I’m a former CX and Parliamentary debater and current coach for the speech and debate team at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas with 13 years of experience as a competitor, judge, and coach.

Talk pretty. Don't suck.

I'm a strict content judge; I don't care about the fancy metadebate (K's, Faux-topicality arguments, etc). Debate the topic and do it well.

Nice, clean, intelligent debate is why we do this, so that's what I'm looking for. There is a distinct difference between talking fast and Spreading. Speaking fast may be a necessity but spreading will never be. This is still a communication event, and the communication behind good debate is just as important as the content you are debating. There is just no need for it.

If you say it, it goes on the flow and if you don't say it, it doesn't go on the flow. I'm not going to make connections that you don't make for me.

Nine times out of ten I will vote on impacts (including impact calc but also feasibility). I will never vote on impacts with poor links or that are not feasible. For example, if you’re going to run nuclear war as an impact, you better do a good job convincing me that it’s feasible. Impacts should have three things; please don’t forget the brink.

Lastly, the reason that we do this activity is because these issues and topics matter. Make sure that you tell me how real people are affected by your plan/the topic. Don’t be afraid to craft a narrative; that is only going to increase your speaks, and, in some cases, will win you the round.

General things that are always applicable

1. I am disabled. I have a disability that affects writing, fine-motor skills, and information processing. I do not flow speed, blippy arguments, or breathlessness well. If you choose to run these kinds of arguments anyway, be mindful that I will most likely miss key taglines, authors and warrants. That's not to say I'll close excel and stop flowing on principle, but If I have to choose between processing your argument and flowing then I probably will stop flowing at points. If I miss something because it's inaccessible, then it isn't a voting issue for me. Do not try to figure out my threshold for speed, it's insulting.
2. I only vote on clash, or offense that is both uncontested AND impacted. If the uncontested offense is dropped by your opponent, and you fail to show me why it matters, then it will not be a voting issue. I will not vote on an empirical impact calculus that fails to intersect with your opponent’s advocacy - this is a debate, not an essay writing contest. I do not care how good your cards are, or how qualified your authors are if you do not do the work of using them to make your own arguments. If you respond to a tagline without substantively engaging with the argument’s content, then I do not consider that clash.
3. I want to be on the e-mail chain: dakota-hiltzman@hotmail.com. Unless there is a reason for me to do so, I probably won't read anything you send me. That said, I want access to cards in the event that I fail to process an argument, or if there is an ethics question concerning the viability of the card.
4. Decorum is a voting issue. If you are nasty, needlessly aggressive, or rude then I have no problems voting against you for creating a hostile debate space. Your opponent does not need to tell me to vote you down for this reason, I will intercede and do so.

LD Specific things

1. If your value is morality because of the word ought in the resolution, and you don't do anything else to establish it, then I would rather you just skip your value entirely. It just feels so nebulous to me, and I'm sick to death of it. This is not me saying that I don't want a value/criterion framework, I would much rather you just value something else. Also, if your opponent is running value and you clash with literally any other value, I'll probably prefer the different value.
2. I don’t mind policy approaches to advocacy, but will never demand solvency, funding etc. This is not policy debate, as such the debaters are not responsible for the same burdens they would be in a policy round. I will always flow policy approaches to LD as an endorsement or indictment of value. This also applies to the Neg, if you run two disads then say aff doesn’t solve, I will not vote for you. I expect all Policy Affs to defend the whole resolution every time, policy can spec an aff because the topics are written broadly, LD topics are not written this way.
3. I love K debate, but please do not assume I know anything about your authors. Do the work, explain the theory, and impact your Alt. If you do not do these things, I will not evaluate the theory the way you want me to.

PF Specific things

1. In my ideal world the first set of speeches would be strictly constructives, the second set strictly attacks against your opponent's case, the third set strictly case defenses, and the final focus speeches would be voters. If your teams adapt this way, it will make me very happy, and keep my flow much cleaner.
2. Crossfire is not binding to case debate, if you want to garner offense for anything from anything said in crossfire, it needs to be made as a substantive argument in the following speech. I am not flowing crossfire, I usually use that time to make comments on the ballot. That said, I'm not ignoring you, and please don't be rude or needlessly aggressive.
3. (For virtual debate) It’s helpful for me if you can start each prelim speech with your first name and whether you’re Pro or Con. Since pro and con aren't set as first and second speaker, it can be confusing since we're virtual, I’m not looking at you during speeches because I flow in Excel.

