CX:

I am a very traditional judge with many years of coaching experience. I am not a fan of speed, and I prefer traditional arguments. That is my preference; it does not mean that I won't listen to the arguments made and weigh the evidence.

I am a policy maker and want to follow the argumentation and see the flow of the debate clearly. I can't outweigh one side over another if I don't know why I should because the argument itself was either made too quickly to catch or does not have a clear link. What I do want to hear is the Plan and any counter-plans the Neg offers; I need to see how and why the policy works/outweighs, etc.

I do not want to be included on an email chain, but for the sake of time, you may go ahead and do so. The email address is bonnie.bonnette@fortbendisd.gov. First of all, I think that makes tournaments run very long; second, I want to SEE the flow of the debate. If I don't hear you say it and don't flow it, it doesn't count. However, just because I don't want that doesn't mean I will refuse the evidence. I will accept the email and read the shared evidence. No flash drives, however, please.

I rarely vote on Topicality arguments, and I don't like the Neg strategy of throwing out half a dozen arguments to see which one or two will actually "stick". I would rather hear a full development of two or three off-case arguments that clearly apply to the topic and to the Affirmative case. Kritiks are okay as long as they are not "off the wall" arguments. I said that I rarely vote on Topicality, but I have done so in the past.

i have been judging CX for over twenty years. Please don't treat me like I am stupid, but also don't assume I can (or will) judge like the college kids do.

Congress:

For Student Congress, I look for speaking skills, clash, and depth of information. I prefer unique arguments and reference to other speakers rather than heavy technical speeches; although, I do appreciate weighing arguments because I am a CX judge. I will rank P.O.s accordingly. I feel like the P.O. deserves a high rank as long as he or she does not make any (or many) mistakes. I look for proper structure in sponsorship and first negative speeches. I prefer speeches with good rhetoric and effective presentation skills.

I've been judging and coaching various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever topic you're speaking on. That isn't to say that you should treat me as a lay person but rather you should not expect me to know the intricate literature on complicated topics that you have been doing massive research on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have. I prioritize fairness and transparency as much as possible.

If you're curious as to what kind of judge I am: the PF Discord says that I am tech, flay, fake tech, a worlds coach, and a hack. I'm not purposefully sandbagging my paradigm but I will say that I am human and I won't get it right every time.

If you're curious as to whether or not I'm a good judge: the people I voted for would say yes, and the people I voted against would say I'm a goober behind my back.

Predominately, I just try my best with the information given to me and try to keep any personal bias or prior information out of the round and I like to have things implicated within the speeches.

I will often default to the tried and true: I will vote for the least mitigated link into the biggest. properly weighed impact.

I have voted on everything you can think of - but they must be run well and correctly.

Most importantly, the reason why I don't try to preclude specific types of arguments is because I think everyone should be able to debate how they want - whatever you want to run in front of me, do it! The activity gets stagnant and exclusionary if everyone just did the same thing every time; there is no one way to debate and no one way to judge a round.

Feel free to challenge me and my perceptions, to educate and entertain me, and to have fun and enjoy the activity that we all have dedicated countless hours in doing.

Try to be kind to each other, stop calling each other lazy or adding quippy personal attacks to refutations; please don't speak loudly while another competitor is speaking and try to maintain decorum when you're not speaking [ie keep the over the top reactions, eye rolls, and laughter down while your opponent is giving a speech].

I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.

General info for all debate—

1) no speed - this is a communication event

2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.

4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.

Specifics

LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.

CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.

Congress Paradigm:

I have judged congress for over two decades, even before it became a National standardized qualifying event and have advocated for it all that time because I believe it to be the best overall, well-rounded event that we offer in forensic competition.

It encompasses the benefits of acting because you are playing a role as a representative and the more you understand the motivation of your position, the greater the performance. It is one of the purest of speaking events, because a great representative is a great orator, in life and in your chamber. The writing and interpretation of legislation is at the core of the event and illustrating your deep understanding of that legislation is paramount in your performance. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a debate event, where civil clash is necessary.

