Hey! Add me to the email chain at alexismchilds@gmail.com

LD

I'm a traditional debater but am getting more comfortable with progressive debate. That being said, I'm not the judge to run your super progressive case in front of.

1. Speed - I'm not a huge fan of spreading so please take your speed down a few levels in front of me. If you must spread, do so at your own risk and read the room before you do - if it's late at night, don't yell/spread at me. Send me the speech doc

2. Ks - I don't understand/I'm not a fan of most of these. I run cap K and that's about it. If you have a question about an argument, feel free to ask before the round!

3. Theory - I don't understand most theory and think the majority of the time people read unnecessary/frivolous theory. Unless there is clear abuse happening in the round, don't read theory. Topicality is good and if argued well and when necessary, I'll vote on it. I'll vote for disclosure but probably not disclosure by itself.

4. CPs/Disads - I enjoy these and think they're a good strategy. If you're going to run them, defend them.

5. Framework - this is what makes LD different from other types of debate and I expect you to use. In your last speech, give me voters/weighing/framework and make it clear why I should vote for you.

6. CX - I really enjoy cross and definitely pay attention. That being said, I don't flow it so bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow. I will hold you to what you said in cross. Please be courteous to your opponent but as long as you're not being offensive, I'm pretty lenient on cross. Don't be afraid to push them to explain their case/get the answer your looking for.

Read my facial expression - I'm a pretty expressive person. If I look confused, please clear up your point. Nodding/smiling means I like/am following your point.

Congress

I believe that Congress focuses on speaking clearly and well more than any other type of debate. Because of this, the better you speak, the better I will rank you. Have sources in your speech! You saying something does not make it credible/true. Please be polite during questioning but that doesn't mean you have to be timid.

PF

Evidence is important, don't make baseless claims. I appreciate organized, line by line rebuttals with signposting. If nothing else, this will get you good speaks. Weighing is super important, particularly in your last speeches. I should know exactly why I'm voting for you in order to get my ballot.

Final Focus should have impact weighing! Please be respectful of your opponents during cross. Cross is for asking questions, not personally attacking opponents or making statements.

Overall, I enjoy good clash, speaking, and cross. Please be kind to your opponents!

IPDA

My apologies, they have clearly run out of qualified judges for IPDA. I evaluate this like LD, have good offense and defense, speak well, and you'll be fine :)

About me:

• Debated four years at Liberty University (Policy debate for about a year and a half and more kritical/performative arguments for the last two and half years with the majority of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col and soo on) but definitely would say that I was more of a performance debater than anything
• NDT and CEDA Octofinalist and a CEDA 1st speaker 
• Currently a GSA at Liberty University
• Yes, put me on the email chain —— mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Just a heads up: I know alot of stuff about different things but I don't know everything so you should assume that I am not well versed in your args don't assume that I know what your talking about but also dont talk to me like im an idiot I'm smart just don't know every k/ arg out there

General Things:

• If your gonna try and full-on spread in online debate I hope your mic and connection is good if not I probably won’t catch anything you say --- don’t sacrifice speed for clarity especially in online
•  Speaker Points --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate but if you mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4 ---- in debate its become a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.5, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award
• Probably better for critical/performance args but I also know my way around a policy round ;) extinction this extinction that extinction everything lmao no jkjk  (On this when it comes to arguments and style, I am pretty much open to anything if it doesn’t fall into any of the ism’s racist, sexist, or ableist (and any other ism I haven’t listed). I am also not down for death good, but anything else I am pretty much down for.)
• I often make facial expressions during the debate and yes they are about the debate so I would pay attention to it my face will often let you know when I vibing and when im confused 
• Ohhh and for the black folks ask for speaker points and ye shall receive lol I might not be able to always give you the ballot but I can give you a 30 

How I view debate ---- Overall, I think the debate is a game first and foremost BUT I think the debate has the potential to be more than a game I think that there are conversations that we should and can have in the debate space. BUT I also think competition structures many of the decisions we make in debate. So I guess that comes down to whether that’s a good or bad thing? 

- Judge instruction in the 2AR and 2NR is like super important to me --- I see it as you just gave me a bunch of information and arguments now tell me what to do with it: What should I prioritize? What do your args mean in the context of this debate? Why the aff or neg's understanding is incorrect? and ect. --- The chances of you getting my ballot without judge instruction in the final speeches is so little because if you leave me to sort through all the arguments and information with no direction you cant get mad at me if I make a decision you dont agree with

K aff’s --- Think they are great the more creative the better (especially the performative ones) ---- I prefer that they are in the direction of the resolution but I also understand sometimes thats not possible. 

Think they need two thing or you more than likey wont get my ballot 

1. Defense of why you read it in the debate space like why is debate key arg
2. And what's the role of the negative? What is their ground or why dont they get ground? 