Policy Specific Things

1. If you want me to judge the round like a policy judge, then consider me somewhere Stock issues and Tab. I will default to stock issues, but am open to interpreting the debate through alternative frameworks if both debaters consent or if arguments for utilizing an alternative framework are sufficiently justified. If you take an offense/defense approach, or your advocacy is mostly K or theory based, then I will approach the round like an LD judge - this is especially true for the negative, and I will not grant presumption for K or theory Negs.
2. I love good K debate (so long as the K isn't conditional or squirrelly), BUT, if you are going to go for the K then I need you to commit to it.
3. HATE everything-and-the-kitchen-sink negatives that read anything remotely applicable to the Aff and then kick out of all but one approach. All negative arguments (including counter-plans) should be unconditional. If you do kick it I still expect you to answer aff's offense on it, otherwise I may just go ahead and give to aff as offense.
4. Please extend warrants rather than authors. See point one under general, I cannot flow quickly enough to get your authors.

Virtual Debate Things

1. I live in a semi-rural area and do not have good internet access. When it is particularly bad, I may ask you and your opponent(s) to turn off your camera in order to preserve bandwidth for audio quality.
2. Per point 1, I'm not going to turn my camera on unless someone from tab directly tells me to do so. As long as I have no reason not to trust you, I'm okay if your camera is off as well. The only exception is in speaking events such, in which case I usually sit closer to the wifi router.
3. It is exhausting mentally, emotionally, and physically to be on camera all day in a way that it isn't to be in person. I do not want to penalize you for turning your camera off, afford me the ability to do grant you this grace.

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.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional style LD judge. I enjoy listening to argumentation on Value, Criterion, and other Framework arguments. If I feel like the Framework debate is a wash I look to the impacts of the Affirmative and Negative worlds. The team that shows me the strongest impact arguments using Time Frame, Magnitude, and Probability will get my vote.

CX: I weigh stock issues and T arguments first. If the Aff loses on any stock issues or T they lose the round. After that I look to the impact calculus at the end of the round. I will flow DA, T, CP, and Ks from the Negative.

Hello! My name is Thomas Thompson but you can call me Tommy if you would like.

E-mail: thompsondebate22@gmail.com

As a judge I don't just want to tell you what's wrong, I also want to tell you how to improve as a debater. I've put my email in my paradigm because I feel passionate about debate and want it to grow for generations to come. Don't be afraid to send me a message and ask questions! I want to help you as much as I can. 

I have competed in LD, CX, BQ, Extempt, and Congress.

I've also qualified for the National Tournament in International Exempt, and Congress, the UIL State tournament for Policy (2x) and Congress, as well as TFA State in Policy.

Two things I do not tolerate across the board are racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or any other discriminatory language or action in the round. I also do not suggest giving up during a round/forfeiting. I've judged so many rounds where teams believe they've already lost and just give up hope, even though they could have come back and won the round with just a little extra work. 

THIS ASIDE! I will not, and should not have to tell you what to do in the round. I will listen to anything, however, this does not mean I won't consider a truly bad argument as bad. It is up to the opposing team to tell me that the argument is bad, and not just assume I already understand that. Tell me explicitly. 

LD/PF Paradigm:

I love LD debate for its philosophical aspect. I'll vote for whoever is the best debater in the round. I'm not doing the work of deciding a winner for you. That's your job as a competitor.

I enjoy impact calculus and voters during a round.

Kritiks- I'm fine with k debate. I don't have a full lexicon of all the languages but I am very familiar with many. Still, ask me before the round.

Spreading is fine but if it's just gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.

CX Paradigm

Do whatever you want. I'll vote on anything if you keep up with it through the round and prove the point best.

K- I enjoy K debate, I myself enjoy running kritiks.

I enjoy and actually would prefer to hear impact calculus and voters in policy. Not required but highly recommended.

Spreading is absolutely fine but again if it's gibberish I will not flow it. Make sure to signpost.

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.