Theory - Theory is fine, but so is RVI so make sure it isn't frivolous. I don't generally vote for disclosure theory in PF, especially if you didn't ask for disclosure before the round. That said, I am pretty far removed from my debate days so if disclosure is now the norm, go for it.

Tabula Rasa - Tech over truth. I don't ever intervene for topicality; an argument is topical until I am told otherwise. I have had teams run plans in PF and I have voted for it, but only if the other team buys in (i.e. I give negative access to counter plans/affirmative access to perms). That said, the instant a team runs theory or says teams should follow rules, I have no choice but to accept that theory. Therefore, I would recommend that you not run a plan in PF. I will decide the round totally off of the flow, but I would definitely prefer if you didn't take massive creative liberties with general definitions.

Style - Keep simple organization so it's easy to see how the debate progresses. The more sub-points etc. the more clear I want you to be in sign posting. If I am going to need a separate sheet of paper for an argument, let me know before the speech. I don't like tricks/spikes but I'll flow it. I like to flow overviews on a separate sheet, so please tell me before if you are running an overview. That said, I am not a fan of overviews that are just new offense (turns and case turns are exempt). Clash with your opponent. Good debaters deliver good warrants and attack bad warrants, so make sure your warrant makes sense. I like funny arguments but I'm not going to do you any favors on the flow because you ran a funny argument. Impact your arguments and weigh them against your opponents so I know exactly how and why to vote at the end of the round (write my RFD for me). Be kind and courteous, debate is so much more fun when everyone gets along (especially courteous/kind debaters will be rewarded in their speaker scores, and vice versa).

Speech Events - I am super excited to judge speech events! I will leave detailed feedback on the ballot, so don't worry about changing anything specifically for me. The one note I will make is about impromptu; the event is about improvising, not working in a canned speech. I will weigh relevance heavily in my decisions, so if your topic is Florida, please do not use Flo-Rida to talk about the future of rap culture and completely forget about the topic.

Questions - Feel free to ask questions before the round.

JUDGE PARADIGM

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School, CA

Judging/Event Types: I've only judged Congress and I am a parent to two seasoned Congressional debaters.

How many years have you been judging?: 6 years

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate?: Behave professionally and courteously, clear delivery, and breaking down arguments are essential.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate?: No

How do you judge cross-examination? Ask thoughtful questions

I am a junior at TCU and debated at Dripping Springs High School. My main event in high school was Policy, although I also competed in LD, PF, World Schools, and Extemp. I have competed on the local, state, and national level in all events. I debate in college in Parli and IPDA. Please use jkaiser2003@gmail.com for the email chain.

For CX, I ran both Kritikal and policy arguments but I tend to lean more Kritikal. Run whatever you want to run in the round and I will evaluate it. Any speed is fine as long as it’s clear. I reward more creative and inventive strategies. If you are going to run a K, though, be sure you know how to explain it. I'm not going to do the work for you and nothing is worse than a poorly run K. Other than that, please be respectful of your opponents and don't make the debate space hostile and inaccessible for others.

Ks

- Love them. I prefer Ks with specific links to the affirmative.

- Run a K on the aff or the neg. I was a 2A and a K aff was my favorite strategy.

- If you want to run a performance K, go for it.

- If you run a K aff, be sure to have a reason to not be topical. If you can't explain it well enough, I will have a hard time voting on it.

- If you are seriously going for a K on the neg, it should probably be a majority of the neg block.

- I tend to believe that the neg can kick the alt, but your links need to be strong enough as DAs to the affirmative.

- Vague alts are fine, just know how to explain them and weigh them.

- "Presumption flips aff" is a smart argument if utilized correctly.

- Literature I am most familiar with: Cap, Academy, Queer Pessimism, Afropessimism, Baudrillard, Set Col. If what you want to read is not on that list, you can always ask me before the round. Regardless, I will listen to anything.

T

- I like T and my debate partner and I usually included it in our 1NCs against a plan aff.

- The aff can claim reasonability but the debate between reasonability and competing interps is up to the debaters.

- I will vote for any standard that is reasonable.

- Framework/T-USFG against K affs is good when executed well. However, if you read generic blocks and extensions that apply to every K aff, it will not be as persuasive.

- I love when K affs impact turn FW.

CPs

- I am down for any good CP.

- I love creative PICs/PIKs (shoutout to Davy Holmes), but I can be persuaded by PIC theory.

DAs

- I prefer case specific DAs to generic ones but run what you have.

- Prefer to see it run with a CP in the 2NR, but if you have a strong enough DA with good links you should be fine.