All that being said, to understand how I view the event holistically, there are specific standards I prefer.

I do believe that in a three to four minute speech the speaker should get our attention in a creative way and give us a clear call for action and preview of their arguments, coming back to that AGD at the end, time permitting. Preparing us for what you are about to argue is important. There is no actual grace, so 3:08 is abusing the time of the next speaker. I prefer fewer, well developed arguments, than many blipped ones. Sources are important and both the quantity and quality of such sources, Q2, are vital. Representatives do not just rely on periodicals, but government reports, experts in the field, think-tanks, etc. These considerations are important, not just the number of sources. Consideration and knowledge of how our government actually works and the type of legislation at hand is also vital. We are debating issues present in the real world, so take that into consideration and consider what are the real-world implications to your constituents? Know and use parliamentary procedure to benefit the progress of debate; do not abuse it.

PO's are a vital part to any chamber and I look for a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure and efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance. If you have not read "Robert's Rules." it behooves you to do so, then be aware of all NSDA guidelines in adapting them. A good PO should run an efficient chamber and be pro-active in enforcing a fair chamber. Any perception of recognizing speakers unfairly will be penalized. Make sure you are clear with your procedures from the start and follow them consistently.

Overall, consider the above standards in your performance and you will do well. Remember, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are truly representing your school, your state, and your nation. We need good role models.

Policy Debate CX Paradigm:

I have judge policy for almost three decades and prefer traditional policy making focused debates with well weighed impacts.

That being said, I can handle speed, but clarity and articulation are key. I will not say clear, so if I put down my pen and you don't adjust, it is on you. If I don't flow it, it's not on the flow; I will not just read your files. This is an oral exercise in debate, so if it's important, make sure I get it.

My teams also have had great success with progressive arguments and K's, so I'm fine with it if you really know the literature and have clear links. I don't like K's, so make sure the story, links, and alternative are clear. All types of arguments are fine, as long as you know how to run them and they are relevant to your debate. I don't vote on T often, but it must be ran and answered correctly, not "they aren't topical, or "yeah, we are topical", and there should be clear in-round abuse.

Make sure there is direct clash and not just random generic arguments with weak links and no direct weighing. I love those debating actually debating case, so don't ignore it.

Probability and meaningful impacts are a must.

Be civil and debate well and every round will be fulfilling.

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

Hello! I debated for four years in high school and have been judging for seven years. Currently, I am in my second year as an Assistant Coach at Blanson CTE High School.

I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate styles. As a debater, your job is to communicate your arguments clearly and persuasively—if I can’t follow your reasoning, it’s your responsibility, not mine.

General Philosophy

I view debate as an educational activity that prioritizes critical thinking, effective communication, and strategic engagement. My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round fairly, without imposing personal biases.

Debates should balance technical precision with accessibility. While I appreciate strategic complexity, clarity and persuasion remain essential.

Key Aspects of Evaluation

1.Framework

• Clearly establish a framework for the debate. This helps me understand how to evaluate the round.

• If no framework is provided, I will default to weighing impacts based on magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

2. Clash

• Direct engagement with opposing arguments is essential. A good debate involves refutation and comparison of ideas.

• Merely reiterating your case without engaging with your opponent’s arguments will weaken your position.

3. Impact Analysis

• Explain why your impacts matter within the context of the debate.

• Weigh impacts explicitly (e.g., through magnitude, probability, or timeframe) to guide my decision-making process.

4. Evidence and Logic

• Evidence should be accurate, relevant, and properly cited. Misrepresenting evidence will hurt your credibility.

• Logical consistency and coherence are just as important as evidence. Make sure your arguments follow a clear and reasonable structure.

5. Clarity and Organization

• Signpost your arguments clearly so I can follow your reasoning.

• Stay organized in your delivery, especially in later speeches when crystallizing the round.

