CX: Spreading is something I can handle but only to a certain extent. If I can't flow a point or evidence quickly enough due to too much speed however, I am going to consider that point or piece of evidence dropped. Emphasis on stock issues is vital. If you want to get outlandish i'll go in whatever direction the round moves, no theory or framework being too wild. 

Public Forum: Spreading isn't ideal here. Speak clearly and not too quickly. Outside of that i'll judge the round based on whatever framework is provided. If none is provided, I will be keeping close track of what points and pieces of evidence are carried from the beginning of your case through to the last rebuttal. 

Lincoln Douglas: Framework and impacts are entirely what i'll judge the round on. It doesn't matter how outlandish the framework or impact is, if you can prove a framework should run the round and provide impacts to back it up then you win my vote.

Ronald Carnes

I would consider myself a traditional-style LD judge. Argumentation on Value, Criterion, I will judge hard on those. The team that shows me the strongest arguments will get my vote. I also look at the best speaker—the one that gives me good eye contact, tone, etc.

For other events, the best speaker will typically get my vote as long as they follow the criteria for said event.

I did speech and debate all four years of high school and when to state. Judged for local meets UIL speech and debate. As well as at the district level for LD, exempt and poetry. 

LD - I lean towards a more traditional LD Value/Criterion debate. I'll listen to progressive argumentation, but I feel that you'll have to do more work for me to go for it. I think voters are essential.

CLASH

Make sure you signpost arguments

Overall, I would rather you do you and I will flow it.

Hello!

My name is Andy Glenn and I am excited to judge your round. I have recently started judging and coaching debate but I have been evaluating speakers and mentoring since the early 2000s.

In a round, there are three simple rules for me.

1. Communicate, I will not draw conclusions on my own, make your connections clear in the speeches. I also value good speakers. If you are able to keep my attention and the attention of others in the round then that is key. Absolutely no spreading. This is NOT communicating.
2. As long as you have the facts to back your argument I will accept it. Don't make a claim without evidence. What type is up to you whether it be cards or analytical. If you make an "I Feel" argument or one backed up only by emotion then you have lost the round.
3. Have fun. It's a very select group of kids that enjoy and do what you do, so enjoy it and respect each other. I'm fine with having a good laugh in a round as long as it doesn't take away from the key parts.

In regards to politics, I am a pastor and lean politically to the right BUT, as I said before. As long as you back up your claims with evidence I have no issues.

If you have any questions or would like to add me to email chains it is

aglenn@ferrisisd.org

Blessings,

Andy Glenn

Ferris High School

Head Coach Speech and Debate

My background is in theater, and I am relatively new to forensics. Treat me like a lay judge, but know that I will be flowing and I am learning. I am an ASL Interpreter and work in public health. As such, accessibility is very important to me. I am not a fan of spreading or arguments that are ableist, racist or sexist (even if unintentional).

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round! Like I said before, I am still learning.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me. On conditionality, I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

I have judged debate on and off the past 22 years. I did CX debate for 4 years in high school.

I don’t mind spread, but it has to be done well. If it is not done well, I stop flowing.

LD is value debate. The debater should focus on supporting and weighing a value with a criterion instead of a second value. Both affirmative and negative debaters should have a value and criteria and explain how the case filters through those arguments. Both debaters should refute their opponents' arguments and extend their cases. I will vote for the debater who presents the most logical persuasive argument in support of the case and in refutation of the opposing case

CX is policy debate. The debater should focus on supporting/negating the resolution/policy. If the debaters in the round do not tell me why their argument is important, I will default to the stock issues, but I will vote on any issue if the team can clearly explain why I should care about their argument. Ultimately, I want to know what the problem is, what the Affirmative proposes to do about it, and why the Affirmative plan is a best to implement. I have no reason to vote for the Affirmative if they do not clear this burden first. The negative's responsibility is to tell me why we should not implement the Affirmative plan. I have no problems with counter-plans, but they must be done correctly.

I understand that this is a learning experience for most, so I try to make a comfortable room for most. I am good with most things in a round.

Full Disclosure: I won't vote for "edgy" arguments such as racism good, sexual assault good, suicide good, etc. It will result in the lowest speaker points available, coach and tabroom notification, and an immediate loss of the ballot. It's never been funny nor will it ever be.

