Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglass debate. 

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, although I rarely tend to vote on it unless the proven abuse is egregious or its severely under-covered by one side. 

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. 

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

Spreading is in the nature of the debate beasts in the modern era…please keep it to 50% of your max.

I am a newer judge and coach, but I can appreciate all intellectually sound arguments. My largest concern is your understanding of your material and capability to defend it. 

High school LD in the dark ages before the internet. I prefer traditional LD, and arguments to be flowable. 

Superior logic, evidence, and skill in defending/refutation will always dictate my vote. In a very close race speaks will turn the tide in your favor. Strong presentation skills are part of the persuasive package.

Speech/Debate - as a general paradigm, I need to be able to understand you.

Debate - no spreading

Extemp- looking for organization in how you answer your topic/question: intro, 2-3 main points with sources, and a conclusion that wraps up your speech.

2/22 Update: Don't pref me if you aren't going to slow down! I haven't judged circuit LD in a bit, I've been judging a lot of World Schools Debate. Please don't go your top speed and please slow down on tags & author names.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a "traditional" debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I teach at GDS in the summer.

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round.

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad when making a decision. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.

If you quote Thomas Jefferson or use him as a source, you will get downed by me...

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. I normally do not award half points, because who wants to deal with that?

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(9 times out of 8,yes you read that correctly, I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Heather Collins

Typical Judge for Speech Acting Events: HI, DI, Duet, Duo. 

Also like to just, Extemp. O.O., and other such similar events. 

When judging Debate events, I prefer the students don't rush. They make a clean, concise argument and stick to the point. Distracting with off topic details is something I frown upon. 

The art of storytelling is at the core of each IE event. As a Theatre Director, it is inevitable that I am looking through the lens of an actor and wanting to be swept away into the world of your piece. Clear and engaging storytelling should transcend the screen. To achieve optimum transference one should utilize purposeful blocking, supportive transitional devices, optimal camera framing, clear and distinct character physicality, strong articulation, vocal variety (quality force time and pitch) and above all convey character truths. Dynamic pieces are not strictly dramatic or comedic. Dynamic pieces ride the wave of style and tone while allowing for natural highs and lows. life is both intense and funny find those waves in every story.

For Oratory/Info/Extemp I am looking for the same. The performers point of view is equal to a character's point of view in an Interp. Convince me of the point by using solid presentation skills. A performer should speak from a genuine truth, create purposeful movement and paint a picture with their voice. I am looking to be spoken to not at. An audience member is more likely to be persuaded if a connection is made. Lastly, the audience needs to progress in thought as the argument progresses. therefore logical progression of information/argument is vital to a clear piece.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. ) So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.


General Debate Policy/ Round procedures: At the end of every round I should have to do very little work. I consider myself a blank slate for all debate events and strongly believe in the power of the ballot. It is your job to tell me what signing my ballot means and how that was proven throughout the round. Voters are extremely important.

Debate is a communication/persuasion event So communication and Persuasion will come into play in my speaker point assignments.

I hate what prep time has turned into in debate. Do not tell me you are taking two minutes of prep and then spend another two minutes after the timer goes off preparing your papers in order and walking to the podium. I run prep time from the minute you say if you are or aren't using it until you go to the podium ready to give your speech.

LD Debate:I am a traditional judge by nature. I believe there are three different types of debate for a reason. With that said it will be hard for me to support anyone that has a Plan text in an LD case. A LD case should have a V/C. Observations if used should help to mold the debate round into what its suppose to be. They should be used as lens I apply that help me view the round. If the negative disagrees they should do that up front to create the round that they are hoping for.

Clash is key if you stand up as neg and read a bunch of cards and dont clash with the aff my vote will be hard to achieve.

The last thing you tell me should be a summary of why your Value is the best supported and what in round arguments show that.

Policy:I am open to all types of arguments in policy debate. AS LONG AS THEY ARE RAN CORRECTLY. Clash is key to my ballot and impact calculus is everything. I believe in the power of the ballot and its your job to prove to me that my vote ultimately does more harm than good for the world.