- Weigh them. Please.

Theory

- Either team can go for theory, but it is not my favorite round to watch.

- If the aff plans to kick case and go for theory, you should spend a sufficient amount of time on it in the 1AR. New explanations in the 2AR are abusive and will not be evaluated.

- Please avoid frivolous theory if you can. LD theory interps are terrible to watch and debate, so please do not bring them into CX.

Case

- DO NOT DROP OR UNDERCOVER CASE. I have seen many teams get stressed for time in the 2AC or 1AR and spend most of the time on the off case arguments and forget to extend case sufficiently. If you respond to case properly, it can be used to respond to all of the off case arguments.

- Keep a narrative going throughout the round of what your case actually does. It is hard to vote for an aff if I do not know what I am voting for. Overviews help, but they should not be your only extensions on case.

- Run anything you want to on the aff. If you are going to be untopical or skirt that line, you should have T prepped out well.

- Aff gets fiat.

Other things

- Weighing and giving me key voters in the final rebuttals will go a long way.

- Do not make tag line extensions and expect me to do the analysis for you.

- If you are overly rude, your speaks will reflect that.

- Tech > Truth but truth still matters.

- Please don't steal prep or take five minutes to send out the doc in the email chain.

- Have fun!

LD debate:

Traditional.

I think the value/criterion is very important to establish the framework under which the round will be judged. I will judge using the value/criterion set of the debater who wins this portion of the round. The debater that best supports the winning value/criterion set will be generally the winner of the round, this is not necessarily the debater whose value/criterion came out on top, as the opponent may be able to show better supports. If neither debater can effectively show their value/criterion to be superior, then I will usually vote based on which debater best upholds their own value/criterion, which the ability to link into the opponent's framework also being a consideration.

Don't spread if you don't need to. I won't vote you down for using a style that I dislike, but it will cost you speaker points. While I can usually follow spreading, I don't care for it.

I try to write very thorough critiques on the ballot, or provide them verbally.

About Me:

I did debate all four years of high school, and acted as the captain of my team for two years. I participated primarily in LD and extemp, while in high school. I earned a bachelors in biophysics at UT Austin, and am currently pursuing a combined MD/PhD program, where I will obtain both a PhD (in molecular biophysics) and a medical degree (to be an interventional cardiologist), at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Despite not continuing as an active competitor while in college, I have enjoyed working as a judge, in person pre-covid, and virtually currently.

I am currently a criminal defense attorney. In the past, I debated at the University of West George where I was a three time qualifier for the National Debate Tournament.

--

Read the arguments that you enjoy reading. Be it the politics disads, framework, topicality, or any Kriitk arguments. I'm not a fan of theory, but if its all you got in a debate then go for it. However, keep in mind that my background is in critical argumentation, so if you read policy style arguments just make sure that you are explaining it well and are coherent. Especially, make sure that you are explaining all of the internal links to your disads clearly.

Please do not sound like a robot when you debate in front of me. Look me in the eyes and communicate your arguments to me clearly. Also keep in mind that I am not a flow-centric judge and have an unorthodox way of taking notes for debate. That being said, You aren't going to win the debate on some small argument on the line by line. I look at the debate more holistically.

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

I did LD for 4 years in High School, both on the circuit and at local tournaments. I value good clash, and creative arguments. Make sure you:

1) weigh your arguments against each other (you will not win every argument in the round) and

2) tell me why you won.

If you don't do the above things and make me weigh/decide why you won, I will probably decide wrong!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Hi! I'm a college student with a soft spot for forensics.

Etiquette will be your only barrier of entry to me— disrespect towards me or your opponents is not tolerated under any circumstances and you will be dropped.

In debate, please avoid spreading. If you intend on speaking faster than conversational speed, send me the case (find my email below). Unless explicitly stated otherwise, I flow the entire round— including CX. However, I'm essentially a lay judge seeking a traditional debate. Roadmaps are highly encouraged. Impacts that are not clearly signposted will not be flowed through the round. Voters at the end contribute greatly to my RFD. In LD, I expect you to spend most of the time in 2AR weighing the debate. Unless specified by the tournament, I do not disclose after rounds.

In speech, it's content > delivery for me; the social message and how you supplement it with your speech is your linchpin. However, as an orator, great content will not save subpar delivery. Give your speech the best opportunity to be understood with all the tools at your disposal.

I do my best to facilitate your event and give you the best feedback I can, so I look forward to seeing your best too!

