Hello! My name is Ari, and I'm a varsity high school debater at the Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet. I am a senior. My email is arceoari@gmail.com

General Thoughts

Truth>Tech

I like it when teams can effectively communicate why they should win a round. Impact calculus is key. What are your impacts, and why do they matter?

I think that the job of debaters is to make my job to make a decision as easy as possible. Debaters should communicate effectively by using good organization, being loud, staying clear, etc. My RFD should look like, "I voted aff/neg in this debate because *2 to 3 lines from the 2nr/2ar*"

If the argument is important, I want it to be explained well, and have a lot of evidence. However, good analytics > bad evidence.

I think that clarity>speed, since speed comes with clarity. You can be fast, as long as you're clear. If you ever get too fast, I'll just say "Clear", and ask you to slow down. I won't mind if you are going fast as long as I've got a speech doc and you aren't completely unintelligible.

Case

Case debate is unfortunately underrated. I'm willing to vote on impact defense and smart solvency take-outs. Impact turns are cool.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, and I think that explaining the impacts to T is exceptionally important. However, I will say that I feel like I'm more willing to vote on topicality than the average DUDA judge.

Kritiks

While I'm not sure if DUDA MS has enough time to run kritiks, I will say that I like kritiks. I happen to like framework/impact debates rather than perm/link debates, if that makes sense.

Counterplans

I like counterplans, even abusive ones. For posterity's sake, I think that abusive CPs can easily be handled by smart permutations (read this for an example: https://www.debatemusings.org/home/stupid-cps-are-stupid).

With that being said, I love well thought out advantage CPs. I feel like a thought out advantage CP might as well be a case argument considering how much they interact on the flow.

Disadvantages

Zero risk of link is possible. I like specific links, and in-depth clash.

16+ years as a theatre/debate/speech teacher. Please try to be clear in both speech and ideas. Be professional. Tabula Rasa

Great job in your presentation.

Hi I'm Sabrina :)

I am currently a debater at JBS Law Magnet

As a judge I just want to see arguments clash and overall the side that is argued more impactful. Any hateful speech will result in an automatic loss and low speaking points.

Any question- email me at Sabrinabhattara06@gmail.com

Hi I'm Eduardo Campuzano and I been debating for 5 years now. I want you to have both speed and clarity. If during the debate match you dropped an argument it will affect my decision in who wins.

TAG '25

~4 years policy debate experience + some world schools

I will flow your round. If you want advice on flowing/ basic debate things, feel free to ask me any questions after the round is over if we have time. I will try to leave a detailed reason for decision on tabroom.

Talk as fast or as slow as you want. Please speak loudly enough for me to hear you (I will let you know if this is an issue). Also, be respectful to your opponents.

Dunbaraustin13@gmail.com

Name: Aris Ferreira

Current Affiliation: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy

Conflicts: Barack Obama Male Leadership Academy

Debate Experience: 3yr. Coaching middle and high school

How many rounds have you judged in 2022-23: at least 30

arguments that you prefer to listen to/debate.

1. Theory debates
2. Ethics
3. Race

arguments that you prefer not to listen to/debate.

1. Climate change arguments can get redundant.

I do like to do or like watch other people do.

1. I do like line by line

stylistics items you do not like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer clarity over speed

2. I prefer closed debates

I have a background in rhetoric therefore I prefer to listen more nuanced debate rounds. While I appreciate a technical debate as much as the next judge, I find it more interesting and compelling to listen to a debate with a foundation in persuasion and rhetoric. Strong logical arguments with sound reasonings.

I'm pretty open to either side. Being a former debater, I can hang with fast speeds as long as clarity is not sacrificed. 1AC should have their pronunciation and speech time down, as this speech is pretty much the same across the season.
Dropped arguments get pulled across. Evidence-wise, all other things being equal, newest evidence wins if in direct conflict.

No new arguments in rebuttal speeches, except in 1AR to refute 2NC.

I will deduct speaker points and lower ranking for debaters who don't use all their cross examination time or leave too much speech time on the board (especially in rebuttal speeches!). You can always summarize your case and let me (the judge) know which points you are winning, which ones the opposing team dropped, and why I should vote for your side.

debater at the School for the Talented and Gifted

yes, put me on the chain: francesca.gilbard@tagmagnet.org

Ks: i typically reads Ks, so I'm familiar with a good piece of the literature. i do think the link story matters; and links should be as specific as possible. That doesn't mean I won't vote on your generic link, but I have a higher threshold; so you'll need to do some analysis that contextualizes the link in the world of the aff. i also don't think the alt should/must solve for the impacts of the k. so, if your just offering the alt as an alternative pathway for me to vote on, then that's fine, but please vocalize that.

DAs: i think DAs are great. please read a complete shell with all four parts of the DA though (UQ, L, I/L, !). it is very difficult to evaluate a DA that has a missing component. however, i don't like to fill in the flow for you, so i expect your opponents to call you out on any missing component in order for me to evaluate it. impact calc is really important for me here.