Here is my stance on certain Key Issues :
* The neg block does exist
*No new arguments in rebuttals but it is your job to point that out
*Drops are your responsibility to tell me and why that drop is important Just because they drop 1 link argument doesnt mean they lose entire shell you need to tell me why that link matters in the big picture
*I will vote Topicality if ran correctly
*I will vote framework if ran correctly
*Cross Examination is CLOSED
*Prep is not flex
*I will vote a correctly ran K but they are not my favorite typess of argument. They still need to prove how the K is bigger than the case or resolution.
* a card or shell is nothing without you linking and impact calcing it
*CP's are fine if ran correctly*
* I pay attention in CX for speaks but I do not flow it*

Congressional Debate:Congressional debate should be extemporaneous in nature. If you read a speech you will go to the bottom of my rankings. Be active in chamber


PF: IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT! whoever proves the better world wins my vote. This should be a communication event spreading to spread will not earn my ballot.

Cx:

Aff: Make sure to have an inherency otherwise you fall into the status quo and the whole point of being Aff is to be a part of the change, I won't hold it against you unless NEG mentions it. Defend your solvency, if your case has no solvency there is no reason to vote the AFF up. Argue against topicality and Ks, just because the NEG throws it at you doesn't mean you can't hit it out of the park. Just because an argument runs against you doesn't mean it will stick, if they can't explain its importance I won't flow it. If the NEG proposes a non-unique or non-linked DA, you still need to argue against it and show how it doesn't apply. If you are going to argue perm on a counter-plan, you need an explanation, not just claiming you will perm.

Neg: Make sure you can explain a topicality if you run one, if you can't elaborate on its importance, I won't flow it, same with Ks, counter plans, and DAs. Off-case arguments need to be complete or I won't highly take them into consideration. If you run a K and don't provide an alternative to the word you are criticizing, then I will consider it incomplete. Topicality needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters, otherwise it will be considered incomplete. Counter plans need to have your plan stated with solvency and show how the case is net-beneficial. DA's need to be completely put together with a uniqueness, link, possibly an internal link, and an impact. If the DA isn't unique or specifically linked to the case and the AFF acknowledges it and adequately defends against it, I will flow it to the AFF. The impacts of DAs need to be more realistic. I will still flow the apocalypse, but it isn't unique. RUN ON-CASE. If you do not attack the solvency, inherency, or any advantages it makes it harder to see the flaws within the AFF's case.

Both CX & LD: No spreading, I would rather you give a couple of articulated points with good explanation and understanding behind them instead of word vomiting 10+ points with no explanation. I understand sometimes nerves can get the best of us while speaking, so try to do your best! Make sure to keep track of your timing, I will give a verbal stop when the time is reached. During the questioning periods, you may only answer questions if you are the one being cross-examined, and only ask questions if you are cross-examining. I understand sometimes it can be hard to not want to start an argument, but it won't be beneficial to the round. If it gets out of hand I will intervene. Elaborate on impacts. Why should I vote for you over the other team? Lastly, I will not tolerate bullying or disrespect if a competitor is going out of their way to be rude I will vote the team down.

Interp: make sure to have an introduction memorized. Hold your book properly if you use one, I should not be able to see you turn pages, and barely if so. POSTURE. If a timekeeper isn't present I will try my best to give signals. I will give a verbal stop when your time is up so you don't get DQ.

Extemp: If you are using a notecard, try your best to only glance at it and not read off of it. Make sure you say your topic (if you don't say it verbatim it is okay as long as it is close to the question, especially with lengthy topics), have three points, and at least one source to back up each point. Try your best to elaborate on each point and explain its importance. If you aren't good at intros it's okay, try your best. I wasn't good at them either and made it to nats.