6. Speaker Etiquette and Respect

• Maintain professionalism and respect throughout the round. Disrespectful behavior or tone will affect speaker points.

• Debate should be a constructive activity. Engage in a way that fosters mutual learning and growth.

Procedural Preferences 1. Dropped Arguments

• Dropped arguments are not automatically round-winning. You must explain why the dropped argument is significant and how it impacts the round.

2. New Arguments

• New arguments introduced in the final speeches will not be evaluated unless the format explicitly allows it (e.g., Worlds School Debate).

• Extensions must be clear and consistent with earlier speeches.

3. Evidence Standards

• Be prepared to provide evidence if requested. Refusal to share evidence or misrepresenting sources will negatively impact your speaks and possibly your overall standing in the round.

4. Speed and Accessibility

• I can follow speed, but clarity is essential. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them.

• Debate is a communication event; your delivery should prioritize understanding over sheer volume.

5. Framework and Weighing

• Clearly articulate your weighing mechanisms throughout the round.

• If no weighing is done, I will default to my own evaluation, but this will make your case less persuasive.

Event-Specific Preferences

I have more in depth paradigms for the events linked at the bottom of the paradigm page

1. Policy Debate

• I am comfortable with technical arguments such as kritiks, topicality, and theory, but they must be well-explained and linked to the resolution.

• Impact calculus is crucial. Make sure to compare your impacts to your opponent’s explicitly.

2. Lincoln-Douglas Debate

• Value and criterion debates are important but should not overshadow the substantive arguments.

• Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and applied to the resolution.

3. Public Forum Debate

• Focus on clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility. PF is meant to be audience-friendly.

• Avoid spreading or overly technical jargon. Engage in direct clash and emphasize impact weighing.

4. World Schools Debate

• Persuasion, style, and structure are just as important as content.

• Team dynamics and strategic roles matter. Make sure your speeches complement each other.

5. Congressional Debate

• Clash is critical; reference previous arguments and specific speakers.

• Delivery, organization, and the ability to adapt to the debate are key factors in my evaluation.

Speaker Points Criteria

• Clarity: Are your arguments easy to follow and well-structured?

• Engagement: Do you interact effectively with your opponent’s arguments?

• Strategy: Are your speeches cohesive and aligned with your overall strategy?

• Delivery: Is your tone persuasive, professional, and engaging?

• Speaker points will range between 27-30, with higher points awarded for outstanding strategy, engagement, and delivery.

Final Notes

• Debate should be an enjoyable and educational activity. Focus on creating a meaningful and respectful exchange of ideas.

• My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments presented in the round, not to impose my personal beliefs or preferences.

• Have fun, and remember that the skills you develop in debate go far beyond winning individual rounds.

• DON’T BE RUDE

• I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS

• It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage

• Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues

• I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

• Ethics and Respect:
  If I observe a debater exploiting a less experienced opponent to boost their ego, I will not hesitate to drop their speaks to the lowest possible, assign them a loss regardless of the flow, and inform their coach. Such behavior is unethical and detracts from the educational value of debate, which should be a space for growth and learning. Everyone deserves respect in the round, regardless of skill level or experience.

• Progressive Arguments:
  While I usually prefer traditional arguments, I’m open to progressive arguments if they are well-constructed, clearly explained, and relevant. However, I’ve seen many cases where these arguments are poorly executed, unclear, or run simply for the sake of being progressive. If you choose to run progressive arguments, ensure you fully understand them and can articulate their significance effectively. Poorly run progressive cases will not be well-received.

• Expectations:

• Pre-Flowing: Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should know it well enough to present confidently without needing my assistance beforehand.

• Judging Style: I’m equally comfortable with big-picture overviews or line-by-line analysis. Just make sure your arguments are clear and structured.

• Weighing and Impact Calculus: Always provide impact calculus and weigh your arguments for me. This is essential for guiding my decision.

• Theory and Arguments: I dislike frivolous theory—run it only when it’s necessary and justified. Don’t present arguments you don’t fully understand or cannot defend under cross-examination.