I consider myself tabula rasa, I'll listen to any style of argument. I've debated policy, but I've debated K more frequently. I graduated on the CJR topic in 2020-2021, so don't expect me to be up to date on literature related to water. I'm a relatively new judge but was an avid debater in high school.

Important Side Notes:

I do not take to rude debaters very well because of their prevalence during my year. Be assertive, but excessive interruption or unnecessary pettiness will get your speaks massively dropped, if not cost you the ballot.

Contact at:

isabellagracelocicero@gmail.com

I'm used to more modern styles of PF debate.

In debate, I value true debating. I look for clash and actual consideration of competitor's arguments, not just person after person reading their pre-written, un-customized speeches. I also value communication. If you talk to speedily and I cannot hear distinct words, those arguments will not be accounted for in my judging. This is not to be mean, but if I can't understand you, I can't really judge you. Finally, you will be polite and respectful. Yes, I want clash, but nothing personal. Debate your opponent's points, not their personality or appearance or whatever else. Honestly, that would just make me more sympathetic to them, so don't do it. And PLEASE, no lingo. Say real people words. I do not care enough to learn every swanky fancy term for something you could just call by name, so if you use debater's slang around me, I just plain won't know what you mean, and that's not good communication.

IEs are a little different. Of course you will not be clashing, so those parts don't apply. Still, I expect you to speak clearly, and I expect to not. be. yelled. at. I don't mean I don't want to be lectured, because extemp speeches and oratories are literally lectures, but do not raise your voice at me. Get passionate, vary your tone, all that good stuff, but don't literally yell into your computer microphone. It is not convincing, and let's be real, that stuff makes the feedback AWFUL. It's kind of the same principle, if I can't hear you well and you're just being mean, I'm gonna have a harder time giving you first place.

And for POs in Congress, please, be chill. I'm not saying be lax on the rules, but in my opinion, an amicable (but not lazy!) chamber is the best kind. I don't like being yelled at. As long as everyone gets to speak and you run the room fairly, you'll be good in my book, and you'll be satisfied with your rank on my ballot.

I just want y'all to be nice to each other. You're all overachievers who choose to put on a suit and debate politics on the weekends for fun, there's no need to get nasty or cutthroat or anything l like that. You're a lot more similar than you are different, which is a good thing! Just be cool, and I'll be cool too.

Oh, and please don't misgender the judge. My pronouns (they/them) aren't optional. Don't call me miss, ma'am, any of that stuff. If you need an honorific, Mx. is the term I prefer (like Mr. or Mrs., but pronounced as "mix").

Good luck, all!

I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.

Analysis should be on topic, important, workable, & on-balance advantageous. Prefer conversational pace. Logic & reasoning are highly valued

Policymaker

Will vote on anything.

Do what you do best.

Feel free to ask specific questions in round.

Important things in no important order. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1. I did CX for 4 years, I went to state UIL for 4 years, and I competed in NSDA qualifiers for CX. I was an octafinalist my sophomore year. I now do parliamentary debate in college, currently as a sophomore.

2. When it comes to breadth or depth, I think the debate needs to shift. Neg should throw a breadth of arguments at aff, but then collapse, either in the block or after the block, and give an in-depth reason to vote neg. This isn't to say I won't vote a one-off K or anything like that, run what you need to win.

3. Tech over truth.

4. I'm a tab judge. I will vote on anything and want to hear all kinds of arguments made.

5. I'm going to rate all of the arguments on a scale of 1-5, 1 being I hate, 5 being I love.

Theory is 5 because I love theory and if there's a legitimate reason to run it (condo bad, pics bad, k bad, etc.), it's a great way to have a meta debate, which can alleviate burnout on a single topic. On theory, standards are key, as well as voters. Your theory doesn't mean anything if you don't say why it means something.

Kritiks are a 5 because I love kritiks of all kinds and think they are a great way to reshape the debate. I will say that, for the purpose of the debate, I am not familiar with your K literature, even if it's cap. Explain it to me so that I understand what you're critiquing, why it's bad, and what the alt does as well as how it solves. Framing also makes K debates easier to weigh.

Topicality is 3 because I will vote on it and default to competing interpretations, but that doesn't mean I won't listen to reasonability. If aff can say why reasonability is good and then can win the we meet, the rest of the T is meaningless because aff meets. Don't lose that and I like T as much as theory. Also, you need voters. "Reasons to prefer" is not the equivalent of standards and voters.

