Melissa Cardinal Classic
2022 — Melissa, TX/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
firstname.lastname@example.org email with questions or for email chain purposes.
Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.
"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015
Previously worked at UTNIF (LD), MGC(LD), and coached debaters in out rounds of TFA State in Policy and LD
prior:George Washington University ( where I briefly competed in college CX and went to some local and regional tournaments)
Parish Episcopal (competed in LD and extemp every now and then. Go to my LD section for more about my high school debate career)
I don't judge as much as I used to. Please slow down a bit on theory args, cp texts, etc. I also have dysgraphia, which results in hand cramps if I'm flowing 1 line analytics at top speed.
LD specific update...Arguments I would prefer not to hear include no perms in a method debate, afc, theory args like you should spec status of offs in speech doc, etc. Not a good judge for theory debates with no real abuse story. Speaks will be low if you read these args in front of me.
Some general information
- I am normally somewhat familiar with each topic.
- I am probably not the best judge for hardcore T and theory debates(that doesn't mean I won't evaluate these arguments, but I would prefer the debate be focused elsewhere if possible).
-I am ambivalent about disclosure theory, but will vote on it and have voted on it in the past if won in round.
If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best to articulate my decision at the end of each round and highlight a few things each debater can improve upon.
Paperless stuff- I don’t count time for flashing evidence, but will severely dock speaks if someone is stealing prep time. When someone else is flashing nobody should be taking prep.
LD- When I debated I was in out rounds at TFA state, Churchill, Stanford, Colleyville, and Alta (for LD). I will attempt to keep this as short as possible. Speed is fine and policy arguments are also fine. I mostly ran util and semi critical positions in high school, but I'm fine with whatever type of argument you want to go for( Ie go for the CP/DA if you want to or the K... I'm cool with either strat). Some things I like, but don't often seen in LD include---> debaters conceding to arguments, but still explaining why they win the round, weighing offense( i.e. scope, magnitude, probability etc), and K's with really specific links to the aff. I will increase speaks for debaters who conceded to arguments, weigh well, or run K's with specific and clear links to the aff ( rather than generic backfile link cards)
Policy – If you have questions before the round and want to know anything specific I will do my best to articulate how I view debate and give you any insights into my paradigm. Aff should probably be topical, but its possible to win that T doesn’t matter. I have read some critical literature, but slow down for more obscure authors/ positions. Specific DA’s and counterplans are great. Kritiks that link to the aff are great. Link of omission K’s are not. Word pics, and other random stuff is fine. I'm a big picture kind of guy.
Update Nov 2018- I have noticed more hostility in the debate community and would strongly prefer debaters be civil towards one another. I don't want this statement to discourage individual's from making jokes or having fun in round, but I don't tolerate overly confrontational behavior, hostile behavior, racism, sexism, and discrimination in round. I reserve the right to decrease speaks and in the most extreme cases drop a debater for creating a hostile environment
(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.
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 email@example.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.
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!
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.
How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?
A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually.
How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?
Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.
How Should Debaters approach Evidence?
Citations after article introduction are preferred.
How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?
Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.
What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?
Empirical, but a highly persuasive philosophical approach can potentially work just as well.
Please explain your views on kritik arguments.
Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support: as in every criticism needs at least one "For example" or at the very least a thorough clarification with a credible referenced source.
How should debaters run on case arguments?
Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. Avoid paraphrasing.
How should debaters run off case arguments?
Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.
How should Debaters run theory arguments?
The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.
What other preferences do you have, as a judge?
Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. This is especially important for Policy and World Schools: teams will lose points for whispering audibly during their opponents' speeches; learn to communicate with your teammates by writing!
Graceful winners are as important as those with the maturity and fortitude needed to learn from each loss.
I will value whatever I am told to value.
However I will default to T above all else, then Impacts.
No 'new in the 2'.
Make sure to signpost.
She/they I don't tolerate transphobia. If you have an issue with this, strike me.
Affiliation: Wylie HS '18
Experience: Wylie HS 15-18 – TFA circuit CX for 3 years.
Rutgers Newark – 2 years debating NDT/CEDA
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org (please put me on the email chain)
"When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously
Do what you want. I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things"
Don't be a bigot, you'll lose. If both teams are bigots, I'll flip a coin
I'm skeptical of the utility of these things at the HS level since it seems that no one listens to them beyond "yes I am ok if you read a Kritik". But here we are
I will do my best to evaluate the round exactly as presented to me while leaving my personal opinions about arguments and ideas out of the RFD. However, for those of you who want to know, I do have some specific thoughts on certain matters. This is not to say that you should take my paradigm as gospel though. I try to keep an open mind and will listen to most arguments and strategies. So you do you. There's a reason I continue to edit this page.