• Case Preparation and Presentation:

• Do not ask me to pre-flow your case. You should already know it.

• I can judge rounds on either big-picture analysis or line-by-line. Choose the style that best supports your argument.

• Always include impact calculus and weigh your arguments clearly.

• I dislike frivolous theory. Only run theory if it’s necessary and justified.

• Don’t present arguments or evidence you don’t fully understand.

• Please stand when speaking

• make sure you weigh for me
• make sure you are doing the work for the judge
• don't ask me if you can skip grand cross in PF the answer is no it's a part of the round

• Spreading:

• Debate is a communication event. Even if I can understand speed, DO NOT SPREAD. I cannot flow what I cannot comprehend, and I will not rely on your speech doc unless there is an evidence-related issue.

• Integrity:

• Do not fabricate sources. If I suspect you are making up evidence, I will fact-check it and contact your coach and the tournament director.

• Educational Priority:

• I prioritize the educational value of debate over competitiveness. If you spread out a novice team, use overly vague terminology, or act dismissively, I will give you an L and minimum speaks. Debate should foster critical thinking, respect, and communication skills.

• Disclosure:

• I do not disclose decisions. All feedback will be provided on the ballot. Please do not ask me to disclose.

• Education Over Competition:
  I prioritize debate as an educational activity rather than purely a competitive one. If you spread your opponent out of the round, especially a novice team, are intentionally vague with your vocabulary, or act dismissive, rude, or uncooperative, I will assign you a loss and give you the minimum speaks. Debate is about fostering critical thinking, communication, and respect, not exploiting others for a competitive edge. Local tournaments, in particular, are opportunities for growth and should nurture nuanced, thoughtful, and educated participants.

• Final Note:
  Be respectful, aim for clarity, and, above all, have fun. Debate is a space to learn, challenge ideas, and grow—let’s keep it that way.

Event-Specific Preferences Policy Debate

• I’m comfortable with technical arguments (e.g., kritiks, topicality, theory) if they are well-explained and linked to the resolution.
• Impact calculus is critical—explicitly compare your impacts to your opponent’s.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

• Value and criterion debates are important but shouldn’t overshadow substantive arguments.
• Philosophical arguments are welcome but must be accessible and relevant to the resolution.

Public Forum Debate

• Clarity, big-picture analysis, and accessibility are key.
• Avoid spreading or relying on technical jargon—PF should be audience-friendly.
• Direct clash and effective impact weighing are essential.

World Schools Debate

• Persuasion, style, and structure are as important as content.
• Team dynamics and strategic roles should complement each other.

Congressional Debate

• Content>presentation, Congress is a debate event and needs to be treated as such, don't just give a speech just to give a speech.
• Clash is critical. Reference prior arguments and specific speakers directly.
• Avoid repetitive speeches; focus on adding new insights to the discussion.
• Delivery, organization, and adaptability are key factors in my evaluation.

Extemporaneous Speaking (Extemp)

• Answer the question directly—failing to do so will hurt your rank.
• Speeches should be well-organized, with a strong hook and clear structure.
• Fabricated sources will result in penalties. Integrity is non-negotiable.

Interpretation Events (Interp)

• Good blocking, clear character transitions, and distinct portrayals are essential.
• Emotion is important, but avoid overacting—subtlety and nuance are often more impactful.

Original Oratory (OO)

• A strong oratory should educate and inspire.
• Start with a catchy AGD, provide clear solutions, and end with a powerful call to action.
• Choose unique topics to stand out.

Informative Speaking (Info)

• Info is distinct from OO—do not present an OO in an Info round.
• Focus on societal implications and use creative visuals.

Expectations and Final Notes

• Debate should be an educational and respectful activity. I prioritize growth over competitiveness.
• I do not tolerate discriminatory language, fabricated evidence, or unethical behavior. Violations will result in a loss and the lowest speaks.
• Do not spread excessively. Debate is a communication event, and your delivery must prioritize clarity.
• Make my job easy—weigh your impacts and clearly explain why you’re winning the round.