K’s ----- I don’t know every K in existence but with thorough explanation and well execution I will probably be fine. I think the links need to be specific to the aff so if you read generic links in the 1NC BUT I need the Block to be pulling lines from the aff to prove the link ---- its called contextualization and without it you will lose --- Not a fan of reject alt just cuz they don’t do anything but if you’re like reject the aff and then do this instead then yeah that works

Floating PIK's need to be like lowkey flagged earlier in the debate cuz if it just pops up im not voting on it and needs to be well explained

Yes, the aff impact turns the K not gonna do that work for you to prove that

FWK ---- Framework makes the game work. Don’t think fairness is an impact but somehow, I feel like I would still vote on it. I think you need a TVA. Also, a reason why your model of debate is good and yes I will vote on 

Policy aff --- ngl if you’re in this boat I am probably not the best for you. If you read a soft-left aff I am probably good for you, but hard-right aff’s I am probably not the best for but I understand them I just would ask that you be very thorough in how you explain the aff

Theory is fine prefer it be well explained and not just blocks read at me tho I am about disclosure theorized out tho but if you must know I have a high bar and dont read new aff's bad either --- For condo I think you get three worlds I get annoyed when a team reads more than like 7 offcase to collapse on 2 in the block cuz its like what the point? What a waste of paper, time and my attention tbh I just think a bunch offcase positions doesn't really lead to good debates 

*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*

I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas.

Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.

You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.

Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.

I'm mainly a World Schools, Asian Parliamentary, and British Parliamentary judge. I have been judging at WSDC since 2017. As a predominantly parliamentary judge, I look at the debate holistically. Therefore, having consistency down the bench and demonstrating teamwork is important. I also prioritize logical reasoning over scientific evidence. It is okay to have evidence but make sure to always back it up with argumentation. Individually, content, strategy, and style are inseparable and speakers should strive to do well in all three areas. If you have questions, feel free to approach me!

Howdy, 

I have nearly a decade of experience as a competitor/judge/coach for high school & college debate. Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country. 

• Former Coach/Associate of Cypress Creek HS, Fremont HS and Bellingham HS

Interp:

Jinkiez ... I can go on and on about everything I look for and what I want to specifically see in a interp round

I LOVE a great teaser, intro and conclusion, if you have these three things in your piece and they connect and support one another I will most likely love your piece.
Insight, significance, creativity, authors intent and delivery are important for the storytelling effect.
Blocking should be fluid and character distinction are a must have, I can't stress this enough.

PLZZZ don't change your piece or pander to get a W , I hope you will be you and WOW me!

When it comes to binder events . . . . . . lets just say me being a extreme stickler for binder etiquette is an understatement - y'all have been warned.

Congress:

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it - ps I keep up with everything.

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

witty banter is a plus

PF:

tech > truth

this is PF not LD or CX - speed shouldn't be a thing in this event

I welcome clash 

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions 

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know..  make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision 

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it 

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything, but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis 

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple" 

LD/CX:

tech > truth

clash is welcome

speed is ok here!

^ not gonna yell speed/clear

sit down or stand up - not a problem for me , as long as you're comfortable and ready to go I'm game

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

links can make or break you , *hint, hint*

for LD, my preferences on content/arguments all depends on the topic - with that being said, I won't penalize you for running any kind of argument, be you and give it your all!!

I *heckin* love a good K ( LD/ CX )

^ If you can run anything on Marxism, Constructivism or Anarchrist theory and its impeccable.... not only do you get my ballot but I will also sing your praises to colleges that compete in the NFA and CEDA 

^ Cap K's, Advocating for human extinction/nuclear war are MY FAVORITE TYPE OF ARGUMENTS

evidence.. it honestly could go either way, but even a little evidence goes a long way

framework is something I look for

do the extending and weighing for me, if you don't I'm probably not gonna evaluate anything of yours

for CX , I rarely judge this... but for me it will all come down to stock issues

^ I expect SO much evidence in round to the point of where I'm basically drowning in it

either event - I always look for abuse , if it happens in round don't be afraid to point it out

speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Worlds:

I hate when this event gets Americanized, variety GOES a longgg way

I kinda expect to see clash 

no speed, this needs to be conversational 

don't paraphrase evidence/sources 

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine 

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round 

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time 

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated 

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed 

as a Congress judge I value decorum, take that into consideration 

Overall:

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2022-2023 season!!

Hi, I'm Grady!

I started doing debate in middle school and competed in policy, LD, and public forum. I was away from debate for awhile and have gotten back into judging this year, primarily in PF and LD.

I prefer substantive engagement in whatever form you prefer. I prefer line by line argumentation and I look for some kind of framework by which to evaluate a round.

I have the most experience in framework-heavy debates. I am open to counterplans, DAs, etc. as long as you avoid overly-using debate jargon when explaining the structure of the args. I'll happily evaluate a critical round, but don't assume I have a background in the lit you're reading and make the clash explicit.

I don't take myself too seriously; if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them before the round. Run whatever you have prepared and be nice to your opponent.

I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy. Over the years, I've also previously coached LD for Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers at schools across the country. Most of my coaching and judging experience is LD and Policy, but I've also coached and judged World School and Public Forum. I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies. I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I have also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, Mean Green, Championship Group, and UTNIF.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; on what it means to be a "topical advocacy," I default to the view that it requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. Both of these defaults --- that the AFF must be topical and that being topical requires defending the implementation of a public policy --- are simply my defaults. I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. In the end, the question to me will be who is successfully defending the comparatively better warranted and implicated arguments on these issues. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical AFF --- most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.

Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Topicality / Theory

I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; open to that being contested in the round too.

As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm simply because it has inertia.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.