Melissa Cardinal Classic
2022 — Melissa, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I lean toward traditional/classical, but I can be open. Definitely not fond of spreading.
Hi i'm Austin, I use to be a competitor in UIL. I did poetry, extemp, theater, and CX debate.
When im judging im looking for good clear speaking voice if I can't understand you I cant judge you.
The biggest thing to me in a debate is good clash, treat me as if I know nothing about what you are talking about, if you don't tell me I can't flow it. you can run just about anything with me as long as it makes sense within the debate. but try to hit the big 4 of a debate case solvency, harms, inherncy and topicality.
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 started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.
I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.
Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.
As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:
(1) I think the topic should be debated.
(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.
(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.
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.
This is my seventh year in Speech and Debate. I mainly compete in TOC/TFA Public Forum. I'm a flow judge.
I guess it's not fair to say I'm tabula rasa, because I won't evaluate discriminatory or hateful arguments, but that's pretty much it. I'm not very well-versed in progressive arguments, but I will do my level best to evaluate them properly.
Ask me any questions you have before round in terms of my criteria, and I'll be happy to answer. If you work in a good Taylor Swift reference into any speech, I will give you full speaker points.
I am a consultant, former school principal and long-time teacher. I competed in VLD debate all four years of high school (Law Magnet HS in DFW/North Texas, 2004-2008). I saw LD make the change from three to four minutes of prep. We used an actual timer back then. Kept my batteries in place with tape. We primarily read off cardstock paper and rushed to print before heading out to compete. Laptops started to be used but were a novelty if you read from them. Different, huh? I do not presently affiliate myself with any school, district, or coach that currently competes on the circuit.
I will occasionally come back to the sport as a hired judge. I found it important back then to have judges who understood the sport. Although now I feel as lay as ever. The sport has made a shift towards mirroring policy more which is fine with me. But I won't pretend to know or understand more than I do. I listen to the news every morning so love the shift in topics. Likewise, I will praise my peer judges on a panel when their analysis is enlightening and challenges me, even if it differs from mine. Being in this space gives me so much hope for our future. And you, debater reading this, bring me joy.
As I have seeped myself back in the world of judging, I have found the following to be important to me:
- Clear storytelling. A debater presents and extends evidence with a few technical terms thrown here and there for dramatic effect. A strong compelling debater prioritizes the content in the round, articulates how I should frame the round, and makes logical analysis that provides deep insight into the implications of an aff/neg ballot for the round.
- I leverage your own words as much as possible in my RFD. Do the work for me. If I am having to do a lot of connections, comparisons, and weighing -- then the round didn't have much of a clear winner. As much as possible, direct me how to vote in your closing argument so I know what to weigh based on what's important in the round.
- Weight the arguments. I will often give a 28 if your speech is clear, speed or not, but a lot of your airtime outside of card and tagline reading is a repetition of this same language and full of technical terms. It's just not new. But if you are actually illustrating the clash, impacts, scenarios, and decision calculus for me -- easy 29. Non-negotiable 30, winner or not, when the big picture is insightful for implications past the round at hand by making my way to vote crystal clear.
Too, unless I am in an elimination round, I prefer to not disclose. For whatever reason, my outcome for decision gets challenged when I share in preliminary rounds. I prefer we keep the tournament on time and humility at the forefront. If needed, I will share any pertinent feedback to the debaters in-round. If I need to address anything potentially harmful to the sport, I will ask you (or your opponent) to stay behind so I can do so privately and in a safe space. I have only had to do this once to share with a novice debater re: how their presentation of self could be deemed as rude, disrespectful, and personal instead of constructive and about the content. But this all comes from a kind place. This sport should help transform you to be better, not worse. I, in turn, also welcome your own feedback and thoughts. Let's transform our lives with this sport to make the world a better place.
- https://speechdrop.net/ over e-mail
- Speed is fine, unclear speech is not. I will tell you to clear but hate that it breaks your focus
- I prefer for CX to be closed and that competitors are not speaking or interrupting one another in prep
- I would prefer that you time yourselves and when over time, to finish the immediate thought -- not the next paragraph. Cue awkward intervention by me when this happens
Speech - I value good structure, flow, and content. Have several good sources to support the information/argument you're speaking on. I appreciate when there is connection and the speech is conversational, engage with the audience. I enjoy seeing personality and other things that make your speech memorable.
