The first element in any forensic competition is clarity. If I can’t understand you, I can’t evaluate what you have said. That does not mean that debaters can not spread, but if they do so, it must be done with strong articulation. Signposting in debate rounds is extremely helpful for all parties in the round. You want me to be able to flow the round if you want to win the round. Reading your tag lines clearly and with emphasis is very helpful.

CX DEBATE

I am open to judging more than one debate paradigm (tabs judge) if the paradigm is clearly identified and understood by all participants in the round including me. It is the debater’s burden to explain it and support it. I was trained to be a stock issues judge, but can easily switch to policy-making when that is how the arguments are structured. The Tabula Rasa model – as long as debaters have agreed upon the standards in the round is also acceptable. Unless the rules of debate and the rules of how to best structure and refute each form of argumentation are severely violated or not upheld, I will not use the game player paradigm. In other words, the debate theory attack must be an obvious violation or you are wasting your time with me. Don’t trivialize the argumentation process. I will vote on topicality violations in the round when they are well justified, but the topicality violation must be obvious. The affirmative must be prepared to refute it. The topicality argument must be run correctly with standards, violations, impacts.. You must refute and clearly cross-apply your arguments. The aff has the burden of proof when it comes to each of the stock issues of the round. The point is that the affirmative knew their case before entering the round and must be well prepared to defend it. I love well-argued counter plans and kritiks, but they must meet the structural rules of these forms of arguments. Disadvantages should have a link, brink, and impact and please, everything does not end in a nuclear war. Make sure your internal links in all arguments are strong and be prepared to connect them for the judge. Tell me what I need to know and understand. Group arguments well and do not drop attacks. When refuting and argument, It may be a really dumb attack, but you have to refute it. Sometimes all that is needed is one sentence to do so and then move on. Please signpost! Rudeness may not cost you the round, but it will have a disastrous effect on your speaker points and a note to your coach. In a round I watch to see how well teams listen, really listen to each other, and then do they present a good refutation of what they have just heard, not just something random stuff they pulled up. Rounds, if you listen well, can be won on logic alone. However, I do favor solid evidence and prefer the quality of evidence over quantity. Dates and sources in CX matter. Do not get caught lying in a round. That will cost you the round.

LD -

LD is NOT CX. Keep it a values argument, not a policy one. Uphold your value and use your criterion to do so well and cross apply all arguments to our opponents. How does your value achieve upholding your side of the resolution better? In LD, I place more value on eloquent speaking skills than I do in CX. Persuade me! Continue to signpost well. Do not drop arguments

Congress - I am looking for well-delivered speeches with claims, warrants, and impacts. Use all the elements of effective delivery. I look for fresh unique arguments and do not give points for arguments that are redundant. I give points for speeches that help to advance the debate.

Congress - I look to see that the parlimentarian has an excellent understanding of the parliamentary procedure and helps to keep the round progressing at all times. The speeches of the members of Congress should not rehash or repeat what has already been said, but instead, add a new perspective to the argument. The best speeches will combine evidence and logic to support any emotional appeal. Speeches should have evidence of a logical structure that makes them easy to follow. Delivery should be clear and extemporaneous and not simply read. I also examine how well the speaker answers the questions.

Extemp - I am looking for a 6 to 7-minute speech that is well organized with a clear statement of the topic and a preview of the points in the introduction. I dislike canned attention getters and would prefer an attention-getter that actually relates to the topic in some way. This is not a debate. Do not use debate terminology in an extemp round. To be eloquent transitions must be used from point to point, summations should be made at the end of each point and possible links back to the original question made. Do not be repetitive or redundant. Show me the breadth and depth of the knowledge that you possess that relates to the question, not extraneous information that you are obviously using as a filler. Language, word choices should be advanced and appropriate for the topic. Conclusions should summarize your points and please provide a snappy ending that perhaps links back to your attention device. Delivery should be smooth and body language displays confidence. In persuasion, I am looking for analysis, and the speaker must take a clear stance. And in informative I do not want persuasion. Remember in informative it is always the opinion or idea of someone else. Provide me a few or many ideas on the subject and do not advocate one idea. You are not arguing your question in informative.

Oral Interpretation-

I am a retired speech coach and a theater director and when it comes to interpretation, my years of theatrical experience at developing characters and telling stories affect the way in which I judge. Provide clear, well-built characters. Make them plausible. Now I realize some of our wonderfully comic characters may be exaggerations. That’s fine. Suit the character development to fit the genre. In any performance, one of my biggest complaints is when a performer does not telegraph. Let me explain. Humans rarely blurt out our feelings without any nonverbal expression leading the way. We are not good at maintaining a poker face. However, do not overtly do this. Then it is overdone and fake. Remember the eyes are the windows to the soul and before you tell me, I must see it in your eyes or something in your nonverbal expression. Those elements delight audiences and make you plausible. Otherwise, you are just spewing lines. Understand the subtext of each line. Why did the author write the line? Use beats. Study the syntax. A sense of timing is crucial to the success of your piece. Know the storyline. Where is your peak? Where is your resolution? I often sit at the back of the room for the rounds to allow you to express yourself. I do not want you yelling the entire piece. Build if needed to the climax where you may need to be loud. Perhaps you are loud in the opening to get our attention. But vary your volume, please. You have to have somewhere to go. Please realize that louder is not always better. Humans often keep their emotions deeply under control, and so will the characters that you portray. Use all the wonderful elements of delivery you have available - your voice, body (watch moving too much, follow the rules), your mind. Having performed on stage for years and directed for years, I adore this competition. Entertain me! Make me laugh. Make me cry.