Add me to the email chain ↴

✉️ eleanapaneda@gmail.com

Paradigm for Courtney Parks

I am a Biology major with a minor in Communications on a pre-med track at Texas Christian University. This is my second year on the TCU’s speech and debate team. While I do do both events, debate is my bread and butter. I’m relatively new at judging so my paradigm is limited.

Above everything, you must be both respectful to your opponents. I do not and will not ever tolerate poor treatment of any participant. Be Kind.

I strongly dislike speed, I do not see speaking quickly as a skillset. With that, I also need you to speak clearly and at an appropriate volume. If I cannot hear or understand you, I cannot consider your arguments.

If you are going to run a K or run a theory argument, make sure it is done correctly and tell me why it is necessary.

I value quality of arguments over the quantity of them. Do not just throw piece of evidence after piece of evidence at me, it will stick like jello to a tree. With that in mind, I enjoy a stylistic and intelligent (sometimes witty) presentation of an argument. Although debate is a competition of the mind, it should not be boring.

Come prepared to explain your evidence to me, do not email it to me and ask me to read it. It’ll end up in the trash.

Lastly, don’t forget to have fun! This is just a competition at the end of the day.

Here's some information about me per the NSDA Judge Paradigm Guidelines:

1. Since 2008, I've proudly served as the teacher and head coach of the Miramonte High School Public Speaking program in Orinda, CA, USA. Our co-curricular program focuses on competitive Speech, Congress, and Public Forum Debate. I competed in speech for Miramonte High School, Class of 1996, and my specialty was Humorous Interpretation! I enjoy judging several times a year, often including the Cal Invitational and NSDA Nationals!
2. I believe Speech & Debate should be accessible to a general audience. I prefer SLOW rate of delivery and to AVOID jargon/technical language. When debaters speed-read, I cannot keep up.
3. My personal note-taking during the round involves writing down key arguments. I take notes throughout, but I do NOT keep a rigorous flow.
4. I value argument and style. Clear communication, accessible by a general audience, should be the priority. Off-time road maps are discouraged.
5. The criteria I consider when assessing a debate round: "In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. A team should not be penalized for failing to understand [their] opponent’s unclear arguments." (2009 NFL Guide to Public Forum Debate)
6. I find topical, logical, and narrative arguments more persuasive than theory. Do not assume your audience knows the topic, much less specific cards.
7. We must embody the NSDA Honor Code and pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence. I reward honorable conduct as it enhances the debate and helps me to focus on learning.

Thanks for your participation! I am grateful to continue my learning by judging speech and debate!

DVHS Parent for Speech

Paradigm for Alexander Wick

I am Computer Science student at Texas Christian University, and currently compete in both speech and debate events for TCU. I competed for Tyler Lee HS and have extensive high school policy/congressional debate experience. I currently serve collegiate competitors as a representative on Pi Kappa Delta’s National Council. I am also the Head Speech and Debate Instructor for the Fort Worth Country Day School. I’ll list the most important aspects of my judging paradigm here, but feel free to ask clarifying questions or if there is anything else you’d like to know before your round.

Policy Debate

Arguments

I will judge and consider every argument presented in the debate, provided that the argument is presented seriously and fairly and is extended throughout the round. I will not ‘shadow-extend’ arguments for you.

For negative policy teams, if you choose to run your arguments conditionally, you will need to explain to me why it is necessary to do so. Additionally, while I will vote on Ks, make sure you know how to run them well.

I will consider any theory argument, including RVIs, but you should clearly explain why you are running them and why it is needed in that particular round. Make sure you're running those arguments with proper theory shells. Don’t just run theory to waste your opponents time.

Evidence

I prefer quality over quantity. On all sides, ensure that you are understanding your evidence and not just reading- debaters should be able to intelligently discuss their arguments during questioning.

Congress

Please ensure that you are respectful to your fellow competitors inside and outside the round. For POs, make sure that you are both following parliamentary procedure and the rules of the tournament. For example, if the tournament is operating under TFA rules, ensure that you are following the TFA's guidelines on Congressional Debate.

I know that timing Congress speeches is tricky- but under no circumstance should you exceed 3:10. That 10 seconds is a grace period- aim your speech to 3:00 and end quickly if you pass that mark.

For all Events

Do not misinterpret or make up evidence. I do verify evidence and sources used, especially if there is cause to do so.

These are communication events. Make sure you are communicating to your judges- don't just read to us. That being said, I rarely ask to be included on email chains. I should not have to read your evidence to understand your arguments.

Best if luck to you and your team during the tournament!

This is all about YOU and I am here for YOU. I'm on your side!