I did LD (along with a few other events) my last two years of high school. I currently attend the University of North Texas.
I have a pretty decent grasp over the various different forms of argumentation and cases.
While I do prefer a more traditional approach to the event(just a personal preference), I am open to and will flow progressive arguments though I am very very rusty when it comes to that side of the event so the responsibility is on you to explain the argument and its role in the debate.
I don't mind spreading in person so long as you're comprehensible(basically good spreading is allowed), I wont flow what I cant understand. If I stop flowing I will of course make it obvious and give you the opportunity to pull it around.
If we're online PLEASE PLEASE I am BEGGING YOU don't spread.
I will vote for the competitor with the most offense at the end of the round. Speaker points will be deducted for offensive or rude behavior.
Hi, I'm Lylliam! (She/Her)
I debated LD for 2 years and then switched to Policy CX Debate for my last two years. I competed in UIL, TFA, NSDA, and TOC tournaments and have qualified to TFA state, placed at UIL state, and have won a district championship in CX debate. I have also have competed in Persuasive Extemporaneous speaking for all of my high school career and have won various accolades, so yes I will evaluate your speaking skills for speaker points!!!
Be nice, respectful, and professional to one another!!! If you create a hostile space within a round your speaks will take a hit. Include trigger warnings and respect respect respect all around! And no slurs you have no agency to use.
Be courteous and don't steal prep, or use the internet when you're not allowed to, or clip. Don't compete dirty!
Do not read anything anti-immigration in front of me under any circumstance please and thank you. The same goes for anything racist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-semitic, islamophobic etc. Use common sense, don't be hateful, and be good people.
Please add me to the email chain- email@example.com
Spreading is fine just be clear or I will say clear, and also speak pretty in rebuttals!!! I love tone changes for emphasis so that your 5 min rebuttal doesn't sound like a long monotone run on sentence, it makes debate nice to listen to.
Furthermore, if you're spreading some long typed out analytics and/or pre-written blocks please send them in the email chain it makes life so much easier and I promise you that you won't lose an advantage if you send these to your opponents. You'll just make the round messy and it can come off as rude!
My debate partner and I were K debaters so yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER don't assume I, or your opponents, know of your specific literature and are aware of all the jargon. Please don't assume I'm smarter than I am, explain the terminology and why your lit matters in today's round and all that good stuff. :))
Performance K's are okay however if your performance K involves being rude and taking out rage against your opponents please do not read it in front of me. It just comes off as unwarranted bullying to me and I can't comfortably watch it.
Policy v. policy rounds are perfectly okay too, I truly do appreciate a good policy round.
Honestly, I am for the most part a tabula rasa. I do recommend that you tell me how I should evaluate the round and in what order, tell me what my voters should be, and I love when you "write my RFD for me" in rebuttals.
Also I love T and FW args, I don't think they're inherently violent, however you can do the work to convince me that they are as I do believe that can be a valid argument as well.
I will not do any work for you, if you drop case or an off case position and try to salvage it in the 2AR I won't evaluate it- save your time or just extend!!!! Furthermore I don't like wash debates, don't make me vote on presumption; clash is your best friend in front of me. Never overlook offense as well.
!!!WARRANT OUT ARGUMENTS AND EXTENSIONS!!!
ROB/ROJ arguments are great.
Avoid Theory arguments in front of me, truly I don't think I'm qualified to evaluate these debates and am not at all the most experienced with them.
Open CX is okay.
Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices.
Value/Criterion debate is my favorite whether that is who better upholds these or whose V/C should be prioritized in today's round. This is your easiest way to win my ballot. ROB arguments are great as well.
CLASH IS YOUR FRIEND :)
I am, once again, a tabula rasa. Tell me how I should evaluate the round, what my role as judge is, and EMPHASIZE VOTERS!
I am a firm believer that reading off a note card (even if it's just bullet points) ruins your speech. Of course this does not include events like Prose or Poetry where you must use a booklet.
