Melissa Spring UIL Classic
2022 — Melissa Middle School, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
LD Debate: I am a more traditional judge. Spreading is fine, but needs to be legible. Speaking quality is important. Debater should demonstrate quality in oratory skills, as well as argumentation. Values and criterion should support resolution with contentions that build. Cross-Examination should build level of discourse and be conducted with a high level of respect. Impacts and voter's appeal should be provided appropriately to drive home case. I am a first year Debate coach, but competed in debate in high school at Keller Central HS. I am not closed off to any type of debate, and am open-minded, despite my natural inclination to more traditional debate.
CX/Policy Debate: I am an open book and enjoy hearing nuanced and different arguments. Open to all kinds of Affs and Negs. I prefer the neg to break down to their best argument in the final rebuttals. Spreading is fine, but shouldn't interfere with ability to intake information.
Competed in multiple events UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin alum, Fall 2020. Triple-major in Philosophy, Government, and History.
You either win, you learn, or both.
2021-Present: Director and Coach of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School
2018-2021: High School debate consultant
2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin
2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate, Texas
2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School
I am a gamer judge. I tend to evaluate arguments by a comparative lens of offense/defense and some sort of impact framing. Do what you do best. For me, that means you can run any argument whatsoever if you have analysis, warrants, and contextualize the argument.
I think arguments consists of claim, warrant, and impact. How I flow is probably how I'll end up voting. I value the pedagogical benefit of comparative analysis in debate. Explanations after explicit extensions are probably important.
I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and impacted-out arguments.
I like seeing structure, but it is not always necessary in args, like T proper, T subsets (if applicable), disad proper, etc.
I am okay voting for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.
In CX, after the neg block, I like to see a strategic collapsing of arguments.
For specific strategies and threshold questions, just ask me before the round.
Try not to...
...make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably just start deducting speaker points.
...cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.
I don’t count flashing/speech drop/email chain as prep time, as long as it isn’t unnecessarily drawn out.
Speed is fine, go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 515 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing). I like hearing analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.
Me likes a good framework debate and I am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to vote under. For me, it usually comes down to winning that you have a better model for debate, method, and/or justifications for your framing. I think that there are nuances to weighing mechanisms and should probably be winning an external impact under that framework. More specifically, there should be impact framing on args you plan on winning under the framework debate. You should probably have offense under your FW.
I don't necessarily default to competing interps, reasonability, or other frameworks unless you tell me otherwise. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then give me thorough reasons to prefer, comparative analysis, and some impact to vote on. On Aff, I think it is strategic that you can make theory or pre-fiat arguments against T.
I think theory to be like the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed or presented. There are general parts. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then warrant out and go for an impact story which you should also tell me how and why I should evaluate. Actually, if you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you need to probably warrant it out and have some sort of offense, and framing mechanism.
Note: For theory- and T- type impacts like education or fairness, I probably think fairness is an internal link to education but can be convinced otherwise.
Yeah, me likes. I like the specific disad-case debate. This means that when you win the disad, you should also be winning a disad-case comparison (for example: disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, or something like that).
Me thinks is cool. Any type of counterplan is cool, unless you tell me otherwise. I would be mindful of going for those floating PICs. For you to win the counterplan, you probably need to win some sort of net benefit and/or mutual exclusivity, and comparative analysis to case, like solves rez, or solves aff, etc.
Sure, read it. Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me. I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, and Cap in HS. Affs I read included a Disaster Cap, and a Baudrillard one. Give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, might as well do line-by-line at that point), assume I am unfamiliar with it. I need clear explanations and warrants like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. Tell me how the K should function in the round, and definitely a great alt explanation.
Be specific. For example, saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency-component debate, effectiveness to the aff/neg, and includes, but not limited to advocacy vs test, severance, timeframe, etc.
Me is good with any format. If it is performance, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me an ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances, advocacies, and contextualize it. Flesh out the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.