Counterplans are a 4 because they're great, but I just never ran them as a debater. Go for it, I think they're fun arguments, but obviously have net benefits, either through DA's or K's.

K Affs are a 4 because they are an interesting way to change aff's job, but you need to give me a good reason to either reject the topic or at least reject the actor, idea, etc. On T, simply saying it's not a voter won't protect your K aff if you can't tell me why you being topical is less important than your advocacy.

Lastly, DA is 3 because it's a necessary part of debate, but needs more than uniqueness, link, internal link, impact. Either you need to turn the case, make the aff not solve (so there's no affirmative offense), use impact framing to make your impacts weigh more than aff, or couple it with a CP. Impact framing is key, because dehumanization versus nuclear extinction doesn't matter if I'm not told which one is worse. Absent any evaluation, I have to intervene to determine which I think is worse.

6. On flowing, I'm adequately good. I think speed is bad for debate personally, and it will show in your speaker points if you use high speed through analysis and analytics, but when it comes to cards, give me an easy tagline, and go as fast as you want. If you need specific warrants in cards flowed, slow down for those as well.

7. The job of the affirmative is to propose a plan or advocacy that either proves the topic or frames why rejecting it is important is better than the status quo/neg cp or alt. The job of the neg is to prove the status quo/cp or alt is better than the affirmative advocacy or plan. This applies to theory and T in the sense that if you prove how they access the topic or utilize an argument is worse for the debate space going forward, it still weighs.

8. I'd prefer to be on the email chain if one is created, but I'm not going to ask y'all to add me.

If you have any questions about the paradigm, ask me in the room.

I am a tab judge.

I will vote on whatever issues you want me to, but you have to tell me. I am fine with most arguments as long as they are well structured. I do not like K affs for policy rounds. Other than that I am fine with Ks and CPs as long as you structure them well and understand them. Speed is fine. If you have other questions just ask.

I am Tab, do whatever you do best. I believe that debate is a game and I heavily weight tech over truth. Absent a framing mechanism for impact comparison I will default to Utilitarianism. T and theory are primary about modeling so the neg does not have to win an abuse claim for me to pull the trigger if they win that they provide a better model of debate. I do not back fill warrants so arguments must be completely developed for me to vote on them ( I will not vote for a T without voters, ect.). When evaluating a debate, I seek to minimize judge intervetnion.AT the tend of the round, I like to see comparison and weighing. For more specific questions, feel free to ask before round or email me at masonaremaley@gmail.com.

Good with speed

Speaks: Organization and making the right game decisions are weighed heavily for speaks. I also enjoy a good cx period.

I did policy in high school and do parli @ UT Tyler.

UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.

CX: I'm a stock issues judge (I know, don't hate me). I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (anna.m.rhea@gmail.com). I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must.

I do require debaters to give me voters and impact calculus. Good clean clash and arguments.

Rebuttals are very important.

I hate speed readers and spreading. You must articulate. You are learning how not only to be be great debaters but how to be the best public speakers possible. If I can't understand your point of view why on earth would I vote for your point of view.

Most important: Be respectful.

I am mainly a stock issues judge.  I will listen to and consider almost any argument, however, as long is it is presented clearly. I do not mind debaters speaking rapidly, but I must be able to understand what you are saying. 

i’d say i’m a tab judge, i’m fine with any args and spreading is fine as long as i can somewhat understand you. my main thing is to be polite!! i will not tolerate unnecessary rudeness and arrogance as there is too much of that in the debate space. my only other thing is i like to see direct clash between the args. don’t just spread cards at each other, i wanna see that you’re actively participating in the debate and you know what’s going on (even if you don’t really know lol). just have fun and be nice! and good luck!

Background: I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I did two years of policy, two years of LD. I also competed in Parli on the collegiate level.

For my general paradigm, I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). I don't think it's my job to tell you that you can or cannot run certain arguments. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be I will default to policymaker. Speed is okay with me as long as you aren't sacrificing clarity. If I can't understand you I will stop flowing. Please keep your own time. As for how I feel about certain arguments:

Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework,a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round.

Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win (hint: don't just say "that's abusive").

Counterplans/Disads: I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. In LD if you're going to run one, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you can, considering most of the time, there isn't a plan to begin with. Disads should be structured well.

Framework: I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously, specifically in LD. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.