JUDGING PREFERENCES

- Were the rules of the event followed? (Can I tell it is poetry and not prose)

- Was the performance clean and polished? (More to do with effort than sole skill)

- Was there palpable energy to the performance? (In-person or through a computer screen)

- Was the student having fun? (Could I relax and watch someone reveling in doing what they do best)

- What did I learn? (What do I know at the end of your performance that I did not at the beginning)

BACKGROUND & EXPERIENCE

Member & Captain of the IE Squad at the University of Texas at Austin

-AFA Poetry National Champion 2005

-AFA Eight National Out-rounds, Five-time National Finalist

Member & Captain of Speech Team at Wheaton Warrenville South High School

-IHSA State Champion of DI and HDA (Humorous Duet Acting)

-IHSA Six-time State Finalist

National Final Round Judge for AFA National Championships

Coach at University of Texas National Institute of Forensics (UTNIF) 2004-2022

Current Head Speech Coach for Quarry Lane School

TLDR: I am an interventionist judge that prefers truth over tech. The way to get me to get me to buy your arguments is to explicitly explain the link chain running through your case and spend LOOOOTS of time on the warrants and links for each card you read, each off-case, and each rebuttal. Just spreading piles of cards will get you dropped. I do weighing and cross-application myself as I flow, only spend time on it if you say something non-obvious, otherwise I ignore it. If you want to win on framework, focus on it almost exclusively, as blippy ink all over the flow for everything is too easy for me to disregard. It's not that I prefer traditional debate to progressive, it's that I want progressive debate to be used to raise the skill ceiling rather than lowering the skill floor.

Edit for Congress and Parli: If you are an opening/authorship speaker, you have a natural disadvantage, try to have at least one preemptive response to an obvious argument the opponents will bring up, otherwise, you risk reading non-interactive material purely based on how the rest of the debate goes. For parli this is less of a problem, so be sure to carefully and responsibly frame the debate so that other teams can interact without going too far afield.

Edit: I DO NOT VOTE ON CROSS APPLICATION ALONE. YOU MUST WIN YOUR CASE FIRST TO CROSS APPLY. SAY IT BRIEFLY IN YOUR FIRST SPEECH. BUT SAVE THE EXTENDED WEIGHING FOR THE END, DONT WASTE YOUR SPEECH ON CA WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING OPPONENT'S WARRANTS.

CARDS ARE JUST DATA. YOU MUST STILL SUPPLY AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE WARRANT. TELL ME HOW THE NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT AND READ YOUR OPPONENT'S NUMERICAL IMPACT CARDS TO CHALLENGE THEIR WARRANT. I will vote for someone who explains mechanisms of action but has no cards over someone with all the cards and no explanation. If you don't explain the warrant, and defend against opponent's alternate explanation, you don't get to claim the number. Don't just have cards that form a link chain. EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE LINK CHAIN. This sets out clearly what the opponent must do to respond.

I only vote off framework if the cases are a wash or you spend a ton of time on it. I'm much more easily persuaded by resolutional analysis on how an example is or isn't part of the aff world, and how relevant the stats are as a result.

Counterplans must explain how they are explicitly different from aff world (especially if the aff is claiming ground that the prewritten cp was not meant for), else Neg loses all unique offense.

Did PF and LD in high school, extemp in college.

I don't need to be on the email chain if you speak normally, but do if you spread. Most debaters who spread read too much evidence to effectively use, and most of the time reading the card reveals that the tag does not match the card text, or card text is more equivocal than the supported claim. Spreading can be used to lower the standard of evidence, as opponent has less time to respond. Therefore, I will intervene much more heavily on your side of the flow to compensate, cutting out any and all cards and links I don't personally buy.

Most arguments are fine.

If I miss something due to speed, it's not flowed. If you spread at least pause through author and date, missing those may cause me to put something in the wrong place on the flow.

The only time it's acceptable to extend an argument without briefly explaining it is your final speech.

Even if I know the K lit, I'm only voting on it if properly explained and linked.

SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow and what you're responding to.

Overviews and roadmaps shouldn't go longer than 10 seconds.

I don't vote off cross ex alone unless someone concedes something. Use it for clarification or to set up your next speech. If you use it to attack a warrant, you can save time in your next speech by referencing cross instead of reexplaining, I like it when people do that!

I strongly dislike when the text of a card does not match or fulfil its tag. If tag says extinction, the text should either say or be easily linked to extinction.

I dislike frameworks whose only function is to lock opponents from the round. In the case of a framework tie, I prefer the wider, more permissive framework.

If I'm not told how to weigh the round, I'll have to intervene. My default is to tally up the offence that links to the winning framework. I will vote off topicality.