I've run everything from politics to afropess. My preference when I debate leans heavily critical, but I've run and judged strict policy strats too. I can judge whatever you want to throw at me and despite my personal argument choices, I am just as happy to judge a good DA/CP as I am to judge a K v. K debate. I’d rather you do what you’re good at.
I may ask to see evidence after the round if it is a legitimate point of tension in the round but other than that if I have to look at the evidence to evaluate the debate you're most likely making me do too much work.
K affs/nontraditional affs- Affs should probably defend something, although my interpretation of "something" is flexible. I'm good for these affs but the explanation of these arguments is important since I'm probably not as well-read in your literature as you. Assume I don't know what you're talking about. Because even if I do I still need to parse out the specifics at 400 wmp.
In all the time I've spent debating/judging/coaching K affs I’ve come to believe that most of them don’t actually do anything. I think that your aff should be doing SOMETHING. Explaining a theory of power and how it links to the res is not an aff. Presenting pure structural critiques of the res is not an aff. Your aff should do something but my leniency for what this something that your aff does is fairly high.
K - I mostly debate the K, but that means I generally have a higher threshold to vote on it. My biggest deciding factors in the majority of K debates are the Link and framing debate. You should have links engaging the actual implications of the 1AC (more than a state link). The more specified and contextualized your link work is the more heavily I will weigh it. Impact out your links. If the only impact work I'm looking at out of the 2NR is your 1NC impact evidence then you've probably not done enough work. I'm also not a good judge for ROB-type arguments. I find it hard to be convinced by them since they are almost always self-serving and usually read more as just "vote for me" than actually giving me any kind of directive for how to evaluate the round.
Solidify your plan before the 2nr. If your plan is to go for the floating PIK, utopian fiat, kick the alt, whatever. Set that up in the block. If your opponent is surprised by it in the 2AR, I am also usually surprised by it. I am in general a good judge for these kinds of spins but I am prone to protect the 2AR if these are not properly set up beforehand.
Don't ever assume that I know what you're talking about. I’m reasonably up in the lit on afropess, queer theory, Marx/cap. Anything else I have not spent extensive time understanding. Regardless, you should debate in a way that ensures EVERYONE in the room understands what you’re saying.
"Assume I don't know what you're talking about. Because even if I do I still need to parse out the specifics at 400 wmp"
On the cap K. I have always said I will listen to just about any argument and vote on almost anything that is well-argued. An amendment to that is in order though. I will still vote on Cap-Good arguments if they are won totally outright but I will think you sound EXTREMELY silly and have a very high threshold for being convinced this is true :/
DA - Make SMART disads. explain the internal link story. The more specific to the aff the better. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. Line by line. Analytics. Ev comparison. DA 2nrs almost always sound ridiculous because they devolve into two ships passing in the night. Both have evidence that says different things. And neither makes an effort to convince me which one is correct beyond simply asserting that you're right and your opponent is wrong. Meaning I feel I am often forced to intervene in these decisions and without some very serious work on the case flow, I err towards aff. Give me warranted reasons to prefer your explanation of the status quo. Do that work for me.
CP - CPs have the potential to be cool. Make smart cps. specific net benefits and concrete competition.
T - I have to admit, I like a good T/FW debate but there are a lot of mistakes made on both sides that make this kind of debate difficult. The Aff usually forgets to extend their aff but odds are the 2NR will forget to extend a terminal impact anyway. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise
Also, I do not believe debate is LARP of roleplaying. You're lying if you think we're RPing in round. I play dnd, LARP, etc. I know what RP and LARP are. Debate is 100%, not that. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it but you're fighting an uphill battle to convince me that this is true.
Case - Case debate is underutilized. I think most affs are bad. Not to say you shouldn't ever flip aff, or I will never vote aff. I just think that affs always have some sort of fundamental contradiction/fallacy etc. that is inevitable in an event where we simulate or engage in praxis. Neg teams need to exploit that on the case page, and aff teams need to be ready to answer larger questions of solvency.
Theory - I actually really like a good theory debate. I think one of the most interesting things about debate, is your ability to debate debate. However, I hold a high threshold to vote on it in the 2NR/2AR. You HAVE to extend terminal impact calculus though (which means shells like disclosure theory AND SKEP are rarely ever voters in my eyes).
***LD update Yale: I don’t like frivolous theory, I will likely never vote on it because I don’t think it has an impact or a point other than a “gotcha” in debates. You can try to prove me wrong if you wish. I’ve said I’m always open to changing my mind and you should absolutely read what you’re best at. This is a PSA though
I am a nerd. I like puns and sci-fi/fantasy references.