SPEAK PRETTY; tone changes, emphasis, emotion, purposeful movements and pauses, eye contact, use all of the things that make speaking beautiful and make your performance beautiful.
I am a tab judge. Email for link is firstname.lastname@example.org
I am fine with anything but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:
K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. If the alt is just a rejection of the opposing team I am less likely to vote for your K.
T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality. If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. T's have a tendency to irritate me if it is obvious they are topical. If you make a topicality as a time suck I will be less willing to give you ground for other theory arguments based on fairness.
DA - Really vague links irritate me, but you can lose the terminal impact and still have a risk of the DA succeeding.
CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.
Case - I find oncase really important, and needs to be stressed on both the aff and the neg. Case specific impacts on either side can easily sway a round
Speed - I am fine with speed, however I much prefer quality of arguments as to why they are logical rather than extending impacts that the other team did not hit as well.
My paradigm stands somewhere between tabula rasa and games player.
What that means: You know best how you debate, and while you should try to cater to your audience, as long as you stay in the format of the round you're in, I will judge based on individual merit, level of mastery of the topic at hand, and how well formulated / defended your arguments are in the round itself. I've debated or judged every format plenty of times, I'm not going to be surprised, but would like to see a new debate played out instead of hearing the same camp files with the same rebuttals.
For both CX & LD I am comfortable with spreading, as long as you slow down for the source / warrant / tagline.
In LD, I expect analytical arguments, and want to see a philosophical debate, not a CX round with a Value / Criterion framework. This, in my opinion, isn't the place for DAs and counter-plans. In that same vein, your arguments do not necessarily need to be evidence based, as long as you can convince me that what you are saying is morally superior, as that is the spirit of this debate format.
In CX, give me whatever you want, I'll flow it, as long as you signpost where you're going & where you want arguments cross-applied. Don't expect me to do your work for you. DAs, Ks, Counter Plans, analytical, empirical evidence, they all have their place in this format, run it well and I will be receptive; run it poorly, you'll lose speaker points, but the round will ultimately go to the best team, not individual arguments.
LD - Maintain clear goals. Tell me what you want me to value in your round. I am just as likely to vote on value as on impacts/warrant. Although I do like to see purposeful clash, I do not weigh my vote on your CX time. Learn something new to strategize and apply it to your attacks.
Not a fan of Kritiks in LD, but spreading is fine.
I have been Judge, Debate Coach for 24 twenty four years now in Texas circuits both UIL, TFA, and NSDA. I did not debate in college but have taught, coached, judged Debate for Rio Vista HS, Burleson High School, Wichita Falls HS, Northwest HS, and Now Mansfield Legacy High School, all in the DFW area of Texas. Have judged outside the area at Harvard U. , Berkley U, and Stanford, as well as colleges in Texas. Taught Policy and LD debate at Cameron University Summer Debate work shop for several years.
My Policy Debate Paradigms fall in the Traditional Debate category. I look for quality of arguments over quantity. Although I classify myself as a Stock Issue judge, I am open to some Negative Kritiks and conterplans but Kritiks and counterplans must be directly linked to the Aff Case. I am not a fan of theory based affirmatives or alternate worlds and really hate performance debate. Spreading will cost you speaker points if not the round if I can not understand your case. No Open CX for me. No Prompting of Partners written or verbal. Make arguments clear. Evidence and cards should be followed by analytics but analytics without evidence is of little value in my book. Show me that you understand what you are reading and not just reading cards.
sending a doc/flashing is not prep unless excessive
do NOT be racist, transphobic, homophobic, bigoted, etc.
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, 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.
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 for 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 as long as your doing the internal link devoplement. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case.
Counterplans: I don’t judge kick 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 associated 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.
I expect debaters to follow the appropriate forms of the debate, to have clear and logical statements, and to use their time wisely. A plain statement that is coherent and logical will carry more weight than a flowery statement that is not coherent or is circular.
Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Please use a loud voice and do not go full blown spreading (70%). Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch.
If you were to do any K, do it clearly, especially links and alts. Don't do performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse.
Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. Connect it back to the framework. I won't eval without extensions.
Have your cases ready!!
If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)
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.