Hi!

- Leander HS ‘22, UT Speech ‘26

- Mostly extemp, with some experience in CX, LD, congress, and impromptu

Some basic stuff:

• Racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. is an automatic drop (last place in speech, loss with minimum speaks in debate)

• Send speech docs (or questions after the round, etc) to ibhsdocs@gmail.com

• Use a tw/cw if needed

Extemp/IEs

This is the event I have the most experience with (it’s also my favorite :)

I want to learn! Tell me something interesting! Most importantly: have fun! If you seem excited about the topic, I'll get excited about the topic and about your speech!

Debate

Spreading is fine if I have the doc. If I don't then slow down on anything you want me to flow.

I don't know any specific K literature very well so please explain your advocacy.

Tech > truth except for the obvious like bigotry.

I listen to cross but I don't flow it unless you bring it up in a speech.

Unless the tournament says otherwise, open cross/flex prep is fine with me as long as it's fine with both debaters/teams.

Specific arg types:

• Theory: my favorite off case. Make sure you extend your interp, violation, standard, and impact all the way through if you want me to vote on your theory. I default to granting RVIs but my threshold for a successful no RVI argument is low.

• Kritiks: explain them well. Make sure your links are specific and clear.

• Counterplans and disads: nothing specific. They're fine.

I like meme cases and I'll vote them up if they technically win the flow.

Speaks are awarded on strategy, word economy, and demeanor (ex: use of humor, not being overly aggressive during cross, etc.).

Congress

Follow parliamentary procedure. PO starts in the last rank that breaks (ex: in a chamber where the top 3 break to the next round, the PO will start at 3rd place) and moves up or down from there. Please clash.

As a bonus for reading the paradigm, before the round starts, tell me your favorite type of tea and I'll give you +0.5 speaks.

Top level

Debate is a game, and I'll evaluate as much on the flow as I possibly can. With that having been said, I'm not going to evaluate bigoted arguments. As well as that, if you're very rude to your opponent, I will tank speaks and I'll likely be looking for any reason to vote for your opponent on the flow. I really don't do well with evaluating LARP v LARP, so for my most accurate ballot consider running philosophy against LARP or a K or something of the sort, however I will certainly do my best to evaluate it. As a former judge of mine once pointed out, the debate is owned by the competitors and as the judge it is my responsibility to facilitate that debate that the competitors want to have as best as I can.

PLEASE CLARIFY BEFORE ROUND AND PLEASE SEND THE DOC I DON'T WANT TO MISS SOMETHING AND IT MAKES MY FLOW MORE CLEAR

Contact info

senddebatedocs@gmail.com -- email, send a message if you have a question before round, good if you also want to do file share over email.

Note that I prefer file share to be over speechdrop.net, especially in outrounds with many judges. It's just quicker.

Preferences

(1 is best, 5 is worst)

Meme case v meme case - 1 (this would be great)

LARP v K - 1

LARP v Phil - 2

Phil v K - 2

K v K - 2

Phil v Phil - 3

LARP v LARP - 5

Aff K v Trix - you're literally the worst just don't, ESPECIALLY not against idpol

Trix v Neg K - (2 - strike) (depends on the 1ar strategy)

Trix v Trix - 10 (I'd be terrible at evaluating this)

Theory / Topicality

Really hasn't been my style for the most part unless I saw real abuse, however I do like frivolous theory. Must wear santa hat, must bring a sled, must live in Texas, etc. can give me a chuckle and the debate over the shell, IF DONE WITH PROPER OFFENSE, is very interesting to me.

Topicality on aff Ks is gross for the most part. Stop whining and actually critique their position or run policy, a K v K debate has a much larger potential for critical education and real pedagogical value than your shell. With that having been said, I'll still evaluate topicality because the flow comes first, but please just run a K or larp.

Topicality on policy is interesting to me, I like to hear the different interpretations on the meaning of the resolution. That having been said, Nebel is gross.

I default to K comes before T, competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater.

Note that I am very compelled by theory on misgendering and other practices that exclude marginalized groups from the debate space. I do not believe that apologies check -- without any punishment for these practices, debaters would have no reason to change. However, provided that one of these practices is not ACTIVELY bigoted (EG misgendering on purpose, impact turns on homophobia / sexism / antiblackness, etc) I will not intervene, and I will evaluate everything based on the flow, I just want to be clear on where I stand (c'mon, it's not that hard to at least use they/them pronouns to refer to people in the round...)

LARP

This is likely my weakest position as a judge, when both debaters perform very well it becomes very hard for me to evaluate. Luckily, at least 1 debater makes a major mistake in almost all debates except for the best of the best national circuit rounds, but know that LARP is not my strongest subject. I have a very poor understanding of the policy literature for this topic, so please metaphorically hold my hand throughout the debate. That having been said, I will do my best to evaluate it and I will do my best not to judge screw.

With that having been said, I love LARP going up against philosophical or critical positions; it's extremely interesting to watch the debate move between extinction, ontology, the value of the state and debate, the ethical validity of consequences or teleology, and all of the rest of the arguments that occur in these debates!

K

My personal favorite is queer pessimism, and I love every permutation of it. I've judged many K debates, so I think I have a good grasp on most of the standard Ks. However, in the case that I don't understand an argument or its implications, it's always great to be clear of the implications for my flow. I don't believe that it's always the competitor's fault that the judge doesn't understand the K, and as well as that I don't believe that it is a reasonable ask for the competitor to teach the judge multiple books worth of critical theory in their 1NC, so even if I don't fully understand a K I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly.

Phil

The more obscure the better! I do love watching philosophy against LARP in any permutation (EG LARP v Kant), however my favorite debates to watch include perspectives that I haven't heard before with creative implications. I love hearing rebuttal speeches leverage their philosophy in creative ways that wouldn't be expected.