Speed is cool. Clarity is cooler. If I can't understand your tags/analytics/line-by-line I have no way of flowing it
Once I've signed the ballot the round is over. No returns or refunds. DO ask me informational questions about the RFD. If you disagree with the decision, ask about it. I'm more than happy to explain my thought process but DON'T argue with the decision. If it's a paper ballot I'll just start taking off speaks
Long overviews are OK. The same way I look at speed applies here. If I can't understand you, or your overview is a total mess I won't be able to evaluate it to its full potential.
I try not to read evidence. However, I will if I feel it is absolutely necessary to resolve the round. I will default to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence unless otherwise contested.
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
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.
Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.).
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.
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.
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.
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.
tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.
whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.
keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.
copied from a former coach:
*I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so.
NLHS Policy 2013-2017
UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)
A&M Law 2021-
Email for chain: email@example.com
Email for contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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 email@example.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.
During my high school career I competed in CX Debate, PFD, Extemporaneous Speaking, Student Congress, Poetry Interpretation, Original Oratory, One Act Play, and a handful of writing events, with both State and National appearances and rankings. During high school and the year after, I assisted with workshops and judging (also judged in LD Debate). Additionally, I was top speaker in college at Model Organization of American States--Political and Juridical Committee 2008. After nearly 15 years of being out of the game, I've recently re-entered the circuit as a judge again. As such, there is a component of brushing off cobwebs.
As a judge, I am fairly open to most all arguments and positions, as long as it can be properly explained/linked. I don't particularly like spreading, purely because I wasn't exposed to it too much while in school, however, I can follow it as long as it isn't too excessive. If you spread, please slow down on tags/linking arguments. If you see me set my pen to the side of my paper, and watch you speak instead of writing, it means I can't follow and you may want to slow down.
I'm a big fan of roadmaps prior to beginning of speeches and will never count a clear roadmap as part of your speech time. On that note, I'm a big proponent of using all your time, in all areas. Make use of your full speech times, CX periods, and prep time--all should serve to make the round as full and educational as possible.
Please be courteous within rounds. I don't have a high tolerance for rude comments or personal attacks that aren't relevant to the subject matter, and will reflect in speaker points. You can be firm, even performative, but not rude.
I'm not hugely familiar with CPs, and Ks, but have no problem with them being run--just be sure you have a well structured argument and can sufficiently link them within the round/rebut them clearly.
I understand now that laptops are able to be used in rounds and that access to evidence is nearly unlimited, however I value the ability to make and link clear arguments. It is apparent when evidence is read, but not understood by the speaker. If you're making use of your laptop and the evidence within, be sure you can freely link the evidence to the appropriate argument.
More than anything, I want to enjoy the round and hopefully come out of it having learned something. I enjoy the game of debate and like a wide variety of approaches. Have fun and be courteous and don't forget, you're speaking to the judge--guide me through the round and try not to leave arguments to me to make a judgement call on.
I am a fairly traditional stock issues judge. If done very well, and related directly to the Aff. case, then I will accept Neg. Kritiks and counter-plans. If you spread incomprehensibly, you will lose points. Do not use theory based or alternate world cases. I will not allow open CX. Your analysis should be supported by “tangible” evidence. Substance is more important that quantity, and fallacies in your argument will cost points.
Speaker clarity and pronunciation are valued highly. I appreciate passionate CX and rebuttals, but do not confuse passion for yelling and verbal abuse. Varying speech rate and tone/volume will score you points. Speak like you care.
Hello! My name is Thomas Thompson but you can call me Tommy if you would like.
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.
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.
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’d say i’m a tab judge, i’m fine with any args and spreading is fine as long as i can somewhat understand you. my main thing is to be polite!! i will not tolerate unnecessary rudeness and arrogance as there is too much of that in the debate space. my only other thing is i like to see direct clash between the args. don’t just spread cards at each other, i wanna see that you’re actively participating in the debate and you know what’s going on (even if you don’t really know lol). just have fun and be nice! and good luck!
Background: I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I did two years of policy, two years of LD. I also competed in Parli on the collegiate level.
For my general paradigm, I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). I don't think it's my job to tell you that you can or cannot run certain arguments. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be I will default to policymaker. Speed is okay with me as long as you aren't sacrificing clarity. If I can't understand you I will stop flowing. Please keep your own time. As for how I feel about certain arguments:
Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework,a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round.
Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win (hint: don't just say "that's abusive").
Counterplans/Disads: I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. In LD if you're going to run one, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you can, considering most of the time, there isn't a plan to begin with. Disads should be structured well.
Framework: I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously, specifically in LD. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for.
If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.