Finally, have fun! Debate is a space for learning, challenging ideas, and growth. Let’s keep it that way.

PF

LD

Congress

Policy

Extemp

Conflicts: Blanson CTE, Avalos P-TECH

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several mistakes, struggle with procedures and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

Debate

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points. I tend to flow arguments over card names. Be very clear with your signposting or I will get lost.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. Tricks are dumb. I will not vote for them except as a RVI against the trickster. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, in LD I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Policy Debate: I am a fairly traditional judge who naturally defaults towards a policymaker mindset. I do appreciate the stock issues and am willing to vote on Topicality. Spamming the affirmative with 18 off annoys me. Label your off case arguments. I am not well versed in a lot of policy theory or critical arguments. Explain what you are doing and tell me how arguments should work in the round.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

For congressional debate:

it is called debate not repetition. Clash is not optional.(there is a fine line between clash and disrespect, tread carefully)

I value the ability to adapt, control the room don't let it control you. Earn respect and you win the room.

if you cause the room to not move to previous-question, you better have the most important speech of the legislation.

if you volunteer to PO, have a very good understanding of parli-procedure

you know the rest.

For LD/PF:

keep spreading to a minimum (will say "clear" if needed)

keep the debate traditional

impact based debate

Tech over truth

If you have any questions for me, particularly in Congress I can be reached at nevras@yahoo.com

Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

I will say that the key to winning in International Extemp is to immerse yourself in magazines, books and newspapers involving all things not United States. You'll get questions from areas not familiar to to normal lay person or someone that only follows domestic news. You then have to put the speeches together on non tournament days so that you are not scrambling to find the research within a half hour. Know what you want to say in advance, pick the question you have a good speech lined out and deliver. Friday night and Saturday mornings are not the time to piece together an international extemp speech. And keep in mind, more than 50% of the judges you face may not know a thing about a Morocco, a Republic of Congo or a Myanmar and somehow you have to bring that judge in to explain yourself these situations in a way that you are explaining it like a college professor while explaining it to a five year old. Only then will you see true success in International Extemp.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

LD & CX: I will honestly say that I don't judge those debates in the traditional sense and as such I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. Research means sources like Washington think tanks and other sources. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bog down the debate with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary, you are going to go far.

Also, rely on Washington think tanks to use as sources to support your point. They put time into the research so you don't have to. Search top 10 think tanks to get the idea who to use.

During the question period, it's about getting answers, not taking 20 seconds giving your opinion about anything. You need to ask three questions tops and that should take up about 10 seconds of valuable time. Remember, you are asking questions to take down their arguments they put time and effort into.

If you are the presiding officer, it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll do well. Being the presiding officer means that you have to dedicate your life and your time to the speakers and make sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

2024-2025 Season

Howdy! I've been actively judging every year since I graduated in 2018, so this will be year 7 of judging for me.

PF/LD General:

- NO EMAIL CHAINS. If you ask me to be on the email chain, this indicates you have not read my paradigms.

-If you are FLIGHT 2, I expect you to be ready the second you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to pre-flow or take forever to get set up, I WILL doc your speaks. Pre-flows, bathroom, coin-flips, and such should be done beforehand since you have ample time before your flight.

Prep time: I will usually use my timer on Tabroom when you take prep to make sure you're not lying about how much time you have left. When someone asks for cards, please be quick about this because if you start taking too much time or wasting time, I will run your prep.

-I will not disclose. Info will be on the ballots.

-Please be respectful in round and have fun!

PF: Truth > Tech. I will vote for a more moral argument, I do not want to hear a lot cards being dumped throughout with "Judge vote us because of XYZ cards." Show me an argument that makes sense. Second rebuttal must respond to first rebuttal and please no spreading. Moderate speed is fine, it's PF, not CX.

Treat me like I don't know anything about the topic, it's not rocket science.