T: topicality is very viable. please note that a counter-interp and impact defense are critical as aff. if you want to go for T in the 2NR, please don't spend less that a minute talking about it. reasonability is vague, please contextualize the round and explain how their impacts haven't been triggered. minimizing the violation args are also great. case lists are very important too.

CPs: i don't think i've ever gone for the cp, but that doesn't mean i won't vote on it. please just have a net ben, a good perm defense. i love a good theory debate on the cp flow; but please don't just read your generic theory blocks from a camp theory file. specificity is key.

aff tingz: ultimately, i think the aff should convince me that the world of the plan is inherently better than that of the status quo. the 2AC needs to be sharp with answering all case args in an effective manner, as well as the off case. please don't undercover/ drop args in the 2ac/1ar; it makes me very sad. don't underestimate the power of the 2ar.

neg tingz: ultimately, i think the neg should disprove the desirability of the plan. when it comes to the off case, quality over quantity, all day every day. i really don't want to listen to a 1nc that has 8 off that are super generic, not plan-specific, and aren't really good args. link specificity is really important to me. a succesful neg block should be able to overwhelm the 1ar. splitting the block is essential.

I look for clear and concise arguments the most. Presentation isn’t judged too heavy as long as the arguments are connected and detailed.

Travis ‘20 TAG ‘24

I debated for Travis for 3 years, and now that I am in high school I do mock trial. I prefer clarity and partners helping each other.

I'm a stock issues judge, unless you give me a reason to switch paradigms. I like to think I'm a blank slate, but then I have to have some basis for making a decision, so I default to the stock issues.

I am a senior at the law magnet and captian of our mock trial team. I did debate all 3 years of middle school and this will be my 4th year judging middle school debate. I prefer when debaters go as fast as they can WHILE being understandable. Please ask if I am ready for you to start speaking because I might be writing down notes of how awesome you were or setting up the timer. I prefer a closed debate so I can better judge an individual's debating skills. Cheers and good luck!

Hey y'all my name is Manny and I will be your judge for the round.

A couple of things to get out of the way (just boring background stuff) :

• I am a sophomore at Judge Barefoot Sanders Law Magnet at Townview and I compete in their debate team

• I've been debating for around five-ish years and I've debated in middle school for Sam Tasby

• I can speak Spanish fluently, I am a native speaker so if you feel more comfortable speaking Spanish when asking me questions. Of course, during the round, you may speak English because your partner or others might not understand if you debate in Spanish. But if you want to ask me a general question or if you have any issues, feel free to speak in Spanish if you feel that is the most convenient for you.

Now to what I look for in debates

Policy

Here are some things I look for in general

• I prefer clarity over speed, but if you can balance speed and clarity or you can only do speed that is fine by me.

• All of the rounds I judge will be open debates. I do not see the point in having closed debates so open rounds for me.

• Remember to clash and keep the debate interesting.

For beginner rounds, I don't really look for much. Just the basics like having a clear tone and of course being respectful

For advanced rounds, I look for a little more.

• What I look for in advanced rounds are signposting or roadmaps to indicate where the debate is at. Of course, I will be flowing the debate and I'm sure both teams will too but It's just helpful to know where we are in the debate.

• If you want to time yourself, feel free to do so. I will be keeping time but setting your personal timer will help you with pacing.

Other things to keep in mind.

• If I make a mistake please correct me. I haven’t debated middle school rounds for two years now so if I get mixed up with the timings please correct me. Also with your name, if you go by another name or if I mispronounce it please correct me. Also if you have any preferred pronouns, please tell me so can I keep a note of that.

• Try not to go to the restroom during the debates. If it's an emergency of course I will let you go. Don’t worry I won't count prep time off for restroom breaks (I've seen other judges do that I don’t know why but it's so annoying.) But if you can, try and hold it to the end of the round or go before the round.

• For the 8th graders If you have any questions about JBS Law Magnet or if you are interested in applying, please feel free I would be more than happy to tell you more and connect you to our debate coach.

I hope we can have a good and fun round. Good luck :3

Speed or clarity?

I don't really have a preference as long as I can understand what you are reading. Just focus on your argument and getting through as many cards as you need for your case. I will be giving speaker point based on how you present the text and your familiarity with the text (read confidently and show that you know what you're reading). 

Open or closed debate?

Open unless DUDA tells me otherwise. My only condition is that the partner does not completely overpower and take over the cross examination time. 

In my decision, I will be deciding based on the arguments. Make sure that what you are reading answers your opponent's points while also bringing in new evidence or additional support for your argument. Make sure there is clash.

High-school debater for four years at TAG Magnet Dallas. Biggest influences in debate are Judd Kimball at Mary Washington and Tracy McFarland at Jesuit Dallas.

Please include me on the chain: joseph.suek@tagmagnet.org

Clarity over speed, but I'm okay with speed (I'll try to prompt if I just can't understand what you're saying but that's kind of worst case).

