Inexperienced judge developing a familiarity with formal Speech and Debate format rules. Expect me to have heard of but be unfamiliar with, and thus slow to identify warrant, linkage, impact statements, etc. Clear signposting would be to your benefit! I am unfamiliar with formal speech and debate format, but I do listen to a lot of Oxford Style debate, in which the overall goal is to clarify, persuade, and educate. I will expect to be able to link your thesis to evidence and rationale.

I will follow a philosophy of tabula rasa to (attempt to) refrain from preferring my predispositions. Generally, I lean left politically but I dislike populism on both sides. I do not accept "common sense" arguments as being a given unless you can construct a sound framework justifying your position. What I value most about debate is the development of the cognitive ability to deconstruct an issue and address it from not only your predisposed conception, but from the opposing perspective(s). Respond to your opponent's argument! Do not expect to restate your own convictions and convince an audience by sheer volume or rhetorical performance.

Given this summary of judge types I consulted to write this paradigm, you can expect me to be inclined as a Hypothesis tester who may fall back on Appearance to adjudicate final determination of judgements if I was unable to discern the breaking points from a Stock Issues approach. In other words, I will do my best to determine arguments from formal speech and debate format philosophy, but will devolve to my personal philosophical inclinations when necessary.

I am here to learn as well and beg your patience with my performance as a judge. I will do my best to provide you with clear feedback about what I found convincing or lacking in your argumentation and refutation.

• update as of Sept 2023
• 3rd year coaching. Still feel slightly inexperienced as my primary job is a High School Science and Engineering Instructor. However, I am much more experienced than when I originally wrote this paradigm.
• All stated above is still accurate although I am more fluent in identifying formal speech and debate structure.

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

Be respectful of your opponents and your opponent's arguments. Clash. Impact your arguments out.

This is your round, I'm not here to impose my opinions, and beliefs onto your round. I strive to be a blank slate for your arguments. Keeping that in mind, your words have meaning. I will hold you accountable for problematic arguments.

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 too 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. 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.

Good luck, all!

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

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.