I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense (though it should have appropriately support for the moral framework in LD as well). Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

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. 

Put me on the Email Chain- debate.taylor@gmail.com

TLDR: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Probably do not pref me highly if you are a primarily K team, it's not that I will not judge the round just that you are much better off getting the decision you want in a LARP debate, because that is what I primarily did in high school. But please do what you are most comfortable with.

Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am probably also more okay than most judges with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are particularly convincing.

Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.

Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Theory: Fine go for it if you want. In highschool I think (not that this is a good thing) I only went for theory one time, but I do understand the debate. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's probably good in most cases. Also you should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you are remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams who's links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine.

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 the better.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa, and I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and happy them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

(whitehouse'22; UTT'26 - debate/IEs 4yrs - collegiate debater)

she/her ; (lay-lah-knee)

leilani.celeste03@gmail.com

pref speech drop.

policy

policy debate was my main event in high school, i've been in your shoes before! trust me, i will try my best not to screw you over.

i would describe myself as a true tab judge. this means, run whatever you'd like! the room is yours !! DO NOT BE AFRAID OF CLASH. above all, be polite to your opponents. (more on this at the bottom.)

speech- first and foremost, debate is a communication event. i can usually keep up with spreading, however, if it becomes unintelligible i will put my pen down (and you will notice it). speaks will be awarded to those who enunciate, have little verbal clutter, and demonstrate professionalism. organization is key. i will be very strict on this.

t- i love a good T debate! great opportunity to demonstrate strategic skills and utilize theory args. articulate violation/standards/voters clearly. do not expect me to flow for arbitrary and/or overlimiting interps. i default predictability.

k/fw- i am a huge fan of theory args. i believe they make debate extremely interesting and will listen intently. that being said, BE FAMILIAR WITH THE K LITERATURE. if you decide to run a heidegger/cap/psychoanalysis/etc. k, understand what you are reading and be able to coherently articulate the reason to vote on it. if you're going to use buzzwords - define them & tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest. if you run a k aff, good luck.

disads/cp's- these are fine, however if you choose to run 3+ and then claim to "lose neg ground" in the debate, it will affect my RFD and i will call it out. da's (and k's) should serve as obvious net benefits to your cp. PLEASE IMPACT CALC. impact framing is key. structural violence v. nuclear war doesn't matter if i am not told which is worse. i will default to my own interp if this is not done (it should be). perms are great as long as you understand what you are talking about.

misc- hate redundancy, do not repeat yourself over and over. signpost clearly. open cx is fine if the host allows it. don't care where you sit. neg- i firmly believe that progressive cx has allowed too much leeway for kicking args- DO NOT ABUSE THIS. i will call it out in my RFD. last speeches >>>. these will make or break the round for me. do NOT allow your energy to drop, even if you feel as though you're losing! keep me interested! debate is supposed to be "fun". allow your passion to spill over in your speeches. GET ON THAT SOAP BOX!! (this applies to all events.)

ld

i debated ld a few times (and won each time). however, i am in no way familiar with all of the ld jargon. remember, i am first and foremost a policy debater / interp'r.

okay with whatever. love clash! don't be rude. keep me interested.

thoroughly explain your values and criterion. it will take a lot to persuade me on broad values (such as life or justice) without just and clearly articulated criterion/warrants.

IE's

three things: passion. energy. clarity.

this is your chance to express yourself! show me who you are, why you're here! do not just read the script, give me emotion! pazazz! dramatics! & being louder does not mean better.

extemp- try your hardest to reduce verbal clutter. this is a communication event, just talk to me! each move you physically make should have a purpose; no swaying! breathe, you got this!

general judging

i will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. be respectful? not that difficult. we are here to offer a safe and diverse place for intellectual discourse and healthy conversation. i truly admire the culture speech and debate has fostered, so uphold that. be open minded and considerate of those around you. any disrespect or unnecessary aggression will automatically lose you the round.

any further questions/clarification, feel free to contact me anytime! :)

Four 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:

1. Value is King. Make it clear, defined, relatable, and relevant. It is not separate from the criterion.
2. Criterion upholds Value. Make your contentions/points tie to your criterion. Otherwise, they will not be able to tie your arguments to the value.
3. If Value is King, then Voters are Queen. Please include them.
4. 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 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.

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago--never mind how long precisely--having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off--then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

There now is your insular city of the Manhattoes, belted round by wharves as Indian isles by coral reefs--commerce surrounds it with her surf. Right and left, the streets take you waterward. Its extreme downtown is the battery, where that noble mole is washed by waves, and cooled by breezes, which a few hours previous were out of sight of land. Look at the crowds of water-gazers there.

Circumambulate the city of a dreamy Sabbath afternoon. Go from Corlears Hook to Coenties Slip, and from thence, by Whitehall, northward. What do you see?--Posted like silent sentinels all around the town, stand thousands upon thousands of mortal men fixed in ocean reveries. Some leaning against the spiles; some seated upon the pier-heads; some looking over the bulwarks of ships from China; some high aloft in the rigging, as if striving to get a still better seaward peep. But these are all landsmen; of week days pent up in lath and plaster--tied to counters, nailed to benches, clinched to desks. How then is this? Are the green fields gone? What do they here?

If you need to reach out, my email is hunterparrish460@gmail.com

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.

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 policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (amrhea@mabankisd.net), but I prefer Speechdrop. 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 NOT vote on CX. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry.

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.
In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, If I am part of the email chain then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision.
Counter plans & disadvantages great.

LD Philosophy

I'm up for just about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me I will vote almost exclusively on framework but I also like to hear good impact calc. Not a big fan of speed at all. If you are spreading then you aren't trying to win my ballot. If I can't follow you then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Please include me on the email chain: matthew.riggins314@gmail.com

I competed in Lincoln Douglas for three years in high school and I have been judging since August 2019. I am a super traditional judge. I will vote in favor of the side that presents the arguments in the most logical and sound fashion. I am not a fan of spreading or speed reading in Lincoln Douglas, I prefer a more elegant and persuasive tone to the round. Impacting and clashing are two key components that I look for in a debate round.