I am an impact heavy judge. I want to see impacts, framework, and values to be upheld and used in the round. Only rule don't spread

LD: I prefer traditional debate for LD, because the entire point of this debate is to be values oriented and philosophical. That being said, I prefer and enjoy hearing nuanced and different types of argument. Stock debate gets boring, and those who are able to string together new ideas and successful tie them to the value and criterion are the most successful. I prefer you stay away from spreading. Speaking quality matters in LD. Speaking rate can be fast, but not the extent that the event has evolved to.

CX: Tabula Rasa. I am an open book. Tell me how to vote. I enjoyed varied arguments and will let your plans and their subsequent defense stand on there own merit. Spreading is acceptable, but shouldn't get out of control to where we are (quite literally) talking at one another.

Speech: I appreciate different approaches, but enjoy those who are able organize themselves and follow the typical conventions of quality speaking.

Congress/PF: Argument is 60% and Speaking is 40%. Your ability to draw in the audience is important in this event and speaking ability should play especially important. 

(Full Update - March 2021)

*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.

**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.

Round Info:

Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and have been judging since graduating in 2017.

If you are using an email chain, my email is kay.edwards1027@gmail.com. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.

Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.

Philosophy (all events):

Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.

Speaker Points (all events):

I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.

Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):

1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.

2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.

3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.

LD Paradigm:

I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.

One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.

PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky.

Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!

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.

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in multiple events UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin alum, Fall 2020. Triple-major in Philosophy, Government, and History.

You either win, you learn or both.

2021-Present: Director and Coach of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate, Texas

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. Do what you do best. For me, that means you can run any argument whatsoever if you have analysis, warrants, and contextualize the argument.

I tend to evaluate arguments through a comparative lens of offense and defense under some sort of framing mechanism.

I think arguments consists of claim, warrant, and impact. How I flow is probably how I'll end up voting. I like comparative analysis in debate. Explanations, clear extensions, specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and impacted-out arguments are probably important.

I like seeing structure in args. I am okay voting for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

If you are a CX, after the neg block, I like to see a strategic collapsing of arguments.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, just ask me before the round.

Try not to...

...make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably just start deducting speaker points.

...cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, hearing analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit then.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Framework:

I like a good framework debate and I am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to vote under. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model for debate, method, and/or justifications for your framing. There are nuances to weighing mechanisms and you should probably be winning an external impact under that framework. More specifically, there should be impact framing on args you plan on winning under the framework debate. You should probably have offense under your FW.

T:

I don't necessarily default to competing interps, reasonability, or other frameworks unless you tell me otherwise. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then give me explanations for your standards and voters. This usually includes thorough reasons to prefer, comparative analysis, and some impact to vote on. On Aff, I think it is strategic that you have some sort of offense or pre-fiat arguments against T.

Theory:

I think theory is like the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed or presented. There are general parts. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense and you should give me warrants and go for an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. Actually, if you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you need to probably warrant it out and have some sort of offense, and framing mechanism.

Note: For impacts like education or fairness, I probably think fairness is an internal link to education but can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

Disads are cool. I like the specific disad-case debate. This means that when you win the disad, you should also be winning some sort of offense in the disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

I like counterplans. Any type of counterplan is cool, unless you tell me otherwise. PICs are fine. For you to win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some sort of net benefit and/or competitiveness argument, and comparative analysis to case, like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, major part of the aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Sure, read it. Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security in HS. Affs I read included a Disaster Cap, and a Baudrillard one. Give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I need clear explanations and warrants like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. Tell me how the K should function in the round, probably have some sort of framework debate, and definitely a great alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PICs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency-component debate, the effectiveness to the aff/neg, and discussions that includes, but is not limited to advocacy vs test, severance, timeframe, etc.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances, advocacies, and contextualize them. Flesh out the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

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.

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

About Me:

NLHS Policy 2013-2017

UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)

A&M Law 2021-

Top Level

Email for chain: steelemusgrove17@gmail.com

Email for contact: steelemusgrove@yahoo.com

The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.

Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):

When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.

Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.

Didn't think I'd have to put this in here, but wow. So uh... EXTENSIONS REQUIRE A WARRANT. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY EXTEND AND EXPECT ME TO PUT IT ON THE FLOW.

Kritiks

Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff.

That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.

People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.

Presentation

Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.

Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.

Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks.

I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.

Theory/T

I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.

Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.

I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, as in I'm not a college policy debater who thinks ascribing words to meanings is proto-fascist or something. I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters.

The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.

Disads/CPs

I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.

Misc.

Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.

I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.

Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."

This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.

PF Debate:

- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.

- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.

Age of COVID-19 Updates:

- I will not vote on camera theory - I don't care if it's "the rules." It's classist, ruralist, and I'm not here for it. It's very clearly a gotcha.

email- hannahrodriguez2003@gmail.com

sending a doc/flashing is not prep unless excessive

do NOT be racist, transphobic, homophobic, bigoted, etc.

pronouns- she/her

Competitive history: 3 years at Princeton High School. UIL state qualifier in the policy. Competed primarily in TFA/Nat circuit, but unfortunately, have experience in UIL circuit too. The policy was my main event, and I think this will be applicable if I’m judging you in LD too.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing.

TLDR: The best way to explain my evaluation of debate is offense-defense. I don’t think you should pref me high if you are a primarily K team, albeit I will listen to a K debate, I just have a very high threshold for voting for it without a non-jargon explanation (this is applicable to any arg, but for K’s it is especially relevant). Aside from K debate, I’m comfortable listening to anything and I usually don’t have a predisposition for any arg. I love a clean line-by-line. I’m tech over truth and I try my best to not judge intervene.

Evidence: I do read the evidence in the round, so try not to falsify the warrants of your arguments, but I still think it is up to the debaters to call out bad evidence.

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold on abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case. I believe DA starts at the uniqueness, but I have voted for a non-unique DA sadly.

Counterplans: I don’t judgekick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.

Kritiks: I’m not familiar with/don’t remember all of your authors albeit I do know most of the criticism associate with the lit of these K’s, but it is still up to you to have a sufficient explanation. This is an argument where I would much rather you have a link that is specific to the aff because it makes it easier to convince me to vote for you. Generic links are fine too but make sure they are to the aff and not the status quo, but this is still up to the other team to make that argument. Explain your alt, please. I will vote on a linear disad.