Judging Paradigm for Cross-Examination Debate

1. Clash and Logical Argumentation
I prioritize debates where the affirmative and negative actively engage in clashing arguments. Logical reasoning, supported by evidence, is crucial. Merely reading evidence (cards) without tying it into a clear and coherent argument does not win rounds. Arguments must connect and build toward a compelling narrative.

2. Stock Issues
Stock issues are fundamental and should be highlighted in the "voters" section of rebuttals. However, blanket statements about stock issue violations are insufficient. You must substantiate claims of violations with clear explanations and proof. Likewise, the alleged violator should respond with substantive counter-arguments.

3. Counterplans and Debate Techniques
Advanced debate tools like counterplans or theory arguments can be effective but must be executed flawlessly. If you are unsure about running these arguments or lack confidence in their presentation, it may detract from your case. Sloppy execution will be penalized. Quality over quantity is critical—ensure all arguments are solid, clear, and well-explained.

4. Evidence and Explanation
Evidence is only as good as the explanation accompanying it. Provide thorough analysis to link evidence to your arguments. Articulate why your evidence supports your case and how it fits into the larger debate framework.

Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate

1. Clash and Philosophy
Clash is equally important in LD. Lincoln-Douglas debates should focus on philosophical underpinnings, and these must be meaningfully integrated into the round. Avoid being "a mile wide and an inch deep"; depth and understanding of philosophy are vital.

2. Value Premise and Criteria
The value premise is the cornerstone of LD debate. Establish a clear hierarchy of values, demonstrating why your value premise is superior to your opponent's. Ensure that your value premise links directly to your criteria and contentions, creating a cohesive framework for your case.

3. Linking Philosophy to Arguments
Philosophy must advance your arguments, not exist in isolation. Explain how your philosophical framework underpins your contentions and demonstrates your case's superiority. Winning the value clash is important, but you must also address and win the pragmatic arguments presented in the round.

4. Depth and Connection
LD is about balancing the abstract and the practical. Deeply engage with the philosophy while clearly connecting it to the contentions and real-world implications of the resolution. Ensure that every point ties back to your value premise and criteria.

Final Note for Both Formats
I value clarity and structure. Signpost arguments and ensure I can follow the flow of the round. Both rebuttals and final speeches should crystallize key issues and provide clear "voter" arguments. Ultimately, I am looking for the debater who provides a logical, evidence-backed, and well-structured case while effectively addressing their opponent's points.

Tim Cook, Salado HS

tim.cook@saladoisd.org

I debated in high school and college. I have been coaching for over 40 years.

TFA State

If you run "tricks", I will probably vote against you. Debate is about developing substantive arguments on the topic, not finding abusive trick strategies. You will also probably get the lowest possible speaks I can give.

I will not tolerate speed! I will say clear and then stop flowing. If I don't flow it, you don't get it. I will not be flowing from a doc. Assume low speaks.

Don't run theory unless there is real in round abuse (Not a fan of theory).

K and other progressive arguments (Not a fan). Don't assume I am familiar with the lit on your K. The K should link to the topic, including K affs. We are given a topic for a reason.

I am very traditional! Establish a framework and link offense back to it.

No flex-prep

Flashing part of prep time.

Congress

Prefer clash or topical AGD. Have 2 developed arguments with good evidence. Think think tanks.

Clash and no rehash essential.

Make me laugh! DO NOT BE RUDE OR OVERLY AGGRESSIVE. Have fun.

PO's must run efficient and fair rounds. Don’t make parliamentary mistakes.

Ask me more specific questions.

Speech/Extemp

I have coached multiple UIL State champions, TFA state finalist and TOC finalist.

Answer the question! Have a clear thesis and three germane points. Prefer quality over quantity of evidence. Love AGD to be weaved throughout the speech.

Prefer controlled gestures, not repetitive. Movement should have meaning.

Ask me more specific questions.

LD

Establish a framework and link offensive back. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature. The K needs to have a pragmatic alt. Theory needs a real abuse story.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

CX

My default paradigm is policy maker. I prefer substantive arguments over the resolution.

I will accept any argument as long as it is not offensive.

I will not tolerate speed. It will definitively result in low speaker points and could result in a loss if I don’t flow your argument.

Topicality needs to have a real abuse story.

Theory, CP and K are fine. If you are reading a K don’t assume I familiar with the argument and literature.

The K needs to have a pragmatic alt.

Make sure speeches are organized and responsive to your opponent’s argument.

Don’t make do a lot of work for you because I won’t.

I prefer a blend of slow and rapid conversation speed. The rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision. I will not vote against a student solely for exceeding my preferred speed. Considerations in determining a winner are structure of the argument, framework level argumentation, and offense back to the standard. I feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case. The use or jargon or technical language during rebuttal should be kept to a minimum. I keep detailed notes throughout the round. I encourage open and professional interaction while discouraging emotional outbursts and rude behavior. Who persuades me more of their position will be most successful.

I am a communications judge.

I’m cool with some theory, not all of them (not a fan of disclosure theory (not against it, but if opp says nothing, I'll vote on it)).

I focus on enunciation; speak clear taglines, regardless of flashing the judge your case, it is still a speaking event.

Note: there’s a difference between fast speaking and spreading. Just make sure to enunciate your tags, signpost, etc., and you’ll be fine.

Having said that, I like analytics. You can use evidence/cards and cross apply them, just ensure you provide a clear explanation as to why you’re able to cross apply them. You can’t just say “cross apply my C1 to his DA” and move on; tell me why it applies and emphasize it.

I like to follow the flow. I expect a good, yet understandable rebuttal. Please include me (the judge) in the email chain, if any. (antonio.d.valdez01@gmail.com)

Please do not be rude. If you become aggressive within the round, expect to see low speaks. It’s one thing to attack an argument, it’s another thing to attack your opponent. We're here to learn, not to discourage others to quit from a passive-aggressive environment.

Last, I do not disclose. Tournaments typically run late and I don't wanna add to the problem.

Debate: I am good with speed on reading evidence & delivering arguments. I am familiar with all types of arguments: T, DA, CP, K, Value/Criterion, Theory. It is important to me all arguments I flowed, have a rebuttal from opposing team.

Speech (Exempt): I expect at minimum one source sited for each main component of your speech.

LD -

Framework ( Value/Criterion) is important, but so is the contention level debate. I way both sides when writing a ballot. I think LD is primarily a philosophical debate. You do not have to prove how something will be done just that it should be done. Saying that , claims of impacts should be supported with evidence or reasonable logic.
Be careful with your terminology I am an experienced coach and I know the difference between a disad and a solvency issue.
‘
Be careful if you are going super progressive. I firmly believe you should “Debatethe resolution”,not some random issue that you feel is more important. The entire Speech and Debate community voted on theses resolutions, so if you think you know better, you should provide a very good reason.
I appreciate creativity in your arguments, but stick with the resolution.

Policy - Although I am typically a more conservative (i.e. Stock issues) judge I am open to all forms of debate argumwents . I vote predominantly on clash and impact. Stock issues are a must and that includes topicality.

If you make arguments they must be linkked to your opponents case. If the link iis weak, it is going to be harder to win your argument if your opponent points that out. Extend your arguments thruout rebutttals and that inludes the Affirmative case.

I am OK with K's as long as you provide a viable link to your opponents case. See previous comment regarding links.

I am ok with speed as long as I can understand you. dont yell at me and dont wisper eithe. I f I cant understand you I dont folw you. If I don't flow the argument, it never happened.