I HIGHLY APPRECIATE AN EMAIL CHAIN: My email is enriquemtz300@gmail.com.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments:

Hello Everyone! My name is Enrique Martinez, and I am:

Will be pursuing a MA in Economics at George Mason University: Fall 2022-May 2024 (projected)

Former coach at Mount Pleasant High School: 2020-2022

Mount Pleasant High School Class of 2018 (Go Tigers): Competed in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas Debate

UNT Class of 2019 (Go Mean Green): Judged debate, speech, interp at various tournaments. No competing.

I have expanded my knowledge of the various competitions that are readily available for students to participate in since competing as a student. So I am very aware of much of the workings of various speech and debate events.

Please let me know if there are any general questions before the round starts. I have outlined how I view several arguments for debate competitions below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

Thoughts: I lean more traditional (I don't mind which way you go tbh), but I am entirely open to the possibility of hearing critical arguments. If I hear a critical argument, you must explain it and its role in the round. LD debaters can cross-reference my views of policy debate. In regards to speed, keep it about 65-75%. Cool if you need to finish a point before the time is up, but make sure you're not going so fast that I don't understand you. (MORE COMING SOON, ASK FOR SPECIFICS)

Progressive vs. Traditional: I'm completely fine with either form of LD debate. If I were to put these on a spectrum, I would be closer to traditional than progressive, but I am not bothered by either form of debate. This is mainly because I have debated and judged in both CX and LD at some point.

Framework: Whether it be Value/Criterion or simply a framework, this is one of the most vital parts of an LD case. I like to see weighing going on between frameworks. I also want to see one side (respectfully) dismantle the opponent's fw. Lastly, I need to see and hear how the fw case ties to the resolution and the case as a whole.

Kritik: I need the presenter of the K to explain how it is applicable in the sense of the round. I am okay with hearing the K, but I am unaware of all literature involved in these arguments. Even if I was, it is the competitors' responsibility to show their understanding of the K, doesn't expect me to make any leaps. In my perspective, viability and empirics are vital for the NEG to win the K. In addition to commonly accepted ideas, I would discourage reading a communist alternative in a K, as my research and background make it difficult to vote for it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-Examination/Policy Debate:

Overview: As a policymaker judge, I prefer that argument stay within the realm of the resolution. I am okay with K's, T's, and theory arguments as long as you can explain their applicability in the round or policymaking. I will break down my thoughts on most arguments. If you have any questions, please ask. As for my experience: I was a CX debater for two years and occasionally did LD as well as an HS student, and I have been coaching since 2020.

Comments: I will STRONGLY ENCOURAGE that you do not run a whole chunk of off-case arguments if you're going to throw them out. At the same time, go for whatever suits you best within the round, but please explain why you are kicking an argument.

DA- With every DA, make sure it covers everything in a DA, such as impacts. Also, generic DA's are fine, but the more specific it is to the AFF, the better.

CP- I am good with CP's, but ensure you cover everything when presenting it in the 2AC. Explain how the resolution is not plausible or why the CP is preferable. Make sure that I can completely understand

T- Topicality is fine with me, with the most crucial thing in the round being the interpretations. It would help if you also conveyed to the judge why your interpretation is preferable to the opposition's definition.

K- While I am a policymaker judge, I am willing to hear K's out. I ask each team running the K to take some time to explain how the K lit because I may not be as familiar with it depending on the K. Also, explain how the K does/doesn't relate to the actual resolution and policy. In my perspective, viability and empirics are vital for the NEG to win the K. In addition to commonly accepted ideas, I would discourage reading a communist alternative in a K, as my research and background make it difficult to vote for it.

Theory- This argument is fine with me, but ensure it runs correctly. Be able to explain if there is/isn't an abuse issue.

Framework- Framework is a debatable issue in the round. Be able to explain why I should prefer your framework over the one presented by the opponent.

Impact Calc-Highly appreciated.

Speed: Keep it about 60-70%, or about 215-245 words per minute, if that helps more. I tend to prefer that your arguments are well thought out and that you can express your arguments to the fullest of your ability without risking the possibility that the message is not conveyed. I understand that spreading can be the norm and the benefits, such as creating valuable skills like processing thoughts rapidly. Still, it is not how most people, especially policymakers, discuss their ideas. Cool if you need to finish a point before the time is up, but make sure you're not going so fast that I don't understand you.

Speaker Points-Top speaker (usually) gets a 30. Everyone else falls according to volume, clarity, and appropriate tone (not as vital). The only exception is if there is no outstanding speaker in the round. If there is a preset speaker point system on my end with details provided by the tournament organizers, I will default to those and judge accordingly. Since I judge many schools from different backgrounds, having one set of speaker points is challenging.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech:

Extemp-I prefer more substantive analysis rather than the number of sources. With that said, 1-2 sources per point are usually safe. Ensure the speech is well-structured, including signposts to facilitate following along.

Traditional LD judge. Rate and tone are important. No drops. It is value debate so debate the value. Use of philosophy is a must.