PF:I will only judge what I can hear or understand. Therefore, spread at your own risk. Make sure that you are respectful during crossfire questioning and don’t cut off your opponents. Sign posting is appreciated to help me follow where you are in your speeches and to know if certain sections are being attacked or dropped. If you’re going to use theory arguments, you need to be able to explain and defend it well. If you do not attack a contention or important part of your opponent’s speech it will be considered against your team in my rfd. Realistic “now” and not “nuclear war” arguments or impacts are more beneficial to the round, this isn’t CX.

LD: Make sure that you are very clear about which section you are reading, aka signposting so that it is easier to flow and keep track of where you are in your speech. You can run theory, CP, and DA arguments, but I am not a fan of them. I will not vote down for drops unless the opposing team mentions it, otherwise, I will just give notes about it on your personal ballot. Make sure to show the significance of your framework, criteria, and contentions. Why should I view the round from your FRAME and VC over theirs? You can bring up definitions, but they are rarely a voter for me. Don't waste half of your speech arguing about DEFs. Logic arguments are valued equally as evidence cards, except if you're providing something statistical, then you should probably have a source. Voters and impact calc at end of rebuttal is important!

Contact Information:

smgreen@conroeisd.net

DEBATE

Speed:

I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but also persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.

LD:

I am a traditional value debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.

Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?

Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.

K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.

Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.

My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:

1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?

2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?

3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Extemp Speaking

Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.

I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.

- AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!

- Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.

- Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

Congress

Policy

PF

Extemp Debate

INTERP

It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:

- Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.

- Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.

- Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.

- Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.

- Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.

- Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.

- Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.

No spreading. Offer clear arguments and reasons to direct me in RFD of the round.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

I have been teaching Theatre/ Speech and Debate for 30 years, participated in High School. I am an IE Coach primarily. Although I have coached and judged debate rounds for LD, PF, and most recently Congress and CX.

Articulation is key for me. I need to understand you, the use of the voice and body is also pretty important. The emotional connection to the character needs to be very clear, and there should be motivational beats that I discover in your performance.

Simply put, I am looking for the total package for performers, someone who can immerse themselves in a character but also show me differentiation between characters.

Sandra Peek

CX Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 29 years and coaching 16 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to policy maker, which is my personal preference. Unless you have an exceedingly strong policy advocacy and an exceedingly clean link story, I do not want to see a performance aff or neg.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts and then signpost as you go including numbering. Additionally, before you speak put your speech on the flash drive or email chain so that it is easy to track prep time. I prefer most negative positions to be started in the 1NC . Disads,CP and T should always be started in the 1NC.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks and affs. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are almost essential for the negative. I will vote a disad down if the aff articulates and wins that the link fails. I generally will not vote on a minuscule chance of the disad or on a “try or die” analysis from the affirmative. In sum, I want impacts to have a reasonable chance of happening before I consider them in my impact calculus.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

INHERENCY-I will not vote on inherency unless the negative proves outright that the aff plan is already happening. I don’t think I have ever actually voted on inherency.

SOLVENCY- I like solvency and vote on it often usually in conjunction with another argument.

COUNTERPLANS- I vote on them and generally accept that they can be topical.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

FUNDING- I cannot remember a time when I found funding arguments convincing (by saying this I am NOT saying that I do not like funding based DA’s).

GENERAL- Open CX is fine if both teams agree. Be certain that one gender is not preferred over the other through interrupting or condescending. Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. Kicking is fine but be certain to make it clear. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

LD Judging Paradigm

I have been teaching 29 years and coaching 16 of those. I did policy in high school and CEDA in college. Keep in mind that that was in the 80’s, and I do not have the tolerance for extreme speed that today’s college debaters often have.

EVALUATION-I will evaluate the round through the framework/interpretation provided and argued by the debaters. In other words, if the aff wins framework, I will evaluate that way; if the neg wins framework, I will evaluate that way. The exception would be if I found the framework itself to be morally repugnant. In the absence of a framework, I will revert to value/criterion, which is my personal preference.