LD: Traditional debate is what I would like you to do. Conceding framework throws away essentially the validity of LD debate. Framework is what I value the most in a round, please uphold it throughout the round. Spreading is not allowed, moderate speed is fine. Do not ask me about K's, Tricks, etc. I'm trying my hardest to figure it out like y'all are in round.

Congress: If you author or sponsor, please EXPLAIN the bill and set a good foundation. For later speeches, I don't want to hear the same argument in different fancy words. Be unique and CLASH is NOT OPTIONAL throughout cycles.

PO's: If there is no one who can PO and you know how to, please step up. I used to PO so don't worry. If there's no one who can PO, don't be afraid to step up and try, I'll take that into consideration when I do ballots.

Remember this is DEBATE, not repetition. I don’t wanna hear the same thing for 5-6 speeches straight.

LD Debate:

I believe debate is a communication event, so clarity and persuasion matter. I’m okay with both progressive and traditional debate, but I dislike frivolous theory—theory should only be run if there’s actual in-round abuse. I evaluate rounds based on framework first, then contention-level weighing. Kritiks are fine if they are well-explained and clearly linked to the topic. I’m comfortable with both big-picture and line-by-line analysis. Speed is fine at a 6/10–7/10 level, but if I can’t understand you, I won’t flow it. Weighing and crystallization in the final speeches are key to winning my ballot.

PF Debate:

I judge PF traditionally—I won’t evaluate progressive arguments like Ks, tricks, or friv theory. Debate should be clear, structured, and persuasive. I prioritize logical warranting, real-world impacts, and good comparative weighing. I prefer a big-picture approach but expect some structured refutation. Second rebuttal should frontline key responses, summary should extend and weigh arguments, and Final Focus should clearly tell me why you win. I won’t evaluate new arguments after rebuttal, and I’ll only call for evidence if necessary. Be persuasive, clear, and respectful.

Extemp:

I value analysis over an information dump. Having well-researched evidence is important, but what really sets speakers apart is their ability to connect ideas, explain relevance, and present a compelling perspective. Structure is key—strong introductions, well-organized main points, and clear conclusions will make your speech more effective. Delivery should be confident, well-paced, and engaging. A professional tone works best.

Oratory & Informative:

I prioritize engagement, clarity, and originality. Your speech should feel natural, passionate, and impactful. A well-crafted argument, backed by strong rhetoric and storytelling, is more persuasive than a generic take on a common issue. In Informative, visual aids should complement the speech rather than distract from it. If I remember your message after the round, that’s a good sign.

Interp Events (DI, HI, POI, Duo):

Interp is all about emotional connection, authenticity, and strong characterization. I look for performances that feel genuine rather than exaggerated. Blocking and movement should feel natural and purposeful, not excessive. In Duo, chemistry between partners is crucial—overacting or forced reactions can weaken the performance. POI should have clear thematic cohesion and strong transitions between pieces.

Congress Debate:

I judge Congress as a communication event, where persuasion, engagement, and well-developed argumentation are key. Speeches should be structured, responsive, and impactful. I reward debaters who engage with the flow of debate rather than delivering pre-written, generic speeches. Clash and direct refutation of previous arguments are essential—if your speech doesn’t add anything new to the discussion, it won’t stand out.

Speech & Argumentation:

A strong speech should have a clear introduction, well-warranted arguments, and a compelling conclusion. Simply restating evidence or repeating previous points won’t persuade me. Direct comparisons and weighing impacts make the difference. I prioritize logical reasoning, real-world application, and engagement with previous speakers. Strong speakers adapt to the round rather than relying solely on prepared content.

Questioning & Engagement:

Questioning matters. I value concise, pointed questions that challenge arguments and advance the discussion. If you dodge questions or give vague responses, it weakens your credibility. Debate isn’t just about your speech—it’s about your engagement with the chamber. If you actively contribute throughout the session, I will take that into account.