I'll run time for you, but keep it yourself too (especially prep)

I'll listen to pretty much any argument, just defend it. Things I won't hear/consider/be skeptical to vote on include:

[insert system of oppression] good (e.g. racism good)

generic theory arguments (e.g. condo bad) - sidenote here, if it's seriously mishandled/dropped, fine, but you still have to do the work of proving the in-round issues at play

A to Z spec or anything within that bounds (see time cube and company)

For speaker points, I start at a 27.5 and go up and down from there. Things that will get you docked include:

general rudeness (especially in cross-examination)

relying on tag lines and author names (i.e. you're not evincing your points with your own speaking)

reading arguments that I specified above.

Otherwise, I'll grant you points above a 27.5 for good explanations, clarity, and crafty/skilled cross-examinations

The last note I'll make is that I'm a sucker for good sufficiency framing arguments for any counterplan + disad combo, but I'll definitely still hear aff answers here

Otherwise, just remember that we're people first and debaters second, that we're all spending our Saturdays to hang out with a bunch of other interesting, intelligent, respectable humans and that if maintain that attitude, it'll be a good time and a learning moment for everyone.

Leroy Tamfu

Debater at BOMLA

6 years

Hi! I am an urban high school debater who is always ready to help. Debate is only what you decide to make it! - Evan Gilbert. AND YES, I QUOTED THE GOAT!

Debate the best you know how. I evaluate everything as long as you explain how I should. Every judge you meet is lazy. I am only lazy when I am in judge mode so spell things out for me., so I won't have to intervene as a judge. The goal is to ensure that debate becomes strong in MS to build the HS division. this means we are all on the same team. Bigotry, disrespect and lack of etiquette is L 25. This also means you can ASK ME QUESTIONS. Anything debate related I will answer to ensure you get better at the activity. Be confident! the fact you chose to be here displays courage so keep at it. All it takes to win is a clear and concise story of why I should vote for you based off of the args u presented. Knowing your case and understanding strategy on how exactly you go about that is key to winning all of your rounds.

CX is a game changer. Being able to use it to your advantage. You should be able to defend against this and use it at your advantage. When they ask you a vague question use that opportunity to really explain what you have to say. That is using CX to your advantage. Also, it's like a test of if you understand what you're reading.

Rebuttals are YOUR TIME to shine this means you have to use it to your advantage make the arguments you need to make to win and THAT's IT.

Prep is important make sure you time your speeches. So we can avoid going over the time limit of the 1AC and you're golden!

Speed is a good way to show off skill as long as you do not cut clarity.

Email for Speech Docs: svasquez13579@gmail.com

(I prefer Speechdrop over email chains but whatever both teams agree on is fine!)

General

Hi! I am a first-year at UT Austin and was a debater throughout high school. I debated in Policy but I have experience judging CX, LD, WS, and PF.

SPREADING: I prefer clarity over speed, it helps me flow the debate better. However, if you can spread while still sounding comprehensible, then I don't mind!

As for things I do not condone in a debate round:

1. Offensive language and any form of racism, homophobia, ableism, sexism etc.
2. Physical or verbal aggression
3. Attacking/assuming an opponents identity for the sake of an argument

I have no preferred arguments - run what you want! Have fun and experiment. I enjoy non-traditional debate rounds. That being said, remember to remain respectful of your opponent and have your argument contain the basics.

LD Specific

I judge LD rounds based on framework. I will side with whoever best argues how they will achieve their value.

You can have the most elaborate and detailed case, but without framework (Value Criterion + Standard) I have no guide as to what to base your argument on. Framework to me is the base of the debate, having no framework collapses your argument.

Specific Notes

1. I flow cross examination, it tells me how well you understand your argument, however, if your opponent makes a mistake or contradicts themselves during cx and you do not call it out, then I will not use that against them for their argument, I will only deduct from their speaker points.
2. Please keep track of your own speech times, I will also be timing y'all but I'd prefer to focus on flowing without looking at the timer
3. Upload ALL cards you plan on reading in a speech to that designated speech document. Do NOT read additional evidence and upload it after your speech is finished. Not only is it hard for me to navigate your files, it also takes up extra time. It's also not respectful to your opponent because now they have less time to overview all your cards.
4. NEG does NOT have to upload their speech until after AFF's first speech.
5. I allow for spectators during a debate as long as they remain quiet and respectful of the competitors.

Introduction: I competed in debate at Irma Rangel YWLS on NSDA/TFA/UIL. I did LD and Mock trial however I am familiar with policy (I did it in middle school).

LD:

• Looking for value/criterion and for them to be held up. Make sure to impact your arguments back to this otherwise they hold no value. Say the link between the card and the value, don’t assume I will see the internal link. Winning framework is important but does not win you the round.
• No spreading unless you share the document with me, and definitely sign post (make it know by either pausing or saying “and” when moving on to your next card.

Email chain: its.ashley.vela@gmail.com

I've been a DUDA debater since 7th grade, and I've been judging debates since 9th grade. I'm well-immersed in this year's topic and I'm ready to give helpful feedback to any debaters who'd like it!