SPEED- I prefer a moderately-paced debate. I understand the need for speed in the 1AR, and I can follow well signposted fast argumentation. However, I want to hear the text of the evidence. I am not okay with speed so fast that the words in the evidence are not enunciated.

ORGANIZATION-Organization is critical to me. I need you to give a succinct road map before your speech starts.

PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS

KRITIKAL ARGUMENTS- I generally will accept well applied, resolutionally focused kritiks on both aff and neg. K’s need to have a clear alternative beyond reject.

DISADS/ADVANTAGES- I feel that disads are often out of place in LD. I will generally vote a disad down if it is not intrinsic to the resolution.

TOPICALITY- I will vote on topicality as it is a key limiter.

PLANS/COUNTERPLANS- I'm not a fan of these in LD but will not automatically vote them down.

THEORY-I buy warranted ground loss based theory arguments and will vote on them.

GENERAL- Rude/sexist behavior and/or racist speech will result in lower speaker points. I will not, on principal, vote for those engaging in racist or homophobic speech. I do prefer the negative to sit on the right and the affirmative to side on the left.

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. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the 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 bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making 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.

SPEECH CATEGORY PARADIGMS:

1. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I LOOK FOR GOOD VOICES, TONE, DICTION, EYE CONTACT, APPROPRIATE GESTURES, AND PURPOSEFUL/SMOOTH MOVEMETS THAT SEEM NATURAL VS MOVING JUST TO MOVE.

2.BELIEVABILITY/EMBODIEMENT OF THE CHARACTERS VS ACTING LIKE THE CHARACTERS, MAINTAINING CHARACTERIZATION THROUGHOUT THE PERFORMANCE/PRESENTATION INCLUDING CLOSING THE PIECE WITH A "BUTTON"/LEAVING A LITTLE GESTURE OR WORD OR PHARSE OR EMOTION THAT CAPS OFF THE PERFROMANCE, AND UNDESTANDING WHAT THE PIECE IS ABOUT AND MEANT TO CONVEY

3. GOOD ATTENTION GETTERS, SOLID STRUCTURE OF THE SPEECH WITH CLEAR THESIS STATEMENTS OR MAIN POINTS ALONG WITH GOOD VISUALS, GOOD TRANSITIONS THAT SMOOTHLY CONNECT IDEAS/POINTS, SOLID CONCLUSIONS THAT PROPERLY SUM UP THE WHOLE SPEECH/PRESENTATION, EVIDENCE WHERE NECESSARY TO BACK UP CLAIMS/INFORMATION

4. PROPER DRESS/STANDARDS SET BY THE TOURNAMENT

DEBATE CATEGORY PARADIGMS:

1. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTIONS BEING DEBATED

2. SPREADING IS FINE, BUT NOT TO THE POINT WHEREBY THE DEBATER CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD

3. GOOD EVIDENCE/SOURCES IS A MUST/THE ABILITY TO PROVE ONE'S POINTS (RESEARCH BASED WHERE NECESSARY)

4. GOOD DICTION, TONE, GESTURES

5. ABILITY TO THINK ON ONE' S FEET WHEN CROSS EXAMINED

6. ABILTY TO PROVE ONE'S ASSERTIONS/CLAIMS AND DEFEND THEM

7. SOUND LOGIC AND GOOD AGRUMENTIVE SKILLS TO COMPLIMENT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS CLIAMS

I am a policy centered cross-x judge. I am pretty open to most arguments.

Topicality-I like topicality debate but I am looking for examples of cases that the other team would allow.  I am looking for specific arguments that you will not be able to run.  

Disadvantages-Make sure they are unique and the links are specific.  Do impact calculus and compare the impacts. 

Counterplans-I like counterplan debate. I like all types and am open to counterplan theory but just don't go too fast and be specific.

Kritiks-Sure but I am not the most up to date on kritiks. I sometimes don't understand really dense theory and philosophy.  I do prefer specific and timely links that interact with the assumptions of the case over generic links of omission.

Case Debate-You probably are going to need this and it needs to specific and recent.