Ronald Carnes

I would consider myself a traditional-style LD judge. Argumentation on Value and Criterion: I will judge hard on those. The team that shows me the most substantial arguments will get my vote. I also seek the best speaker who 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 went to state. I have judged for local meets UIL speech and debate. As well as at the district and regional levels for LD, exempt, and poetry.

Debate: The basis of all Debate is Clash. Bring your best ideas and compare them with others. If you can fully defend your ideals while thoroughly attacking the opposition, you win. The more attacks you land, the better.

IE'S: The basis of all Individual Events is to show Proficiency in Public Speaking Skills. If you can give a presentation that has a logical structure and displays your understanding of the subject on some factual or emotional level, you may win. The more attention you grab, the better.

I have nearly two decades of judging experience, primarily on the UIL policy circuit. I am a policy maker judge and will look for the most pragmatic and real world situations in round.

It is the role of the negative to provide sufficient clash, and I'll vote on most issues in the round if you are believable and persuasive. Feel free to run any argument and make sure you provide impacts to weigh on the ballot.

I am okay with speed in the round but will signal to you if I am unable to flow. However, I am ultimately not concerned with the number of arguments in the round. I am looking for quality, depth of understanding, and educational clash. Make sure both teams are listening to arguments being ran in the round and respond accordingly.

Above all, be respectful to each other.

Eight Years of Judging Experience

Over a year of Coach/Clinic Experience (Interp)

No collegiate circuit experience

Event Preference(s): LD, Congress, Extemp (Persuasive, Informative, Domestic, Int'l) & Interp

CX Debate: Stock Issues

AFF: I rarely know the topic before I enter a CX round. Be clear and make sure your policy and topic are deeply connected. Cut cards if you plan on spreading through your first speech. I want to know exactly what the plan aims to achieve. Without this clarity, there will be no way I can understand any arguments throughout the round.

NEG: Keeping with policy debate theory and norms, arguments like CPs and Ks can and should be run by the negative if they're capable, but always with clarity and fairness. Don't deliberately confuse your opponents or judges with spreading or elaborate arguments. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, even if I do. If you can't run off-case arguments with this in mind, stick to on-case.

As always, ask specific paradigm questions before the round; after the decision has been made, there's no way I can clarify paradigm in a useful way.

LD Debate: Tab

1. Framework is King. Make it clear, defined, relatable, and relevant. It is not separate from the criterion.
2. If Framework is King, then Voters are Queen. Please include them.
3. Keep clarity and delivery in mind. Words, words, words.

Congress:

1. POs: you're not the reps' boss; you are leading the session. Be respectful, consistent, and know your stuff if you're going to run.
2. Reps: this is about persuasion, speaking, and education. Have your points prepared, but do not read them from a script. Adapt to the round. If your words are not more beautiful than silence, then be silent.

Interp/Extemp:

1. Clarity: every letter of every word is meant to be heard (Interpers, especially if it's a word in the accent of the character).
2. Variety: give me vocal variety in tone, pitch, pace, tempo, volume, etc.
3. Impact: for extempers, impact is why your prep-time research became a decision or a summary; for interpers, your character(s) is/are not the same at the beginning and end of the piece. Show me that.

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.

My name is Dr. Michael Mattis and I am the Director of Theater and Debate at Grand Saline High School in Grand Saline, Texas. I have been a coach for 22 years and I am an NSDA Two-Diamond Coach who has coached Multiple National Qualifiers and State Champions.

I am very tab. I would much rather you do what you do best and I will adjust to you, rather than you adjust to me.

Background

I am a former assistant debate coach from Texas. I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for four years in High School, and I did four years of both NFA LD and Parliamentary Debate in college.

Email: Mroets@princetonisd.net

Judging Philosophy

I'll vote off of pretty much anything as long as it's weighed.

I will judge traditional rounds, I will judge progressive rounds. I've debated in both worlds and have little preference.

Speed

Speed is fine. I will say "clear" or put down my pen if I can't keep up.

Kritiks

Kritiks are fine

Please explain the literature you read. If you name-drop authors and don't clearly explain through evidence/analytics what their theory entails, the argument is tough to land. Assume I am not familiar with the author you're reading.

I care about the alt. Make it make sense, please.

If you tell me in the first speech that some major real-world abuse is happening to a marginalized group in the aff advocacy and then abandon it a speech later for strategy, I will take speaker points.

Topicality

Full disclosure: I love good T debates.

The preference is for in-round abuse to be demonstrated.

Theoretical abuse is sufficient for a ballot if properly demonstrated in the shell.

I want the violation to be as specific as possible.

Standards and voters are essential.

All other arguments

Generally, I am okay with any argument. Give me impacts, an explanation of the literature, and a reason why it warrants a ballot.

Cross-Examination

I don't flow it, but I pay attention.

If you want points for C-X on the flow, put it on the flow during your speech, please.

Be respectful and polite where possible. Rudeness will lose you speaker points.

Ask specific questions in-round and you shall receive specific answers in-round!

Stock Issues

– Topicality

– Significance of Harm

– Inherency

– Solvency

– Advantage Over Disadvantage