Pet Peeves (please read novices)

There's a few things that really, in the words of Amy Santiago from Brooklyn Nine-Nine, really "grate my cheese".

[1] DEBATERS WHO DON'T USE ALL OF THEIR TIMES IN THEIR SPEECHES: Now I've been known to not use all of my 1AC on some cases in the past and while I don't think it's strategic of me to do that sometimes I do it just to mess with the other debater or because I have no idea what I can add without having the judge view me as too abusive, BUT 1NRs, 1ARs, 2NRs, and 2ARs should use all of your time. This is competitive debate, I want to watch you debate. If you read out a document and you have 3 minutes left in your 1NR, I want to hear you line-by-line their case, not just say "uh I'm finished". Your speaker points will SUFFER if you do this.

[2] DEBATERS WHO CONCEDE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE DEBATE: Many times it's the debaters who don't use all of their time who do this. Even if you personally agree with an argument or it seems frustrating or confusing to respond to, just make something up! Take time in prep to think about it if necessary. When you're going into a round you have to have an idea of what your ballot is going to be already. If you do this and your opponent does this as well, the round will be VERY difficult for me to evaluate and I will not be nice with speaker points.

[3] DEBATERS WHO MAKE CLAIMS WITHOUT WARRANTS: Now I'm fairly lenient with warrants, obviously I don't have to agree with your warrant, but you can't just say "evaluate the debate after the 1AC" for example, you have to provide a reason why. For example, "evaluate the debate after the 1AC, key to deconstruct debate" if your case opposes debate. Now that's an example of a case where it's very close to not enough warranting, but I will allow that. However, the weaker the warrant the more easy it is for your opponent to respond, so warrant lightly at your own risk.

[4A] DEBATERS WHO DON'T EXTEND THEIR ARGUMENTS: Now this doesn't have to be that long, but if you want me to evaluate an argument you've got to show me that it's still in the debate. I give a lot more leeway with the 1AR and extensions can be quick

[4B] EXAMPLES OF EXTENSIONS THAT I'M FINE WITH:

1. Long: (EG Extend the Biden advantage -- Trump is set to win the election, that's Bedard 7/22, and that will lead to extinction, that's Starr 19, but compulsory voting increases voter turnout and nonvoters are by in large democratic that's Mukuthu 19 and Badger 18, which leads for a victory for Biden which o/ws the neg on a] opportunity cost because their counterplan costs more and at best achieves the same effect, b] magnitude, nuclear extinction is irreversible, and c] timeframe because our case impacts are contextualized to the death of Breyer and RBG, with RBG having died this impact is closer than ever)

2. Short: (Extend the Biden advantage, Trump will win the election without compulsory voting and that leads to extinction through warming, nuclear prolif, and middle east instability. This o/ws the neg on a] timeframe because the election is in a few months and b] magnitude because extinction is irreversible)

Note that the length of your extensions should definitely depend based on your opponent's case, EG if they run a different philosophy that doesn't evaluate your consequences and they don't engage much with your advantage, it's better to spend more time on the framework debate.

Favorite Cookie Recipe

(If you tell me your favorite cookie recipe and you give me a link before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.1 - 0.5 or POSSIBLY higher depending on how likely I am to try it out. This also serves as a reward for reading my paradigm)

This is a recipe for snickerdoodles. I've tried a lot of snickerdoodle recipes before, but this is by far my favorite one. It turns out consistently great snickerdoodles and in my opinion the best form of cookie to test baking prowess is a snickerdoodle, because it relies less on quality of ingredient than baking style, ratios of ingredients, and patience.

Ingredients:

• ½ cup butter, softened
• ½ cup shortening
• 1 ½ cups white sugar
• 2 eggs
• 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
• 2 ¾ cups all-purpose flour
• 2 teaspoons cream of tartar
• 1 teaspoon baking soda
• ¼ teaspoon salt
• 2 tablespoons white sugar
• 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon

Directions:

• Step 1: Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C).

• Step 2: Cream together butter, shortening, 1 1/2 cups sugar, eggs, and vanilla. Blend in flour, cream of tartar, soda, and salt. Shape dough by rounded spoonfuls into balls.

• Step 3: Mix 2 tablespoons sugar and cinnamon together. Roll balls of dough in mixture. Place 2 inches apart on ungreased baking sheets.

• Step 4: Bake 8 to 10 minutes, or until set but not too hard. Remove immediately from baking sheets.

Add me to the email chain: ruthcrismartin@gmail.com

I debated for Vista Ridge for 4 years (graduated in 2022), and I’m studying Communication Studies at UT Austin.

I did LD for a year, and 3 years of PF.

PF:

I don't have any topic knowledge. If you want me to know something, bring it up in speech.

Signpost in every speech and make sure to warrant arguments in the round.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

Defense is not sticky, so please extend.

An argument is dropped if it’s not brought up in the next speech.

Collapse in the second half of the round, as I will only evaluate what has been extended in summary and final focus. That being said, weigh in summary and tell me why I should vote for your impact over the other. If I'm left with two valid arguments that say the opposite and there's no weighing or clash, I cannot determine who the winner is without intervening. Also, I like voters in FF.

I’m not great with speed anymore, so do what you want with that information.

I won't vote on theory, progressive arguments, LARP and K’s in PF.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Any other event:

Treat me as a lay judge.

In general, be respectful of everyone in the round.

I do PF and am a current  3rd year debater for Vista Ridge Highschool.

I don't have much knowledge outside PF.

:)

Tech > truth

I'm a tech judge.

I don't mind fast talking

Make sure to sign post

Anything offensive (homophobia or being racist) I will vote against you