Presiding Officers & Chamber Conduct:

If you are presiding, I expect fairness, efficiency, and strong control over the chamber. A good PO ensures equitable participation and keeps the round running smoothly. Professionalism is important. The best debaters balance assertiveness with respect, making the round more productive for everyone.

Hello! I competed for four years at Klein High School (2016-2020) mainly in PF and Extemp, typically on the local circuit with a few national circuit tournaments here and there (#smallschool). I now study International Political Economy at Georgetown University. Paradigm is in order of events that I'm most likely to end up judging.

======================================================================
PF - for less experienced teams:

In your constructives/cases, try to craft arguments that clearly explain how you access your impact; generally, I prefer impacts that can be measured and linked well to what you're saying.

For rebuttal, respond to each argument in the order they're presented (line-by-line). Second speaking team's rebuttal should provide some defense of their case (responding to your opponents' args in first rebuttal). Also, please provide a roadmap (the order of which sides you'll be addressing) at the beginning of your speech, starting after second rebuttal!. Finally, while giving the speech, please tell me which arguments you're addressing/defending (ie: to respond to my opponent's Contention 1....).

For summary, I think collapsing is important in addition to covering both sides. Explain to me the most important arguments in the round (re-mentioning the claims, warrants, and impacts) and why you're winning them. Moreover, you should give reasons why your opponents are not winning their arguments by repeating/extending the responses your partner made in rebuttal (aka defense). I advise against bringing up new arguments in the second summary speech.

For final focus, you should only bring up arguments that were mentioned previously in the debate round (so no new evidence/arguments). Give me reasons to vote for you and help write my ballot for me. A big picture final focus that incorporates elements from your partner's summary will help win you my ballot.

A few other things: I won't vote off of crossfire arguments, please time yourself and your opponents, and pre-flow before round! If you have questions about my decision and your coach is cool with it, feel free to reach out via email at brandonw2002@gmail.com or message me on Facebook.

======================================================================
PF - for more experienced teams:

TL;DR: Tech > truth, roadmap/signpost, extend offense at the link/impact level in summary & FF (2nd rebuttal encouraged), weighing & collapsing are must-haves, no new args in the second summary and beyond, I default 1st speaking team with no offense, don't be rude or run arguments that are uninclusive, & ask me any questions before/after round.

1) Tech > truth unless it's offensive, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or racist (which will result in an L20). Framing/weighing mechanisms are great – the earlier they're introduced, the better. Roadmaps & signposting are a must.

2) Second rebuttal should frontline at least turns (otherwise up to you strategy wise). For both rebuttals, don't read new contentions as an "overview," disads are fine.

3) Arguments should be extended at the link and impact level - extensions should include card names with a summary of the evidence (Hapner '19 says xyz). This includes turns - so if you extend a turn, explain how it links into an impact! Both teams should extend args in summary & FF, and I encourage extensions in second rebuttal.

4) Speedwise, I'm a 7/10 in-person, 5 for cases & 6 for rebuttal-onward online. Speaks will be evaluated based on word economy, fluency, and strategic choices you make in the round (starting at a 28). Collapsing and strong weighing = high speaks! Incorporating some persuasive rhetoric is great in FF, as opposed to just giving a sped up summary.

5) Both teams should be able to extend defense in summary. Please don't read "new in the two" (second summary onward) - reading new evidence or analysis is a disadvantage to the first speaking team, and your speaker points will be docked.

6) Another important part of weighing is evidence comparison, so please tell me why I should prefer one piece of evidence over another (i.e. postdate, methodology, etc.), so that it won't be left to me to decide 5 minutes before I write my ballot. I will ignore misrepresented evidence from my decision, and it will harm your speaks.

7) Crossfire shouldn't be a shouting match. Use common sense - don't be rude, don't cut people off, etc. I won't explicitly flow crossfire, so make sure anything important you want me to consider is in a speech.

8) I will try to disclose (if allowed) if I think I'm able to make a reasonable decision within ~3 minutes after the end of second final or after I call evidence. I will likely disclose in all elim rounds unless you would like me not to (please let me know before hand).

9) If there's no offense at the end of the round, I'll default to 1st speaking team (given the structural advantage that 2nd speaking team has in terms of extending offense).

10) I may be lost if you try to read progressive arguments in front of me, but if it's explained very at a regular pace & explained well, I will attempt to evaluate it. Don't bank on it as a voter though (so if you plan on running disclosure, tricks, or 30 speaks theory, may want to strike me). If your opponent is clearly unfamiliar with theory/progressive argumentation, don't read it.

Debate is meant to serve as an activity in which you can continually improve. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at brandonw2002@gmail.com if you have any questions about my decision or about my paradigm; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round starts!

======================================================================
Extemp:

1) Organization of your speech is critical to help me understand your analysis – I like the seven part intro (or at least most of the elements: AGD, link, source, significance statement, question, answer preview) and on-tops (transitioning between points by using facts/jokes). If you have no idea what I'm talking about here, don't worry – all I ask is at least for a roadmap in the introduction.

2) Throughout the speech, make sure you're clearly linking back to the question. If it's a why question, make sure you're telling me why. Going over history/context should be reserved for the intro!

3) I appreciate slower-paced speeches, but if you're clear and understandable at a faster pace, go for it. Try to use hand gestures just to emphasize specific things, otherwise leave at your side. Vocal inflection/tonal variety is always great.

4) ~Two sources per point indicates to me strong grasp of source integration into your analysis, but try not to sound like you're just reading off evidence like in a debate round. Incorporate your own thinking into it! Also, using more credible thinktanks/institutions/research studies will strengthen your analysis.

Similar to what I said in my PF paradigm, the great thing about speech events and tournaments in general is how you can track your improvement. Feel free to message me on Facebook or email me at brandonw2002@gmail.com if you have any questions about my feedback; also, I'd be happy to answer your questions before round begins.

======================================================================
Speech & Interp: Because I was obliged to compete in platform events my freshman and sophomore year, I have some background in speech but not much in interp. For interp events, I'll be evaluating you based on the TFA/published ballot categories. Here are a few things specifically for speech (for future sake too!):

1) Have a roadmap very clearly in the introduction. I appreciate a good device :)

2) Content is what helps you stand out in platform speeches – having good source integration is always a plus in prepared speech events!

3) Organization is crucial for me to understand what you're trying to get at – having a bunch of ideas that don't really seem related will affect your ranking.

4) Make sure you don't overuse hand gestures, just use them for emphasis. Any pace you're comfortable with works as long as you're clear and understandable.

5) Try to be as close to the time limit as possible without stalling/being repetitive – the more content the better!

======================================================================
Congress: I did some Congress, mainly TFA + some NSDA Senate. See Extemp for certain pointers on how I evaluate 'extemporaneous' speech events. I appreciate solid analysis with sources in speeches, and clash is highly encouraged even starting with the First Negation speech. The PO will almost always make my ballot (esp. if they volunteer!), though I will usually rank good speakers in the room higher.

First Affirmation and First Negation speaker should break down the description & effects of a piece of legislation. Generally quality > quantity in terms of number of speeches. Make sure you're active in the chamber for questioning (esp. when no one else wants to question).

======================================================================
World Schools: I have little experience with Worlds, but please signpost so I can keep up with where you are on the flow. Remain engaged in the round through POIs. Weighing/argument comparison is appreciated in the last few speeches, and engaging with your opponent's arguments is critical. Will update this portion of the paradigm if/when I judge more.

======================================================================
Policy/LD: The only experience I've got in these two events are a few rounds of UIL Policy & LD (traditional), but I (hopefully) should be able to flow the round. I prefer traditional over progressive argumentation, and make sure you're weighing/signposting throughout the round. See my PF paradigm on other topics (e.g. speed), and feel free to ask me questions before the round on anything specific!

just be a nice and good person